IdeaWazaWiki - User contributions [en]

Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism

2011-03-24T00:36:46Z

68.160.132.4: /* Conversations with God as a possible example of Christian mysticism */ c/e

'''Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism''' are distinct. Some would argue that [[Evangelical mysticism]] is a mere sub type of [[Christian mysticism]]. This argument is not sustainable however, as [[Christian mysticism]] in its philosophies and theologies are based on [[Mystical theology]]. [[Dan Cohn-Sherbok]], (rabbi of Reform Judaism, Professor at the University of Wales, and Jewish theologian) in his book Jewish and Christian mysticism, for example, concludes that both share a belief in divine intermediaries and the via negativa as a true path of enlightenment <ref> Because the concept of "Christ" is completely differently understood in [[Christian mysticism]] as in [[Evangelical mysticism]], [[Christian mysticism]] is comparable to other religions, based on the shared [[mystical theology]] it is based on. Such a comparison is done by [[Dan Cohn-Sherbok]], (rabbi of Reform Judaism, Professor at the University of Wales, and Jewish theologian) in his book Jewish and Christian mysticism,
ISBN 0852442599 9780852442593 </ref>.

[[Evangelical mysticism]] however, <ref> as per description of [[Evangelical mysticism]] in main article : public domain </ref> is a phrase that narrows down Christian mystical experiencers to only those denominations or Christian groups with conservative [[Evangelical]] beliefs who also support mystical practices such as [[contemplative prayer]] and [[Soaking Music|soaking prayer]].<ref>Bruce Demarest, ''Satisfy Your Soul: Renewing the Heart of Christian Spirituality'' (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1999), p. 114.</ref> The [[National Association of Evangelicals]]’ statement of faith is more or less held to.<ref>[http://www.nae.net/about-us/statement-of-faith Evangelical Statement of faith]</ref>. [[Evangelical mysticism]], based on its adherance to Evangelical theology, excludes without exception all other religions as recognized alternative ways to connect with God. Jesus Christ the Messiah, alone, is considered the only way to God the Father.

Although both [[Christian mysticism]] and [[Evangelical mysticism]] acknowledges the loving aspect of God, acknowledge that prayer and fasting has signicant value, and that service to others as an expression of love has great value, their [[Soteriology]], interpretation of Scripture, types of mystical experiences and terminology, understanding of God and worldviews, differs significantly. Although both types believe that [[St. Paul]] received mysteries from God which is reveiled in Scripture, the interpretation of the mystery brought by Paul, also differs significantly. (A study of the work of [[Albert Schweitzer]] with regards to Pauline Evangelical mysticism, compared to [[mystical theology]], allows for an illustration of how different the concept of "Christ" is understood amoung these two streams).

Carl McColman, a Catholic blogger and Cistercian lay associate, writes in his book "The Big Book of Christian Mysticism" page 64 "no absolutely clear distinction can be drawn between Christian and non-Christian mysticism" <ref>[http://christianmysticism.wordpress.com/about/ The Big Book of Christian Mysticism, by. Carl McColman, page 64]</ref>.
The teachings of [[Christian mysticism]] leans more towards [[Progressive Christianity]], [[liberal Christianity]], [[Postmodernism]], [[Gnosticism]] and the worldviews of the new [[Emerging Church]], as it encourages a greater tollerance towards other spiritualities, whereas [[Evangelical mysticism]] leans more towards [[Conservative Christianity]] and [[Christian fundamentalism]] in it's worldview and teachings.

Both finds much biblical support for their teachings.

== Introduction==
Some who consider themselves a part of the [[Christian mysticism]] movement, denies the association that their Christian mysticism has with the [[occult]], [[theosophy]] or [[gnosticism]]. Some others who embraces the theology of [[Evangelicalism]], but who also embraces mystical aspects of Christianity, consider themselves to be a part of [[Christian mysticism]] for they may never even have heard the term [[Evangelical mysticism]]. Then there are also dedicated fundamentalists, who goes to the extreme to consider every person that involves themselves with anything remotely mystic, to be involved with occultism, and who consider it their responsibility to warn them of what they consider to be the evils thereof.

Amoung all this confusion, some definition is necessitated, clarification on terminology, as well as an overview of the origins of the different streams.

===Defining mysticism===

The Concise Oxford Dictionary explains the word mystic as follows
{{quotation|a person
* who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity or identity with or absorption into the Deity or the ultimate reality
or
* who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the understanding.}}

The following different alternatives are listed in the Oxford dictionary:
{{quotation|
* 1. Mysterious and awe-inspiring
* 2. Spiritually allegorical or symbolic
* 3. Occult, esoteric
* 4. Of hidden meaning <ref>The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, ISBN 0-19-861319-9. 1995, page 900)</ref>}}

[[Evangelicalism]] distanciates itself from all practices of [[occultism]] (white and black magic). [[Evangelical mysticism]] is mostly associated with the "mysterious and awe-inspiring" context of the word.(See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult#Religion_and_the_Occult Religion and the Occult]). <ref>Donald G. Bloesch, The Crisis of Piety
Eerdmans, 1968. ISBN 0-939443-05-8
Chapter 7, discusses, in Bloesch's words, the "two types of spirituality," "mystical" and "evangelical." Surely this "mystical" would not relate to the "mysterious and awe inspiring" context of the word, but to what is considered to be [[occult]].</ref>

[[Mystical theology]] however embraces all of the aspects of [[mysticism]] and [[Christian mysticism]] as a sub type under the umbrella of [[mysticism]] does allow for [[occult]] practices.<ref>[http://books.google.co.za/books?id=xAmMNnJlfnoC&dq=Christian+mysticism+occult+Dr.&ie=ISO-8859-1&source=gbs_navlinks_s The new encyclopedia of the occult, by John Michael Greer]</ref><ref>[http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1601.html The Law Of Thelema - Mysticism & Occult Articles - The Book Of THoTH]</ref>

Maria Jaoud found [[Christian mysticism]] to be a movement that brings both East and West together.<ref>Christian mysticism East and West, Maria Jaoud, Paulist Press, 1998,
ISBN 0809138239 9780809138234, OCLC Number: 39368381</ref> With the focus on Christian mysticism, she: "explores themes of transformation, wholeness, and healing as presented by both Eastern and Western mystics, and how their ideas parallel the global insights found in Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, and Buddhism. <ref>[http://books.google.co.za/books?id=u2EBULLB-uQC&dq=the+term+Christian+mysticism+ISBN&ie=ISO-8859-1&source=gbs_navlinks_s About Christian mysticism East and West]</ref>"

===More definition on the term "Evangelical"===

In order to aid not only in a distinction between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, but also to distinguish between the streams active within [[Evangelical mysticism]], the term "Evangelical" needs to be defined more precisely.

The term [[Evangelical]] has its etymological roots in the [[Greek language|Greek]] word for "[[gospel]]" or "[[Good news (Christianity)|good news]]": ''ευαγγελιον (evangelion)'', from ''eu-'' "good" and ''angelion'' "message." In that sense, to be ''evangelical'' would mean to be a believer in the gospel, that is the message of [[Jesus Christ]].

By the English Middle Ages the term had been expanded to include not only the message, but also the [[New Testament]] which contained the message, as well as more specifically the [[Gospels|four books of the Bible]] in which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are portrayed.<ref name="Noll">{{Cite book|title=The rise of evangelicalism: the age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys |author=Noll, Mark A. |authorlink=Mark Noll |year=2004 |publisher=Inter-Varsity |isbn=1844740013}}</ref> The first published use of the term ''evangelical'' in English was in 1531 by [[William Tyndale]], who wrote "He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth."<ref name="Johnson">{{Cite web|author=Johnson, Phil |title=The History of Evangelicalism (Part 1) |date=2009-03-16 |work=Pulpit Magazine |url=http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4111}}</ref> One year later, the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction was by [[Sir Thomas More]], who spoke of "Tyndale [and] his evangelical brother Barns."<ref name="Johnson" />

By the time of the [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]], theologians began to embrace the term '''evangelical''' as referring to "gospel truth". [[Martin Luther]] referred to the ''evangelische Kirche'' or evangelical church to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the [[Roman Catholic Church]].<ref>{{Cite book|edition=3rd ed. rev|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn = 0192802909|page=1800|last=Livingstone|first=Elizabeth A|title=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|location=Oxford|year=2005|page=583}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Gerstner |first=John H.|authorlink=John Gerstner|title=The Evangelicals|editor=David P. Wells|others=John D. Woodbridge|year=1975|publisher=Abingdon Press|location=Nashville|isbn=0687121817|pages=21–36|chapter=The Theological Boundaries of Evangelical Faith|quote=Despite the dominant usage of ''euangellismos'' in the New Testament, its derivative, evangelical, was not widely or controversially employed until the Reformation period. Then it came into prominence with Martin Luther precisely because he reasserted Paul's teaching on the ''euangellismos'' as the indispensable message of salvation. Its light, he argued, was hidden under a bushel of ecclesiastical authority, tradition, and liturgy. The essence of the saving message for Luther was [[justification]] by [[faith]] alone, the article by which not only the church stands or falls but each individual as well. [[Erasmus]], [[Thomas More]], and [[Johannes Eck]] denigrated those who accepted this view and referred to them as 'evangelicals.'}}</ref> In [[Germany]], [[Switzerland]] and [[Denmark]], and especially among [[Lutheran]]s, the term has continued to be used in a broad sense.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Marsden|first=George M|authorlink=George Marsden|title=Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism|year=1991|publisher=W.B. Eerdmans|location=Grand Rapids, MI|isbn=0802805396|page=5}}</ref>

The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical/fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901faessay85504-p20/walter-russell-mead/god-s-country.html |title=God's Country? |accessdate=2008-03-27 |author=Mead, Walter Russell |year=2006 |publisher=Council on Foreign Relations |work=Foreign Affairs }}</ref>

According to ''Christianity Today,'' “The [[Emerging Church| emerging movement]] is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. <ref>Crouch, Andrew. “The Emergent Mystique,” ''Christianity Today'', Nov. 2004</ref>

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, used polling data to separate evangelicals into three camps which he labels as traditionalist, centrist and modernist.<ref name="nytimes">{{Cite news|title=Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical' |author=Luo, Michael |date=2006-04-16 |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/weekinreview/16luo.html?_r=1&adxnnlx=1145227368-p%20hJwvCXS0qceSTw%20jLi8w&pagewanted=all |publisher=nytimes.com}}</ref>

* The ''traditionalists,'' characterized by high affinity for certain Protestant beliefs, (especially penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, the authority of scripture, priesthood of all believers, etc.) which, when fused with the highly political milieu of Western culture (esp. American), has resulted in the political disposition that has been labeled the [[Christian right]], whose most visible spokesmen have been figures like [[Jerry Falwell]] and the television evangelist [[Pat Robertson]].
* ''Centrist evangelicals'' are described as socially conservative, mostly avoiding politics, who still support much of traditional Christian theology.
* ''Modernist evangelicals'' are a small minority in the movement, have low levels of church attendance, and "have much more diversity in their beliefs."<ref name="nytimes" />

Within the concept of [[Evangelical mysticism]], there are also these different streams of Evangelicals as Green pointed out.<ref>See also articles on: [[Post-evangelical]],[[Evangelical left]], [[Christian left]], and [Emerging church]] movements)</ref>

==Origin, History and Background==

Arguments had been made that [[Christian mysticism]] has its origin in [[Gnosticism]] and that Neoplatonist ideas had a major influence on Christian mysticism.<ref>Quote from main article [[Neoplatonism and Christianity]] "Through the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, Neoplatonist ideas became a major influence on all Christian mysticism and apophatic theology."</ref><ref> Van Fleteren, F., et al. (edd.) Augustine: Mystic and Mystagogue. (1994). A comprehensive examination of Augustine’s mysticism, mystical experiences and his vast influence on Christian mysticism. </ref><ref>Williams, J.A. Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi. (1988)[D4] 220pp, PB ISBN 0-89130-877-6 Gnostic teacher Valentinus, interpreted passages that would later be incorporated into the New Testament. A detailed analysis which examine the gospel’s sources, theology and method of interpretation. </ref>
Quoted from main article [[Gnosticism]]: "Whereas Gnosticism has been considered by scholars to originate as a branch of Christianity, alternate theories have proposed traces of Gnostic systems existed some centuries before the Christian Era, thus predating the [[birth of Jesus]].<Ref> [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Gnosticism Article] from the [[Jewish Encyclopedia]]</ref>

The usage of the phrase “[[Evangelical mysticism]]” or “Evangelical mystic” goes as far back as the 18th century and the early [[Methodism|Methodists]]. A father of Evangelical mysticism is considered to be [[A.W. Tozer]].<ref>Quote from main article [[Evangelical mysticism]] " [[A. W. Tozer]], a major leader in the [[Christian & Missionary Alliance]], is in a sense a father of “Evangelical mysticism,” and wrote ''The Pursuit of God'' (1948), which deals with contemplative topics."</ref> The [[Higher Life movement]] and [[John Westley]] are also associated with the origins of [[Evangelical mysticism]].<ref>See main article: [[Evangelical mysticism]]</ref>

B. J. Gibbons shows how the [[occult]] has been "blending" with Christianity <Ref>
Spirituality and the Occult: From the Renaissance to the Modern (ISBN 0-415-24449-8) by B. J. Gibbons </ref>.

===The origins of Evangelical mysticism===

{{Main|Evangelical mysticism}}

(See also: [[John Westley]] and [[Higher Life movement]])

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the [[New Age movement]] popularized the Eastern [[meditation]] practices of [[Transcendental Meditation]] (TM),<ref>Paul Heelas, ''The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacralization of Modernity'' (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), p. 112.</ref> [[Yoga]], and [[Zen]]. [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal]] Catholics and Protestants<ref>Morton Kelsey, ''The Other Side of Silence: Meditation for the Twenty-First Century'' (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1997), p. 154. This is a popular “[[Christian meditation]]” book written by an [[Episcopalian]] author that borrows from [[New Age]] practices.</ref> began to follow the lead of these [[meditation|New Age meditation]] practices by incorporating them into [[Christian meditation]]. In reaction to this, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] issued an official rebuke of New Age meditation practices: ''Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation'' (1989).<ref>[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html/ Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation' (1989)]</ref>

[[Thomas Merton]], a [[Liberal Christianity|liberal]] [[Trappist]] monk, was one of the first to borrow from Eastern [[meditation]] practices, such as [[Zen]], mixing them with [[Christian meditation]] and [[contemplative prayer|contemplation]].<ref>William Shannon, ''Thomas Merton: An Introduction'' (Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2005), p. 153. This shows that it was as early as the 1950s that Merton started borrowing from “Eastern thought.”</ref> Later, [[Basil Pennington|M. Basil Pennington]],<ref>M. Basil Pennington, ''Centering Prayer: Renewing an Ancient Christian Prayer Form'' (New York: Image Books, 1980), p. 55.</ref> [[Thomas Keating]], and [[William Meninger]] would follow Merton’s lead, and become the founders of the [[centering prayer]] movement.

In reaction to these [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]]’ borrowing from [[meditation|New Age meditative techniques]], there has progressively been a move among [[Evangelicals]]—especially [[Third Wave of the Holy Spirit|Third Wave]] [[Charismatics]] (or [[Neocharismatics]])—to allow for practice of [[contemplative prayer]] or not to quench the Holy Spirit but to allow Him to move freely. <ref>Jim Goll, ''Wasted on Jesus'' (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2000), pp. 35-38.</ref> and that without any mixture of [[New Age]] practices or beliefs.

The usage of the phrase “Evangelical mysticism” or “Evangelical mystic” goes as far back as the 18th century and the early [[Methodism|Methodists]].<ref>John Fletcher, ''The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher'', vol. 4 (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1836), p. 7. The article “On Evangelical Mysticism.”</ref> [[Evangelicalism]] started as a [[missionary]] movement that came out of the [[Great Awakenings]] with [[Jonathan Edwards (theologian)|Jonathan Edwards]], [[George Whitefield]], and [[John Wesley]] (the founder of the [[Methodist Episcopal Church]]).<ref>Mark Noll, ''The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), pp. 19-20.</ref> [[John Wesley]]

[[William Seymour]], a [[Holiness movement|Holiness]] preacher and major leader of the [[Pentecostal]] movement, practiced [[contemplative prayer|contemplation]] during his meetings at [[Azusa Street]]. These early [[Pentecostals]] had group “tarrying” meetings, or contemplation meetings, for receiving the power of the Holy Spirit. “Through tarrying, a form of [[contemplative prayer]], black Pentecostals experienced [[Religious conversion|conversion]], [[sanctification]], and [[Baptism in the Holy Spirit|Spirit baptism]] by the sovereignty of God.”<ref>David Daniels III, ''The Century of the Holy Spirit'', edited by Vinson Synan (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), p. 280.</ref>

[[A. W. Tozer]], a major leader in the [[Christian & Missionary Alliance]], is in a sense a father of “Evangelical mysticism,” and wrote ''The Pursuit of God'' (1948), which deals with contemplative topics.

There are three influential [[Third Wave of the Holy Spirit|Third Wave]] books that have come out in recent years on Christian [[contemplative prayer]] that openly reject [[meditation|New Age meditation]]: Mark and Patti Virkler’s ''Communion with God'' (1983), [[James Goll]]’s ''Wasted on Jesus'' (2000), and John Crowder’s ''The Ecstasy of Loving God'' (2009).

[[John Westley]] who is considered to have started the [[Higher Life movement]], also known as the [[Keswick]] movement., preached sermons on Freedom Of Grace, attacking the Calvinistic understanding of predestination as blasphemous, as it represented "God as worse than the devil". Until today he is strongly criticized by Calvinists.

Wesley is known for encouraging people to experience Jesus Christ personally. <Ref> Refer to main article on [[John Wesley]] </ref>

The [[Higher Life movement]] as a movement has also been strongly criticized by Calvenist theologians due to its "Let go and let God" emphasis, which according to them correlates with [[quietism]]. Dr. Andy Nasseli, a critic of the [[Keswick]] movement explains that the motto for the Christian should rather be "Trust God and get going" and he rejects all promoters of what he considers to be passivity.

Although followers of the [[Higher Life movement]] are often also advocates of [[quietism]], [[John Westley]] himself condemned it as [[heretical]], which is also the reason he broke away from the Moravians in London.<ref>Refer to main article on [[John Westley]]</ref>

Even within the inner circles of those practicing [[Evangelical mysticism]] there are also a divide between those leaning towards "Eros spirituality" and those practicing "Agape faith".<ref name="reformationtheology.com">[http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/eros_spirituality_vs_agape_fai.php Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World by David F. Wells]</ref><ref>Mainstream Evangelical Christians tend to agree that just because somebody has a spiritual experience, and just because he acknowledges [[Evangelical]] doctrine, does not mean that his encounters was necessarily inspired by the [[Holy Spirit]] </ref> <ref>In the biblical book of Acts, [[St. Paul]] also used spiritual discernment to expose a mystic, that was openly promoting Paul, but who was operating with help from what is perceived to be from an [[occult]] spirit. Safeguards against deception is emphasised by many Evangelical preachers.</ref><ref>Charismatic witchcraft had been defined as : "
The improper and unscriptural use of the Bible in a way similar to sorcery, spells, curses, or magic to influence a disagreeing Christian’s body or property against his or her will or to undermine the Christian theological belief system at work within the disagreeing Christian.". [http://availablelightonline.com/blog/2006/07/16/the-pathetic-realm-charismatic-witchcraft Realm of Charismatic witchcraft] In Charismatic circles the war against witchcraft (white and black occultism), in and out of church is ongoing. Every situation is unique and it is believed that one always require the guidance of the [[Holy Spirit]] to overcome. For a practical example see [http://www.refugeofrighteousness.com/articles/25/1/The-Shelter-of-God-Against-Witchcraft/Page1.htm The Shelter of God Against Witchcraft, by Francis Frangipane]</ref>

In [[Evangelical]] circles, all [[occult]] activities is considered to be [[heretical]] or [[demonic]], and from darkness, and not from their God.
In other spiritualities, the term [[occult]] is however not associated with the [[demonic]], but rather with "hidden" mysteries, which many consider to be benefitial.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult#Religion_and_the_Occult Public domain: Religion and the Occult]</ref>

Some Christian writers have emphasised that clarifying on terminology has become increasingly important in this postmodern age, as meanings of words represents different things and in a different context to different groups, in relation to the holistic teachings they had been exposed to.<ref>Marsha West warns in [http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha190.htm. Doublespeak: The Language of Deception, Part 5] that the theological terms used in [[Progressive Christianity]] and the new [[Emerging Church]] have redefined many of the orthodox understanding of selected words.</ref>

===The Origins of Christian mysticism and Gnosticism===

Whereas Gnosticism has been considered by scholars to originate as a branch of Christianity, alternate theories have proposed traces of Gnostic systems existed some centuries before the Christian Era, thus predating the [[birth of Jesus]].<ref>[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism Gnosticism Article] from the [[Jewish Encyclopedia]]</ref> The movement spread in areas controlled by the [[Roman Empire]] and [[Arianism|Arian]] Goths,<ref>Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 By [[Guy Halsall]] pg 293 Publisher: Cambridge University Press (January 28, 2008) ISBN 0-521-43491-2 ISBN 978-0-521-43491-1 [http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ULzYGIj8oC&pg=PT359&lpg=PT359&dq=Huneric+Manichaeans.&source=bl&ots=qL0pl-gbSw&sig=54Z95nKOw8iXsL39eSiuKXCFIzE&hl=en&ei=LZsrS-3nIM-Utgetzb2SCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Huneric%20Manichaeans.&f=false]</ref> and the [[Persian Empire]]; it continued to develop in the [[Mediterranean]] and [[Middle East]] before and during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Conversion to [[Islam]] and the [[Albigensian Crusade]] (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the [[Middle Ages]], though a few Mandaean communities still exist. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various [[esoteric]] [[mystical]] movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries in [[Europe]] and [[North America]], including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

[[Gnosticism]] includes a variety of religious movements, mostly Christian in nature, in the ancient Hellenistic society around the [[Mediterranean]]. Although origins are disputed, the period of activity for most of these movements flourished from approximately the time of the founding of Christianity until the fourth century when the writings and activities of groups deemed heretical or pagan were actively suppressed. The only information available on these movements for many centuries was the characterizations of those writing against them, and the few quotations preserved in such works.

====Christian mysticism as a type of mysticism====

Anand Gholap, from Theosophical Institute states:
{{quotation|"There is no doubt, for any observant person, that what is sometimes called a ‘wave’ of mysticism is passing over the world at the present time. It matters not whether you travel in the East or in the West; it matters not whether you look at the churches or at the many bodies outside the recognised churches in Christendom; wherever you look you see the same fact emerging - that men and women are turning away from external proof towards inner realisation; that they are beginning to feel that not the authority from outside but the authority from within ought to be the guiding force of life; that they are beginning to feel that scriptures, however sacred, authority, however venerable, is not [1] the final word of religion for man. And so on all sides you see a searching, a desire, a longing, to replace faith by knowledge, speculation by certainty." }}<ref>[http://www.anandgholap.net/Mysticism-AB.htm Mysticism, Anand Gholap Theosophical Institute, 2009]</ref>

The late 19th century saw a significant increase of interest in mysticism in the West that combined with increased interest in [[Occultism]] and [[Eastern Philosophy]]. [[Theosophy]] became a major movement in the popularization of these interests. <Ref> extract from main article on [[mysticism]] </ref>. [[Madame Blavatsky]] functioned as a central figure of the theosophy movement. This trend later became absorbed in the rise of the [[New Age]] movement, which included a major surge in the popularity of psychological self-awareness groups such as [[Large Group Awareness Training|EST]] and many others. At the end of the twentieth century books like [[A Course in Miracles]] (purported to be a channeled course of study dictated by Jesus) and [[Conversations with God]] (in which the author describes his direct communication with God) became popularized.

The term [[perennial philosophy]], coined by [[Leibniz]] and popularized by [[Aldous Huxley]], relates to what some take to be the mystic's primary concern:

<blockquote> [W]ith the one, divine reality substantial to the manifold world of things and lives and minds. But the nature of this one reality is such that it cannot be directly or immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfill certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit.<ref name="Huxley">{{Cite book|first=Aldous|last=Huxley|title=The Perennial Philosophy|publisher=Perennial|year=1945|isbn=0-06-057058-X}}</ref> </blockquote>

Some mystics use the term to refer to a manner wherein the mystic strives to plumb the depths of the [[self (philosophy)|self]] and reality in a radical process of meditative self-exploration, with the aim of experiencing the true nature of reality.

In some cultures and traditions, mind-altering substances—often referred to as [[entheogen]]s—have been used as a guide; the [[Santo Daime]] and [[Uniao do Vegetal]] being notable modern examples.

It is important to note that many of the self-styled mystical belief systems arising in recent decades essentially differ from mysticism proper in that they rely on the individual seeker's power and will, whereas in the mystic traditions, the states cannot be initiated by the seeker himself, but only by the Ultimate Being.{{Citation needed|date=April 2010}} Hence the term ''mystikos''.
It is also important to note that evidence may exist that suggests entheogen induced experiences was an accepted means to connect with the divine by many religious figures of all the worlds religions.

====Christian mysticism, Freemasonry and Theosophy====

Arthur Versluis in his book "Wisdom's Children: A Christian Esoteric Tradition (Suny Series in Western Esoteric Traditions)" discusses Christian mysticism and also introduces the concept of "Christian theosophy". Christian theosophy typically invokes the idea of "sophia". <Ref> Wisdom's Children: A Christian Esoteric Tradition (Suny Series in Western Esoteric Traditions), Arthur Versluis, ISBN 10: 0791443302 </ref>. The same author wrote another book the focuses more on "sophia", in "Theosophia: Hidden Dimensions of Christianity" <ref> Theosophia: Hidden Dimensions of Christianity, Arthur Versluis, Lindisfarne Books, ISBN: 0940262649 </ref>.

[[Sophia (wisdom)]] (Σοφíα, Greek for "wisdom") is a central term in Hellenistic philosophy and religion, Platonism, Gnosticism, Orthodox Christianity, Esoteric Christianity, as well as Christian mysticism. Sophiology is a philosophical concept regarding wisdom, as well as a theological concept regarding the wisdom of God. (See main article on [[Sophia (wisdom)]])

The [[Swedenborg Rite]] or Rite of Swedenborg was a fraternal order modeled on [[Freemasonry]] and based upon the teachings of [[Emanuel Swedenborg]], (teacher of [[Christian mysticism]] and founder of [[Swedenborgianism]]). It comprised six [[Degree (freemasonry)|Degree]]s: Apprentice, Fellow Craft, Master Neophyte, Illuminated [[Theosophy|Theosophite]], Blue Brother, and Red Brother.<ref name=EoF2>Albert Gallatin Mackey and H. L. Haywood, ''Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Vol. 2'', p. 997 reprinted by Kessinger Publishing, 2003 ISBN 0766147207</ref><ref>see also main article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedenborg_Rite Swedenborg Rite]</ref>

[[Theosophy]] is the philosophy introduced by [[occultist]] [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky]] in association with [[Ascended Master]]s. It is a doctrine of [[religious philosophy]] and [[mysticism]]

The term appeared in [[Neoplatonism]]. [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] ''De Abstinentia'' (4.9) mentioned "Greek and [[Chaldea]]n theosophy", Ἑλληνική, Χαλδαϊκὴ θεοσοφία. The adjective θεόσοφος "wise in divine things" was applied by [[Iamblichus]] (''De mysteriis'' 7.1) to the [[gymnosophists]] (Γυμνοσοφισταί), i.e. the Indian [[yogi]]s or [[sadhu]]s.

The term was used during the [[Renaissance]] to refer to the spiritually-oriented thought and works of a number of philosophers, including: [[Cornelius Agrippa]], [[Paracelsus]], [[Robert Fludd]], and, especially, Christian mystic [[Jakob Böhme]]; the work of these early theosophists influenced the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] theologian and Christian mystics [[Emanuel Swedenborg]] and [[Franz von Baader]].<ref>quoted from public domain [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy Theosophy]</ref>
Madame Blavatsky is believed by some to have been a 32° Co-Freemason.<ref>[http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/was-hp-blavatsky-a-co-mason-irregular-rite-of-adoption-12%C2%B0-memphis-misraim-32%C2%B0/ WAS H.P. BLAVATSKY A CO-MASON? IRREGULAR: RITE OF ADOPTION 12°, MEMPHIS-MISRAIM 32° | reality research resource]</ref> Some of the teachings that she gave is considered very controvertial and created quite an uproar in [[Evangelical]] Christian circles and amoung critics.

Her most popular work was a two-volume book she wrote titled 'The Secret Doctrine,' in which she makes statements such as:

"Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. IndependenCE. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior." pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)

"The Celestial Virgin which thus becomes the Mother of Gods and Devils at one and the same time; for she is the ever-loving beneficent Deity...but in antiquity and reality Lucifer or Luciferius is the name. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial Light, 'the Holy Ghost' and 'Satan' at one and the same time." page 539
<ref>The Secret Doctrine, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, 1888, Theosophical University Press electronic version ISBN 1-55700-124-3</ref>

[[Charles Webster Leadbeater]], 33rd degree Freemason, author on the [[occult]] and co-founder with J. I. Wedgwood of the [[Liberal Catholic Church]], became one of the most known speakers in the Theosophical Society for quite a number of years<ref>Warnon, Maurice H. ''[http://www.kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.GB/LCIS/Scriptures/Liberal/Leadbeater/BioLeadbeater.html Biographical Notes]''</ref> and was also Secretary of the London Lodge.<ref>[http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_OCIV.HTM ''A Description of the Work of Annie Besant and C W Leadbetter], by Jinarajadasa</ref>

His interest in occultism was stimulated by [[A.P. Sinnett]]'s ''Occult World'', and he joined the [[Theosophical Society]] in 1883. The next year he met [[Helena Petrovna Blavatsky]] when she came to [[London]]. "When she accepted him [as a pupil], he gave up the church, became a vegetarian, severed all ties with England, and followed her to [[India]]."<ref>[[Mary Lutyens|Lutyens, Mary]] (1975). ''[[Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening]]''. New York: [[Farrar Straus and Giroux]]. p. 13. ISBN 0374182221.</ref>

They worked closely together and spread the teachings of [[Theosophy]], also in India.

The teachings of Freemasonary is strongly resisted by [[Evangelical]] Christians and teachings provided such as the following made by Albert Pike, reveals some of the deeper secrets of the Society.
"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!". Pike also says to masons in the 19th degree, that in the previous 18 degrees, Masons believed that God was the Light-bearer, but now, in this 19th Degree, Pike is giving them new revelation. This insight completely squares with stated Masonic policy of deliberately misleading Masons in the lower degrees until they were really ready for the "truth". <ref>Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff</ref>

The work of [[Charles Webster Leadbeater]] and Madame Blavatsky combined also impacted the field of healing, (see the [[Seven rays]])

[[Charles Webster Leadbeater]] gives a detailed account of the history of Freemasonary, and supports Blavatsky in his writing [http://www.anandgholap.net/CWL_Glimpses_Of_Masonic_History.htm Theosophy : Glimpses of Masonic History] <ref>quote from C.W. Leadbeater :"Illustrations of the development of the human embryo, shown by picture or model in the same way as we might show some of them by means of a microscope, were employed to teach by the law of correspondences the truth of cosmic evolution. We may remember how Madame Blavatsky adopted in The Secret Doctrine a similar method of illustrating the same evolutionary processes.* (*Op. cit., Vol. iii, p. 441.) It is probable that a misunderstanding of the representation of some of these processes of reproduction was distorted into an idea of indecency, and so the seed was sown from which sprang later the false and foolish accusations of the ignorant and bigoted Christians. [http://www.anandgholap.net/CWL_Glimpses_Of_Masonic_History.htm Theosophy : Glimpses of Masonic History by C.W. Leadbeater, section 370 "The Greater Mysteries, issued by Anand Gholap Theosophical Institute, 2009]</ref>

== Biblical foundations of the mystery revealed by St. Paul - different interpretations ==

{{Main|Christian Mysticism}}

[[Christian mysticism]] shows resemblance to [[Gnosticism]] in its interpretation of Scripture.

[[Early Christianity|Early Christians]] used the word ''μυστήριον'' (mysterion) to describe the [[Christian Mystery]]. The [[Old Testament]] [[LXX|versions]] use the word ''mysterion'' as an equivalent to the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] sôd, "secret" ([[Book of Proverbs|Proverbs]] 20:19; [[Book of Judith|Judith]] 2:2; [[Sirach]] 22:27; [[2 Maccabees]] 13:21). In the [[New Testament]] the word ''mystery'' is applied ordinarily to the sublime revelation of the [[Gospel]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 13:11; [[Epistle to the Colossians|Colossians]] 2:2; [[First Epistle to Timothy|1 Timothy]] 3:9; [[First Epistle to the Corinthians|1 Corinthians]] 15:51), and to the [[Incarnation]] and life of the [[wiktionary:Savior|Saviour]] and his manifestation by the preaching of the [[Apostles]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 16:25; [[Epistle to the Ephesians|Ephesians]] 3:4; 6:19; [[Epistle to the Colossians|Colossians]] 1:26; 4:3). Theologians give the name ''mystery'' to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural [[reason]],<ref>The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Published 1911</ref> so, in a narrow sense, the Mystery is a truth that transcends the created intellect.

The interpretation of the mystery that the Apostle Paul brought in the New Testament are however entirely differently interpreted by [[Gnosticism]] and [[Hellenistic philosophy]], than by [[Pauline Christianity]].

Supporters of [[Gnostic Christianity]] sees Paul's mystery of "Christ in us" to be translated as all people to connect with their true self, which "is god". This applies to them to all people, not necessarily believers in Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Messiah, who came in the flesh.
Supporters of [[Pauline Christianity]] sees the believer in Christ, to have become a new creation entirely and sees a mysterious transformation to have taken place at that moment, when a new creation had been formed altogether. Pauline Christianity does not see any Christian to be god themselves even though they do acknowledge a oneness with God, but not in a [[Gnostic]] sense. An illustration used by Curry R. Blake from "[[John G. Lake]] ministries", is one of a colour drink poured into water and stirred, where does the water start now and where does the red drink start? It can not be separated no longer. Yet the water is not the red drink and similarly we are not God when His Spirit becomes one with ours, yet a new creation is formed.

[[Pauline mysticism]] and [[Christian mysticism]] are in direct contrast with one another. The following is an extract as per the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology with regards to the views of [[Albert Schweitzer]]:

"Schweitzer did not concur with the prevailing opinion in German academic theology that Paul represents an appropriation of [[Hellenistic]] or Greek ideas into Christianity. Rather, an [[eschatological mysticism]] defines the thought of Paul the Apostle, which he expresses in a form that could later be transposed into a [[Hellenistic]] key. Pauline mysticism does not speak of “being one with God or being in God” (Schweitzer, 1930, 3). Sonship to God is not conceived as “an immediate mystical relation to God, but as mediated and effected by means of a mystical union with Christ” (Ibid.). Paul does not commend any kind of “God-mysticism” (Ibid.). Human beings enter into relation with God by means of a “Christ-mysticism” (Ibid.):

The fundamental thought of Pauline mysticism runs thus: I am in Christ; in Him I know myself as a being who is raised above this sensuous, sinful, and transient world and already belongs to the transcendent; in Him I am assured of resurrection; in Him I am a Child of God (Ibid.)

A second feature of Paul’s mysticism is that the Christian is “conceived as having died and risen again with Him” (Ibid.). Hence, the believer has been set free from sin and the Law and now possesses the Spirit of Christ and is assured of resurrection. Paul’s notion of ‘being-in-Christ’ is the central element of his thought and makes sense of the whole structure of his theology.

The Christ-mysticism experienced by Christians is reckoned by Paul to be a kind of co-experiencing of Christ’s death and resurrection:

The original and central idea of the Pauline mysticism is therefore that the Elect share with one another and with Christ a corporiety which is in a special way susceptible to the action of the powers of death and resurrection, and in consequence capable of acquiring the resurrection state of existence before the general resurrection of the dead takes place” (Ibid., 115-116).

Redemption is accomplished by Jesus’ resurrection. The perishable world is a stage on which angels of heaven and demons do battle. Jesus becomes a Messianic King with command over angels who is able to defeat all who oppose God. For Jesus, this was salvation: deliverance from the coming tribulation of the eschaton. However, for the early Christians the focus of redemption shifted to the forgiveness of sins, an emphasis reflected in the thought of Paul the Apostle. Paul explains the concept of justification by faith alone in the Epistle to the Romans. Christ’s death is portrayed as a sin offering, which erases sin and makes God’s forgiveness possible. Redemption is an act of ascent, not mystical experience. This “righteousness by faith” is individualistic, detached from participation in the mystical Body of Christ, and it does not lead to an ethical theory:

That it is an unnatural construction of thought is clear from the fact that by means of it Paul arrives at the idea of a faith which rejects not only the works of the Law, but works in general. He thus closes the pathway to a theory of ethics. This is the price which he pays for the possibility of finding the doctrine of freedom from the Law in the doctrine of the atoning death of Jesus (Ibid., 225).

Yet, ethics are not absent from the thought of Paul, but they are re-conceived. By participating in Christ’s death and resurrection, the believer becomes a new creation. In principle the believer is no longer able to sin. However, this participation proceeds gradually making ethics necessary. “It is only in so far as a man is purified and liberated from the world that he becomes capable of truly ethical action” (Ibid., 302). Paul describes ethical action in many ways, including sanctification, giving up the service of sin, and living for God. Love is the highest manifestation of this ethical life. “Love is for him not a ray which flashes from one point to another point, but one which is constantly vibrating to and fro [between the believer and God]” (Ibid., 307).

For Schweitzer there is nothing Hellenistic about belief in the coming Kingdom of God, Jesus as Messiah, the atoning death, the resurrection, and the saving effect of baptism. Yet, as Paul worked with these ideas, they became more susceptible to Hellenistic influences. After Paul, Christian thought became increasingly Hellenized, reaching its culmination within the New Testament in the Gospel according to John. The mysticism found in the John’s account of Jesus is a Hellenization of Paul’s mysticism. Schweitzer concluded that the Hellenistic interpretations of Christianity that followed after Paul are inferior. The mysticism of Hellenized Christianity is simpler and less profound than the mysticism of Paul the Apostle.<ref>[http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/schweitzer.htm Albert Schweitzer (Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology) "The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle"]</ref>"

For more on the book The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, (written By DrAlbert Schweitzer, Reviewed Edition: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, Paperback, 411 Pages, ISBN 0-8018-6098-9) see [http://home.pcisys.net/~jnf/schauth/rq16.html Review of "The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle"]

==Theology==
===Christian mysticism theology===

The theology of Christian mysticism corresponds with that of [[mystical theology]].

For more on the theology supporting [[Johannine]] [[Christian mysticism]], see explanations by Timothy Conway:
[http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/support-files/christian_mystics_on_the_nature_of_god.pdf Christian Mystics on the Nature of God] and also The [[Great Gospel of John]]

=== Evangelical mysticism theology ===

[[Evangelicalism]] is a [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christian theological stream which began in [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] in the 1730s.<ref>Bebbington, D. W. (2008). ''Evangelicals in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s'', London: Unwin, 1.</ref>
Its key commitments are:
* The need for personal conversion (or being "[[Born again (Christianity)|born again]]")
* Actively expressing and sharing the [[Good news (Christianity)|gospel]]
* A high regard for [[biblical authority]], especially [[biblical inerrancy]]
* An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the [[death and resurrection of Jesus]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html |title=Defining Evangelicalism |accessdate=2008-03-04 |last=Eskridge |first=Larry |year=1995 |publisher=Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals}}</ref>

For more on the theology supporting Evangelical [[Pauline mysticism]] as per [[Albert Schweitzer]], see: [http://apocryphile.org/jrm/articles/paul.html A SURVEY OF "THE MYSTICISM OF PAUL THE APOSTLE"].<ref>The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. (1930), by Albert Schweitzer, Johns Hopkins University Press. 1998. ISBN 0801860989</ref>

All those Christians who embrace [[Evangelical mysticism]] doesn't however embrace or perceive the depth of the [[Pauline mystery]]. There is thus different streams within the [[Evangelical mysticism]] movement.
[[Pauline mysticism]], due to its emphasis on the oneness of the believer with Christ, does not promote believers to have a passive will, but rather to excercise their will with faith in the biblical truth of their new identity "in Christ". Those who embrace [[Pauline mysticism]] does not live with a concept of separatism, where they see themselves over here and God over there. Rather they embrace the Gospel of [[St. Paul]] in the revelation of who they now are "in Christ", and believe that it is God who works in them now to both will and to work according to His good pleasure. [[Evangelical mysticism]] that does not embrace this Pauline mystery, are often promoters of Christians to have a passive mind and a passive will, as if some force or prompting of God from "outside themselves" will need to inspire them before they do anything. The concepts thus of Evangelical Christians, and even among those embracing Evangelical mysticism, of what it means to "rest in God" is different. Conservative Evangelical Christians, in response to teachings of passivity in will, often serve as critics of this movement, accusing such teachers and participants of allowing entrances for demonic influences to enter their minds in this way and for allowing /bringing deception into the Church as well as their own lives.

The concept of "waiting on God" is also differently interpreted among Evangelical Christians, and even among those supporting [[Evangelical mysticism]].

===The theology of Gnosticism and Christianity===
{{Main|Gnosticism}}

The ascetic notion of immediate revelation through divine knowledge sought to find an absolute transcendence in a Supreme Deity. This concept is very important in identifying what evidence there is pertaining to Gnosticism<ref>First coined in Plato’s Politikos [‘Statement’] as gnostikoi [‘those capable of knowing’], and linking it with knowledge [episteme] (Introduction to Politikos. Cooper, John M. & Hutchinson, D. S. [Eds.] (1997)</ref> in the NT, which would influence orthodox teaching.<ref>What is understood as “orthodox” and “Gnostic” teachings in this early period [1st-2nd century] needs to be redefined due to the complexities now unfolding regarding their historical and doctrinal similarities. Ed. Note.</ref> Main Gnostic beliefs that differ from Biblical teachings include: the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”;<ref>The terminology has ties to the passage in Pro 8:23, taking a well known Judaic-concept of ‘personification’ and defining it with Christ as the “wisdom of God” [1 Co 1:24]. This metaphor was common and understood by most church fathers like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Epiphanius and Cyril. (Racovian Catechism, pp. 73-75)</ref> and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed”<ref>From the Greek dokein, hence Docetism (Dictionary of the Later NT & its Developments, Intervarsity Press, 1997)</ref> to be human, leading to a belief in the incarnation ([[Docetism]]).<ref>Jesus was Sui Generis, the doctrine of the “pre-existent” Christ accepted by some Gnostics and ‘orthodox’ Christians. Hanson R. P. C (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 AD. Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1988)</ref> The traditional “formula which enshrines the Incarnation…is that in some sense God, without ceasing to be God, was made man…which is a prima facie [‘at first sight’ a] contradiction in theological terms…the [NT] nowhere reflects on the virgin birth of Jesus as witnessing to the conjunction of deity and manhood in His person…the deity of Jesus was not…clearly stated in words and [the book of] Acts gives no hint that it was”.<ref>New Bible Dictionary, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1975), pp. 558-560. Furthermore, scripture teaches that this is not in line with Judaic [or rabbinic] teaching, something Jesus himself adhered to [Luke 2; John 4:24; Phil 3:3-4]. Also see, Nuesner, Jacob, The Modern Study of the Mishna, 1997; & Mishne Torah.</ref> This philosophy<ref>In Platonism the soul [psuchē] was self-moving, indivisible; degenerated and eternal, existing before the body which housed it, and longing to be free from its earthly imprisonment, leading to the Docetist-dualist concept of ‘good’ & ‘evil’ matter. Ed. Note.</ref> was known by the so-called “Church Fathers” such as Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.<ref>Their own ‘heresiology’ would later be attacked as heretical. See, Holt, Reinhard, The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason, Winston N.Y., 1971), p. 382; Alastair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1996)</ref>

At its core, Gnosticism formed a speculative interest in the relationship of the oneness of God to the ‘triplicity’ of his manifestations. It seems to have taken Neoplatonic metaphysics of substance and hypostases [“being”]<ref>“Was the Lord’s prayer addressed only to the hypostasis of the Father as ‘our Father’ and the Father of the Son, or to the entire ousia of the Godhead?” Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971.</ref> as a departure point for interpreting the relationship of the “Father” to the “Son”<ref>A new theological vocabulary capable of explaining this doctrine was created [e.g. homoousios=same essence]. Adopting an idea of Origen’s that easterners would appreciate in their own Sabellianism. Hanson, Search, pp. 687-688</ref> in its attempt to define a new theology.<ref>The crisis of the later Roman Empire and move towards the east brought a “new realism” which may have inclined Christians to accept the new theological doctrine. Ed. note</ref> This would point to the infamous theological controversies by Arius<ref>Arius preached that, “before Christ, God was not yet a Father…there was when he [Jesus] was not.” Since most of his works are lost, the accounts are based on reports of others. Hanson, Search, pp. 5-8.</ref> against followers of the Greek Alexandrian school,<ref>Alexandria had long been a hotbed of theological innovation and debate where high ranking Christian thinkers used methods from Greek philosophy as well as Jewish and Christian sources for their teachings. Ed. note</ref> headed by Athanasius.<ref>Although, he took his monotheism seriously, he later taught that the only way to save mankind from moral and physical extinction was for God to do the unthinkable, descend into human flesh. Athanasius, “On the Incarnation of the World”, in Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 4, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994)</ref>

The ancient [[Nag Hammadi Library]], discovered in Egypt in the 1940s, revealed how varied this movement was. The writers of these manuscripts considered themselves ‘Christians’, but owing to their syncretistic beliefs, borrowed heavily from the Greek philosopher Plato. The find included the hotly debated Gospel of Thomas, which parallels some of Jesus’ sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. This may point to the existence of a postulated lost textual source for the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, known as the Q document.<ref>See Goodacre, Mark. The Case against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002); Robinson, James, M. The Nag Hammadi Library, HarperOne, 1990.</ref> Thus, modern debate is split between those who see Gnosticism as a pre-Christian form of ‘theosophy’<ref>The word became familiar to Greeks in the 3rd century with Ammonius Saccas and the Alexandrian Neo-Platonists [or Theurgists]: it was adopted in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky and others associated with the Theosophical Society (Blavatsky, H. P. The Secret Doctrine, the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, Theosophical Uni. Press, first published 1888)</ref> and those who see it as a post-Christian counter-movement.

NT scripture was largely unwritten, at least in the form of canon, existing in the practices, customs and teachings of the early Christian community. What largely was communicated generation to generation was an oral tradition passed from the apostles to the Bishops and from Bishops and priests to the faithful through their preaching and way of life.<ref>Its formulation coinciding with the period most strongly associated with Gnosticism [4th-6th centuries]. See, Eusebius Hist. Eccl; McDonald, L. M, The Formation of the Biblical Canon (rev. and exp, ed; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).</ref> Constantine’s call for unity in the building of the new Roman Church led to his request for Eusebius to produce some 50 copies of manuscripts. These were approved and accepted by the emperor, which later influenced the final stages of canonization.<ref>Dictionary of the Later New Testament, pp. 135-143.</ref>

The best known origin story in the NT comes in the person of [[Simon Magus]] [Acts 8:9-24]. Although little is known historically about him, his first disciple is said to have been Basilides.<ref>Basilides was one of the earliest and best-known Gnostics (Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, Intervarsity Press, 1993, pp. 350-351)</ref> Paul’s epistles to Timothy contain refutations of “false doctrine [and] myths” [1 Tim 1:3-5]. The importance placed here, as in most NT scripture, is to uphold the truth since through such knowledge God hopes for “all men” to be saved [1 Tim 2:4]. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians have much to say regarding false teachers (2 Co 11:4), “spiritualists” [pneumatikos—1 Co 2:14-15; 15:44-46] and their gnosis. They warn against the “wisdom of the wise” and their “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (1 Co 1:19; 2:5—NIV; cp. Col 2:1-10; 2:8). These are seen as the clearest texts reacting to early Gnostic trends.{fact|date=March 2010} The book of Jude also contains scripture exhorting believers to seek the true faith (Jude 3) and it is nowhere more influential than in the nature of the man, Jesus.

The writings attributed to the Apostle John contain the most significant amount of content directed at combating the progenitors of heresies.<ref>Yet, however, the author makes it clear why the gospel was written in John 20:31 Ed. Note{{Syn|date=March 2010}}</ref> Most Bible scholars agree that these were some of the last parts of the NT written and as such, can offer the most insights into a 1st century perspective.<ref>Scholarly debate lies in placing the letters between 70-90AD. & 90-110AD. (Dictionary of the Later NT & its Developments, Intervarsity Press, 1997)</ref> The writer’s repeated adherence to true knowledge (“hereby we know”—inherent in Jesus’ ministry) and nature<ref>“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being.” John 1:1. A Contemporary English Translation of the Coptic Text, late 2nd century C.E based on the texts of George William Horner. The Coptic version of the NT in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 1911.</ref> seem to challenge other speculative and opposing beliefs.

The 2nd epistle of John is only 13 verses long but puts strong emphasis on the ‘Christology’ of Jesus.<ref>The Apostle states that in light of the continual battle by Satan against God and His Christ, it is not surprising that “our gospel is veiled…, the god of this world” blinding people, as also in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (NRSV)</ref> From its context we see{{Syn|date=March 2010}}{{Or|date=March 2010}} the importance placed on “knowing…walking” and loving the truth (v. 1-4), on the humanity of the man Jesus (v. 7-11) and adherence to “teaching [the doctrine] of Christ” [cp. John 7:14-18]. These point to false teachers who claimed to bring some higher teaching than what the apostles taught.<ref>It is not surprising to see{{Syn|date=March 2010}} that John is in harmony with Paul’s own teachings regarding the “true doctrine” in his pastoral letters (cp. 1 Tim 6:3-4; 2 Co 11:4). Ed. Note.{{Self-published inline|date=March 2010}}</ref>

From the evidence at hand, it seems that{{Syn|date=March 2010}} early Christian apologists used their biblical faith to teach a pagan audience how best to adopt the new religion. (They were) Wrapping their understanding of scripture and worldly wisdom in the process and taking their lead from such Jewish apologists like Philo of Alexandria.{{Syn|date=March 2010}} Whether even without Philo the ‘Fathers of the Church’ would have attempted to harmonize scripture and philosophy is a plausible assumption.{{Syn|date=March 2010}}{{Or|date=March 2010}} Whether the result of their harmonization would have been the same as it is now is a matter of conjecture. But it happens that Philo came before them and it also happens that all kinds of evidence show the influence of Philo upon them.<ref>H. A. Wolfson, ‘Notes on Patristic Philosophy’, Harvard Theological Review 57, no. 2 [Apr. 1964] p. 124.</ref>

It is hard to sift through what actual evidence there is regarding Gnosticism in the NT due to their historical synchronicity. The Hammadi library find contains Pagan, Jewish, Greek and early Gnostic influences,<ref>“Both pagan mythologies and Platonic philosophical traditions…extensive use of the early chapters of Genesis…the obvious centrality of Jesus Christ [and apostolic figures] in many texts.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament, p 410</ref> further reinforcing the need to tread lightly. The antiquity of the find being of utmost importance since it shows primary evidence of texts that may also have influenced the process of NT canonization.<ref>See Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002); Lindberg, Carter (2006) A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing</ref>

If any conclusion is to be made at this point it is that Gnosticism was considered a real enough threat by the apostles themselves, showing us how early it started to infiltrate the Church, through which several of its undercurrents were to strongly influence later ‘orthodox’ doctrine.{{Syn|date=March 2010}}<ref>The Council at Nicaea [325 AD] went on to condemn “those who say…that He [Jesus] came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these, the Catholic Church and apostolic Church anathematizes”. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, pp. 215-216. Kelly translates ousia as “substance” here, and the creed as recited today translates homoousios as “consubstantial”—of the same substance.</ref><ref>Works Cited
I.Alastair, H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1996)
II.Bewkes, E. G. The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, N.Y., 1960).
III.Blavatsky, H. P. The Secret Doctrine, the synthesis of science, religion, and philosophy, Theosophical Uni. Press, first published 1888.
IV.Cooper, John M. & Hutchinson, D. S. (Eds.) Introduction to Politikos, 1997.
V.Danielou, Jean. The Origin of Latin Christianity (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1977).
VI.Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, Intervarsity Press, 1993.
VII.Dictionary of the Later New Testament & its Developments, Intervarsity Press, 1997.
VIII.Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 AD. Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1988.
IX.Holt, Reinhard. The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason, Winston N.Y., 1971.
X.Horner, G. W. The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 1911.
XI.New Bible Dictionary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1975.
XII.Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971.
XIII.Phillip, Schaff & Wace, Henry eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 4, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).
XIV.Selwyn, E. G. ‘Image, Fact and Faith’, NTS 1 no. 4 (May 1955).
XV.Wolfson, H. A. ‘Notes on Patristic Philosophy’, Harvard Theological Review 57, no. 2 (Apr. 1964) & the Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Harvard Uni. Press, Publishing, PA. 1976).</ref>
==Trinitarian Christianity and pneumatology with regards to Christian mysticism and Evangelicalism==

[[Evangelical]] Christianity embraces [[Trinitarian]] Christianity whereas the theology of [[Christian mysticism]] tends to disagree with it.

In [[Christian theology]] [[pneumatology]] refers to the study of the Holy Spirit. Although both [[Evangelical mysticism]] and [[Christian mysticism]] consider their mystical experiences to be from the [[Holy Spirit]], their understanding of who (or what) the [[Holy Spirit]] is, is different.

In contrast with [[Christian mysticism]], [[Evangelical mysticism]] embraces mainstream Christian theology with regards to the Divine functions of the [[Holy Spirit]].

{{Main|Holy Spirit}}

The Holy Spirit is believed to perform specific divine functions in the life of the Christian or the church. These include:
*'''Conviction of [[sin]]'''. The Holy Spirit acts to convince the unredeemed person both of the sinfulness of their actions, and of their moral standing as sinners before God.<ref>''The Holy Spirit and His Gifts''. [[J. Oswald Sanders]]. Inter-Varsity Press. chapter 5.</ref>
*'''Bringing to conversion'''. The action of the Holy Spirit is seen as an essential part of the bringing of the person to the Christian faith.<ref name=Erickson265>{{cite book| author = Millard J. Erickson| year = 1992| title = Introducing Christian Doctrine.| publisher = Baker Book House| pages = 265–270}}</ref> The new believer is "born again of the Spirit".<ref>Though the term "[[Born again (Christianity)|born again]]" is most frequently used by evangelical Christians, most denominations do consider that the new Christian is a "new creation" and "born again". See for example the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm]</ref>
*'''Enabling the Christian life'''. The Holy Spirit is believed to dwell in the individual believers and enable them to live a righteous and faithful life.<ref name=Erickson265/>
* As a '''comforter''' or ''[[Paraclete]]'', one who intercedes, or supports or acts as an advocate, particularly in times of trial.
*'''Inspiration and interpretation of scripture.''' The Holy Spirit both ''inspires'' the writing of the scriptures and ''interprets'' them to the Christian and/or church.<ref>{{cite book| author = T C Hammond| coauthors = Revised and edited by David F Wright| year = 1968| title = In Understanding be Men:A Handbook of Christian Doctrine.| edition= sixth| publisher = [[Inter-Varsity Press]]| page = 134}}</ref>

==Christianity and the philosophies of Monism and Panentheism==

{{Main|Monism}}

[[Monism]] is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions. [[Hinduism]] is considered to be primary proponent of [[Monism]].

The philosophy of [[Christian mysticism]] is often inclined to support a similar worldview.

Christianity however strongly maintains the Creator-creature distinction as fundamental. Most Christians maintain that God created the universe ex nihilo and not from himself, nor within himself, so that the creator is not to be confused with creation, but rather transcends it (metaphysical dualism)(cf. Genesis). Even the more immanent concepts and theologies are to be defined together with God's omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, due to God's desire for intimate contact with his own creation (cf. Acts 17:27) Another use of the term "monism" is in [[Christian anthropology]] to refer to the innate nature of humankind as being holistic, as usually opposed to bipartite and tripartite views.

While the Christian view of reality is [[dualistic]] (in regard to metaphysics) in that it holds to the Creator's transcendence of creation, it rejects other types of dualism (or pluralism) such as the idea that God must compete with other equal powers such as Satan (cf Gospel of John 14:30). In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine argued, in the context of the [[problem of evil]], that evil is not the opposite of good, but rather merely the absence of good, something that does not have existence in itself. Likewise, [[C. S. Lewis]] described evil as a "parasite" in [[Mere Christianity]], as he viewed evil as something that cannot exist without good to provide it with existence. Lewis went on to argue against dualism from the basis of moral absolutism, and rejected the dualistic notion that God and Satan are opposites, arguing instead that God has no equal, hence no opposite. Lewis rather viewed Satan as the opposite of Michael the archangel.

This position neglects monists such as Paul Tillich. Since God is He "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Book of Acts 17.28), it follows that everything that has being partakes in God. [[Dualism]] with regard to God and creation also barred the possibility of a mystical union with God, as John Calvin rejected[citation needed], according to Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Such a dualism also leads to the problematic position of positing God as a particular being the existence of which can be argued for or against, failing to recognize God as the ground and origin of being itself, as in Acts 17, or in the Hashem, YHWH, meaning "He causes to come into being." Such a view was called by Tillich panentheism: God is in all things, neither identical to, nor totally separate from, all things. This understanding would be further supported by that understanding of the proclamation of the kingdom of God, in which it is proclaimed "on earth as it is in heaven." (Gospel of Matthew 6:10) Such an understanding of the kingdom implies a new reality in which old dichotomies between, for example, the sacred and the profane, the temporal and the eternal, body and soul, absolutism and relativism, are overcome.[citation needed] All things are filled with God's Spirit (Epistle to the Romans 8:11), so that in this new creation God is "all in all" (I Corinthians 15.28; Ephesians 1.23).

See also : [[Panentheism]]

==Mystical Practices==
A variety of mystical practices exists, both in [[Christian mysticism]] as well as [[Evangelical mysticism]], although the way it is practiced shows differences.
Such practices includes:
* [[Christian meditation]]
* [[Quietism (Christian philosophy)]]
* [[Hesychasm]]
* [[Slain in the Spirit]] (More associated with Evangelical mysticism)
* [[Religious ecstasy]]
* [[Fasting]]
* [[Contemplative prayer]]
* [[Soaking music|Soaking Prayer]] (More associated with Evangelical mysticism)
<ref>Note: Mainstream [[Evangelical mysticism]] does not consider angels to be "spiritual guides" or "friends" but rather messengers and servants of God. Prophetess Isabel Allum for example, whenever she gets messages from the same angels too many times, has been known to ask God to change the angel, as her focus she wants always to be on Jesus Christ and not on a particular angel. Within mainstream Evangelical mysticism much emphasis is placed upon safeguards against deception, during supernatural encounters or experiences. With regards to Religious ecstasy: There are such considerable differences in the kind of religious ecstacies experienced that it is questionable whether the two streams of experiences could even be grouped under the same name here. Emphasis on the holiness of God is central in [[Evangelicalism]]. Refer also to the section in this article on Terminology used.</ref>

===Different Terminology used===

Terminology used by those practicing [[Christian mysticism]] is comparable to that of [[Theosophy]], with regards to the kind of [[illuminism]] received.

Terminology used by [[Evangelical mysticism]], due to it's closer association with fundamentalism, is more inclined to correspond with Scriptural references. Terminology often used by those associated with Evangelical mysticism who testifies of having had encounters with God, is for example "living under an [[open heaven]]",<ref>[http://www.openheaven.com/articles/kingdom_revival/ Open heaven]</ref><ref>[http://www.kjvbible.org/firmament.html The Firmament, Third Heaven, and Structure of Things Biblical]</ref> "entering the [[Glory realm]]", "being in the [[Throne Room]]",<ref>[http://www.tasteheavennow.net/come_drink/reasons_to_enter.htm Reasons to Enter the Throne Room and Stay Near to God by Barry Hall]"</ref> "the [[Mercy seat]]", "going through [[the veil]]" by the blood of Jesus, "experiencing the [[Shekinah glory]]" and being "caught up in the [[third heaven]]". This terminology and experiences are distinctly different from those claimed by Christian mysticism, as a subset of [[mysticism]] and [[gnosticism]].

Terms such as [[Waiting on God]], [[Walking with God]], the [[Presence of God]] and the [[Glory of God]] for which scriptural support can be found, is likely to be used by those embracing [[Evangelical mysticism]], whereas terms such as [[Quietism]] is more popular within [[Christian mysticism]].

Some arguments have also been made to differentiate between biblical NT [[Prophecy]] and the practices of [[Channeling]] and [[Fortune telling]] as supported by [[Theosophy]]. The two streams also support different teachings with regards to [[Angels]] and Angelic visitations. [[Dream interpretation]] of [[Evangelical mysticism]] tend to be more based on Scriptural support, so also the associations with different numbers, when compared to the [[numerology]] supported by [[Theosophy]]. The [[Holy Spirit]] and His working are interpreted differently by the two streams, and [[meditation]] practices also differs. [[Holy Laughter]], being [[slain in the Spirit]] and [[Speaking in tongues]] are typically associated with the working of the Holy Spirit within [[Evangelical mysticism]], although safeguards against deception is emphasised and practising spiritual discernment to identify always the spirit working behind these manifestations.

The [[Laying on of hands]] are recognized in Evangelical circles as a channel of [[spiritual impartation]], but in many churches only members of a ministry team is permitted to do such impartations, as to restrict [[Demonic]] impartation to come to innocent recipients.

One of the prominent "enemies" of those embracing [[Evangelical mysticism]] is considered to be the [[Queen of heaven]] (Jeremiah 7:18). This spiritual enemy is perceived to want to quench the working of the [[Holy Spirit]], in many deceptive and manipulative ways and to always want to try to work itself within Christian gatherings. <ref>Weapons of [[Spiritual warfare]] are considered many, and may include the [[Shofar]], prayer, and fasting as the [[Holy Spirit]] directs.</ref>
The [[Kundalini]] had been labeled by some Evangelicals as the "false Holy Spirit".

<ref>Some Evangelicals make claims of the supernatural appearance of [[Gold dust]] on their hands or their bibles, [[Angel feathers]] appearing, supernatural oil appearing from the walls, on their hands or on their bibles with the smell of [[Spikenard|Nard oil]]. Testimonies of [[Creative miracles]], the supernatural appearance of rubies, diamonds and other gems, as well as supernatural [[spiritual transportation]] to other places (such as with Phillip in the book of Acts) are given. Some Evangelical mystics claim these things to be witnessed during meetings and others testify that it happened spontaneously at home. Visitations to heaven, and supernatural weight loss, or supernatural multiplications (such as with Jesus when the bread was multiplied), forms also part of some of these testimonies.</ref> <ref>Amoung Evangelicals, all forms of [[occult]]ism is strictly condemned as [[demonic]] and [[Luciferianism|Luciferian]], and considered evil and wicked even if it has an appearance of good (for example magic used "to help people" (white magic)). All forms of [[divinations]] and witchcraft is associated with the [[occult]]. As God is considered Holy in these circles, His biblical instructions to Christians also to be holy, is interpreted to be seperated from all forms of [[occultism]]. The battle is not here between what is considered "good" or "evil" from a human perspective, but rather between what is holy and what is considered unholy(defiled) as per God's definitions. Therefore [[humanism]] and Christianity is not similar concepts. See also main article on the occult.</ref>

==The teaching of Universalism and reincarnation==

Prominent Christian mystics, such as [[Emanuel Swedenborg]], founder of [[Swedenborgianism]] and [[Jakob Lorber]] were strong supporters of [[Universalism]] in their teachings. They believed that not only all people, but also all spirit beings, will eventually be redeemed, in line with [[apocatastasis]].

According to [[Pierre Batiffol]]'s article in the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]] 1907:
::"Apocatastasis [is] A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls."<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia, Apocatastasis] retrieved September 22, 2006</ref>

There has been a number of prominent and influential Church Fathers and Church leaders throughout Christian history who have held to the belief of [[Universal Reconciliation]] in and through [[Jesus Christ]]. Though disagreement has arisen on the basis of subjectivity of interpretation of their beliefs, many have expressed in writing and witness accounts, the hope of Universal Reconciliation at some time in their religious lives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.html|title=Universalist Thought Through Church History|accessdate=2008-04-11}}</ref>

Universalism was brought to the American colonies in the early eighteenth century by the English-born physician [[George de Benneville]], attracted by Pennsylvania's Quaker tolerance. North American universalism was active and organized. This was seen as a threat by the orthodox, [[Calvinist]] Congregationalists of New England such as [[Jonathan Edwards (theologian)|Jonathan Edwards]], who wrote prolifically against universalist teachings and preachers.<ref>Seymour, Charles. ''A Theodicy of Hell''. Pp. 30-31. Springer (2000). ISBN 0792363647.</ref> [[John Murray (minister)|John Murray]] (1741–1815)<ref>Thomas Brown ''A History of the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation''</ref> and [[Elhanan Winchester]] (1751–1797) are usually credited as founders of the modern Universalist movement and founding teachers of universal salvation.<ref>
Catherine L. Albanese ''A republic of mind and spirit: a cultural history of American metaphysical ''</ref>

Early American Universalists such as [[Elhanan Winchester]] continued to preach the punishment of souls prior to eventual salvation.

The differentiation made however between the [[Universalism]] taught by [[Evangelical]] Christians such as [[Elhanan Winchester]] and the more liberal [[Universalism]] taught by many Christian mystics, lies however in the gospel of [[redemption]] that is being taught. [[Evangelical]] Universalists still proclaim that it is only through the [[atonement]] brought by the blood of Jesus that salvation is possible, regardless of the [[aeon]] of time a spirit finds himself in.

[[Universalism]] is thus not a teaching strictly associated only to Christian mysticism and other mysticms, but also has an audience within the [[evangelical]] faith movement. Evangelical [[Universalists]] are however more inclined to support an end time theology that leans towards [[preterism]] rather than futurism.

Christian mystics such as [[Emanuel Swedenborg]], [[Jakob Lorber]] and [[Leopold Engel]] also taught [[reincarnation]] in line with the teachings of the [[New Age Movement]]. These teachings are however rejected by mainstream Christianity, even by [[Evangelical]] Universalists.

==Emphasis on safeguard against deception==

Another difference between [[Christian mysticism]] and [[Evangelical mysticism]] is the strong emphasis placed by Evangelicals to safeguard against deception, which is less prominent in Christian mysticism teachings. Christian mysticism, as being part of a more liberal stream of Christianity, leans stronger towards the philosophy [[Progressive Christianity]] in respecting that everybody has their "own truth".

Evangelic Christian mystic, Mark Virkler, in his book "[[Dialogue with God]]" gives the following advise to safeguard Christians against deception.

{{quotation|"When we listen to hear the voice of the Spirit of Almighty God, we could conceivably get it mixid up with the voice of Satan or the voice of our own heart's desires. If that happened and we acted on it, it could bring real destruction into our lives. Therefore, God has given us several safeguards in Scripture to protect us.

Probably the greatest safeguard we have for the spiritual journey is the Word of God. A good knowledge of the Scriptures can save us from many errors and heartaches. At our Bible School, we require a certain level of biblical study as a prerequisite to this teaching on dialoguing with God.}}

{{quotation|There are two basic ways in which the Scripture can help and protect us. First, every revelation must be tested against the written Word of God. If the revelation violates either the letter of the Word or the spirit of the Word, it is to be rejected immediately. There is no place for rationalizing, twisting or explaining away the truth of the Bible. There can be no strange, personal interpretations of some obscure verse. The Word of the Lord will stand forever, and any word to us from God will be in total agreement with both the letter and the spirit of the Eternal Word.

We must not only test God's voice in our hearts against the Bible but see any revelation as built upon the Scriptures. The Lord told Joshua to meditate upon, confess, and act upon the law of God day and night so that He could give him success. If I have filled my mind and heart with the Bible, the Holy Spirit will draw forth the precise verses, stories or principles I need in a given situation. The spontaneous flow of illuminated Scripture will bring wisdom and insight far greater than my own mind could deliver if only I will pause and allow myself to be dependent on God.

The second important scriptural safeguard from error and harm is a humble, teachable spirit. So often the ones who claim to hear from the Lord are arrogant and self-righteous. Their attitude is, "God told me and that's all there is to it". But God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Such an arrogant spirit will eventually cause them to fall into deception. All revelation should be tested. God does not speak to us so that we may lord it over anyone else. Rather, we ought to be known as the meekest of men.

We are a part of the body of Christ. The full revelation of Jesus does not reside in us individually but only as we come together as a body." <ref name="God, Mark 1986">Dialogue with God, Mark & Patti Virkler, 1986, Bridge-Logos Publishers., ISBN 0-88270-/20-9</ref>}}

== Communication with God ==

With regards to the topic of Communication with God, distinct differences between [[Christian mysticism]] and [[Evangelical mysticism]] also exist.

The book [[Conversations with God]] (CwG) could be considered an example of the general category of [[mysticism]], with teachings that aligns closely to that of [[mystical theology]].
The book [[Dialogue with God]] could be considered a good example of [[Evangelical mysticism]], promoting the [[theology]] of Evangelicals.

===Conversations with God as a possible example of Christian mysticism===

{{Main|Conversations with God}}

[[Conversations with God]] (CwG) is a sequence of books written by [[Neale Donald Walsch]], written as a dialogue in which Walsch asks questions and [[God]] answers.<ref>{{cite book|last=Walsch|first=Neale Donald|authorlink=Neale Donald Walsch|title=Conversations with God|origyear=1995|format=Paperback|isbn=0399142789}}</ref> The book places a strong emphasis on the message that "We are all One".

Fundamental parts of Walsch's writings are also mirrored within other well known spiritual writings and traditions:

* Souls reincarnate to eventually experience God-realization ([Hinduism]/' '[[Bhagavad-Gita]]''/[[Sikhism]]).
* Feelings are more important as a source of guidance than intellect ([[Rousseau]]).
* We are not here to learn anything new but to remember what we already know ([[Hinduism]]/[[Plato]]).
* Physical reality is an illusion ([[Hinduism]]/ Sikhism/[[Buddhism]]'s concept of ''[[Maya (illusion)|maya]]'').
* One cannot understand one thing unless he or she understands its opposite ([[Tao Te Ching]]).
* God is everything. ([[Hinduism]] / [[Spinoza]] / [[Brahman]])
* God is self-experiential, in that it is the nature of the Universe to experience itself. ([[Hinduism]]/[[Hegel]], and process theology as first outlined by [[Alfred North Whitehead]])
* God is not fear-inducing or vengeful, only our parental projections onto God are. Fear or love are the two basic alternative perspectives on life ([[Drewermann]])
* Good and evil do not exist (as absolutes, but can exist in a different context and for different reasons as [[Nietzsche]]).
* Reality is a representation created by will. ([[Schopenhauer]])
* Nobody knowingly desires evil. ([[Socrates]])
* It's just a ride. ([[Bill Hicks]])

===Dialogue with God as a possible example of Evangelical mysticism===

The book [[Dialogue with God]] is written by Mark & Patti Virkler encouraging personal two-way communication between the Christian and God.

The book starts of with a brief description of Mark's years struggle to hear and recognize the voice of God and how he finally broke through.

In the beginning of the book, the author gives advise to safeguard a believer against deception. This include testing all revelations against the written Word of God and the spirit of the Word of God, as God would never speak against what He revealed in the Bible. Further it includes advise to keep humble, as pride opens a door to deception in a believer's life. Mark emphasises the importance to keep connected to the rest of the body of Christ, and to have accountability relationships as another safeguard against deception.

He then continues his book by explaining through examples in Scripture how two way communication with His children is the desire of God's heart.

He describes how for a long time he viewed a leisurely stroll in a garden in the cool of the day as essentially a waste of time and how he wanted to be producing something. He felt that he didn't have time to spare for such unnecessary extras and explains how the Lord began gently and lovingly teaching him that a leisurely stroll and sharing love with someone are not unnecessary extras but are the culmination of His purposes."
Mark discusses four keys that is important in communion with God.

1st Key is that God's voice in our hearts sounds like a flow of spontaneous thoughts

2nd Key is to learn to still one's own thoughts and emotions in order to sense God's flow of thoughts and emotions within me.

3rd Key is to fix the eyes of your heart upon Jesus, seeing in the spirit the visions and the dreams from God.

4th Key is to write out prayers and God's answers.

He elaborates on each key, give biblical examples, describes how prayer is being caught in the flow of God, and gives advise to overcome blocks and problems to hearing God's voice.<ref name="God, Mark 1986"/>

The Virklers have received harsh criticism in Christian circles from those Christians who are strongly opposed to mysticism of any kind.
In [http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/tenrsn0.html response to critics], Mark and Patti Virkler have written another book titled “Am I being Deceived?” It marks the distinctions between New Agers, Christians, and modern day Pharisees. They write, “Pharisees do not seek ongoing, direct contact with the Living God, and call those who do seek and experience such, either New Agers or demonized.”.<ref>Virkler, Mark & Patti Am I Being Deceived? (Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos Publisher, 2001), p. 45</ref>

==Jesuit conspiracy theories : concern with regards to Christian mysticism==
As per the [[Evangelical]] supporters of the Jesuit conspiracy theories, Christian [[mysticism]] and [[gnosticism]] influences that entered the church, is part of a satanic plot of the [[Illuminati]] and [[Freemasonary]] to introduce another kind of [[enlightenment (spiritual)|enlightenment]] which is [[Luciferian]] in nature and not enlightenment from Jesus Christ. ''Christian mysticism'' according to them, is just another form of mysticism and is totally removed from the fundamentals of biblical Christianity.<ref>[http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_illuminati.htm#Additional_Information Illuminati - Order of The Illumined Wise Men]</ref>
[[St. John of the Cross]], a well know Christian mystic, who wrote [[dark night of the soul]] also promoted the teachings of the [[Society of Jesus]] (Jesuits). He studied the humanities at a Society of Jesus (Jesuit) school from 1559 to 1563.<ref>[http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican19.htm The Jesuits - Los Jesuitas]</ref>

Supporters of the Jesuit conspiracy theory point out that the founder of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius Loyola, belonged to a the [[Illuminati]], in his native tongue called "The Los Alumbrados".<ref name="Encyclopedia Brittanica 1910, pg. 320">Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 14, 1910, pg. 320</ref>

Many prominent religious leaders can be found in the long [[list of Jesuits]]

The ancient name for Babylonian Mysticism (or finding ways to get in touch with "The One"), was called [[Illuminism]]. The Babylonians who were initiated into the mystery religion were said to be in possession of [[Light (theology)|Illumination]] or "the inner light". Supposedly, this meant they had been [[Enlightenment (spiritual)|enlightened]] or became aware of the fact that they were gods.<ref name="Encyclopedia Brittanica 1910, pg. 320"/>

The American Peoples Encyclopedia describes the Illuminati as a "certain group of mystics who claimed that they were able to receive spiritual illumination through the cultivation of an inner light."
It is also explain that "the movement was based on a [[Freemasonary|Masonic]] plan of organization and had a close relationship with the Masonic order."<ref>The American Peoples Encyclopedia, Book 10, 1964, Published by Grolier Inc, N.Y. 64-10465, Page 151</ref>

<ref>Supporters of the [[Jesuit conspiracy theories]] also mentions [[occultist]] [[Leopold Engel]] who actively promoted the teachings of Christian mysticism by writing the final book in the series the [[Great Gospel of John]] and also revived the [[Illuminati]] in Germany with [[Theodor Reuss]]. Engel and Christian mystic [[Jakob Lorber]] worked together on this series of books in the 18th century. Source: [http://www.mastermason.com/luxocculta/reuss.htm Theodor Reuss: Irregular Freemasonry in Germany, 1900-23 by [[Ellic Howe]] and Helmut Moller (Göttingen)]</ref>

{{See also|Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path}}
<ref>For an [[Evangelical]] perspective on these two paths see: [http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread609755/pg1 The Satanic tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil]</ref>

==Distinguishing between Eros spirituality vs Agape faith==

Distinctions between mysticism streams can also be made based on the two distinct groups identified by David Wells. <ref>Within [[Evangelical mysticism]] circles there remains a constant emphasis to "sift" out anything that draws the believer away from "resting in God". Emphasis is placed on the labour required in the NT, being the labour to go into rest. Any striving from the flesh is considered to hinder, rather than help. From the place of rest, a believer is then required to work, as a co-worker with Christ.</ref>

According to David Wells, the type of mystic Christian spirituality that became increasingly popular in this postmodern age, is distinctly different from "Agape faith". The following quote is extracted from his book
''Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a [[Postmodernism|Postmodern]] World'':
<ref>See also [http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar45.htm Postmodernism & Sacred Scripture : Opportunities for Clarity on the Question of Christ & Culture by Dean O. Wenthe]</ref>

{{quotation|"The casual embrace of what is postmodern has increasingly led to an embrace of its spiritual yearning without noticing that this embrace carries within it the seeds of destruction for evangelical faith. The contrast between biblical faith and this contemporary spirituality is that between two entirely different ways of looking at life and at God. Nygren, some years ago, used the Greek words for two different kinds of love, Eros and Agape.

The movement of Eros spirituality is upward. Its essence, its drive, is the sinner finding God. The movement of Agape, by contrast, is downward. It is all about God finding the sinner. Eros spirituality is the kind of spirituality which arises from human nature and it builds on the presumption that it can forge its own salvation. Agape arises in God, was incarnate in Christ, and reaches us through the work of the Holy Spirit opening lives to receive the gospel of Christ’s saving death.

In this understanding, salvation is given and never forged or manufactured. Eros is the projection of the human spirit into eternity, the immortalizing of its own impulses. Agape is the intrusion of eternity into life coming, not from below, but from above. Eros is human love. Agape is divine love. Human love of this kind, because it has need and want at its center, because it is always wanting to have its needs and wants satisfied, will always seek to control the object of its desires. That is why in these new spiritualities it is the spiritual person who makes up his or her beliefs and practices, mixing and matching and experimenting to see what works best, and assuming the prerogative to discard at will. The sacred is therefore loved for what can be had from loving it. The sacred is pursued because it has value to the pursuer and that value is measured in terms of the therapeutic payoff. There is, therefore, always a profit-and-loss mentality to these spiritualities.

By contrast, in Agape faith, God is not loved simply for the benefits that flow from that loving such as the forgiveness of sins. He is loved for what he is in himself. If Eros loves the sacred because it is worth doing, Agape, by contrast, loves God without ulterior motives. Agape surrenders; Eros grasps. Agape loves simply and only because it should, because God is most lovable."
<ref name="reformationtheology.com"/>}}

A similar distinction has been made, differentiating between those that are drawn, and those that are driven:
{{quotation|“Genuine leaders operate out of a sense of calling, not a sense of drivenness. The writer George MacDonald has said somewhere that real Christian leaders are people who are moved at God’s pace and in God’s time to God’s place, not because they fancy themselves there, but because they are drawn." <ref>Quote from "Waiting on God",Steve Wright, Leighton Ford in Transforming Leadership, 37</ref>).}}

See also :[[Brother Lawrence]] and [[The Practice of the Presence of God]].

<ref>The worldview encouraged in [[Christian mysticism]] and [[Progressive Christianity]], is considered to have a greater tolerance towards people of different beliefs, in the name of "Christian love", to respect other individuals in having their "own truths" and to find for themselves their "own truths", aiding them to connect with "the One" or "God" or "Source" in a way that they feel comfortable with. This is typically considered as the ideal. Disciplines that promises to produce a greater measure of spirituality or supernatural encounters are encouraged. The worldview with regards to mainstream [[Evangelical mysticism]] tends contains a desire to want to walk with God in yieldedness and surrender to Him and childlike trust in Him. God is considered Holy, therefore tolerance towards what is not Holy is not encouraged, but rather a life of holiness (separated unto God). Abiding in the Vine (Jesus) as a branch (as per biblical teaching), living a life lead by the Spirit, embracing by faith their new identity "in Christ", and not living from the [[tree of knowledge]] of good and evil, is considered the ideal. Waiting on God and making room for the Holy Spirit to move freely and to take control, while testing everything always against the Scripture, may or may not produce supernatural encounters in the physical realm, but the Presence of God is what is loved and desired. A lifestyle of worship and thanksgiving, obedience and humility, trust and yieldedness, and sensitivity towards the Holy Spirit, in the believers life, is believed to cultivates an atmosphere where the Presence of God is manifested more . Labour to go into the rest of God is encouraged, but this rest is not necessarily associated with passivity but rather with childlike trust in God. It is believed that in the Presence of God, miracles happens and lives are transformed. This worldview affects every aspect of the person's life that embraces [[Evangelical mysticism]]. Within Evangelical mysticism however, there are different streams (see introduction section of this article).</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Christian meditation]]
* [[Hesychasm]]
* [[Quietism (Christian philosophy)]]
* [[Soaking music]]
* [[Slain in the Spirit]]
* [[Altered state of consciousness]]
* [[Contemplative prayer]]
* [[Christian mysticism, Theosophy and Freemasonary]]
* [[Holy Spirit]]
* [[Christian anthropology]]
* [[Trinitarianism]]

* [[Evangelicalism]]
* [[Soteriology]]
* [[Evangelical Mysticism]]
* [[Evangelical Christianity]]
* [[Pauline Christianity]]
* [[John Westley]]
* [[A.W. Tozer]]
* [[Higher Life movement]]
* [[Oswald Chambers]]
* [[Fundamentalism]]
* [[Conservative Christianity]]
* [[Pauline mysticism]]
* [[Albert Schweitzer]]
* [[Early Christianity]]
* [[Brother Lawrence]]
* [[The Practice of the Presence of God]].
* [[Waiting on God]]
* [[Walking with God]]
* [[Shekinah glory]]

* [[Christian Mysticism]]
* [[Monism]]
* [[Gnosticism]]
* [[Problem of evil]]
* [[Neoplatonism and Christianity]]
* [[Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity]]
* [[Behmenism]]
* [[Christian Kabbalah]]
* [[Esoteric Christianity]]
* [[German mysticism]]
* [[Mystical theology]]
* [[Mysticism]] - a discussion of the mystical elements of [[Christianity]] along with many other non-Christian religions
* [[Spanish mystics]]
* [[Starets]]
* [[Neoplatonism and Christianity]]
* [[Open theism]]
* [[Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity]]
* [[Gnosticism in modern times]]
* [[Soteriology]]
* [[Christian Soteriology]]
* [[Universal reconciliation]]
* [[Progressive Christianity]]
* [[Postmodernism]]
* [[New religious movement]]
* [[Panentheism]]
* [[Theosophy]]
* [[Swedenborgianism]]
* [[Great Gospel of John]]
* [[Queen of heaven]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Seven rays]]
* [[Gnosticism in modern times]]
* [[Christianity and Freemasonry]]
* [[Swedenborg Rite]]
* [[Charles Webster Leadbeater]]
* [[Helena Blavatsky]]
* [[Steven Knight]]
* [[Illuminism]]

* [[Jesuit conspiracy theories]]
* [[Leopold Engel]]
* [[List of Jesuits]]
* [[Luciferianism]]

== Notes and references ==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Christian Mysticism}}
[[Category:Christian mysticism| ]]
[[Category:Christian prayer]]
[[Category:Hesychasm]]

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-22T14:01:41Z

68.160.132.4: /* Summary Diagnosis */ Alison Cassidy writes: "Wikipedia is like some evil cult. Once you're initiated in the inner workings, they never let you leave alive."

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

*''On the occasion of her 4th Anniversary of becoming an Admin on Wikipedia, Alison Cassidy writes: "Wikipedia is like some evil cult. Once you're initiated in the inner workings, they ''never'' let you leave alive."''

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Cluster_B Cluster B] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===
 

'''The Tin Badge Bungaleers''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Dar Kama''', Novice Banhammer Operator

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

:'''Monotony''', Deuteronomic BlockHead

:'''Marshmelos''', Tertiary BlockHead

'''The Commissioners of Cover-Up''' are played by:

:'''DarkoDrekko''', Facepalm Operator

:'''Fr33KoolAide''', Funkadoodle of Dysfunctionality

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== KC's Comedy of Terrors ==

Hillgentleman asks, "What's going on? Where did it all start?"

Here is Moulton's reply to him:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>

Hi Hillgentleman, 
 
It's a Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah" (OR ELSE!). 
 
It all started on 9/11 2007 when Tracy Walker (KillerChihuahua of IDCab) blocked Moulton on the English Wikipedia based on a ludicrous and specious trumped up charge. 
 
You will recall the story continuing in the summer of 2008, when, in the course of crafting a resource on Managerial Ethics, you requested we include live examples of departures from Ethical Best Practices. My example was my encounter with IDCab. You may recall that the dominant IDCab gang leaders, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. then invaded en.wv to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics and redact the case studies that exposed their perfidy. Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) registered on en.wv as Centaur of attention. He also dispatched Joshua Kramer as Salmon of Doubt to play the role of Moriarity to Moulton's Sherlock, so that both of them would lock embraces at Reichenbach Falls and go over the brink together. 
 
Their gambit failed. Centaur of Attention was blocked (by Emesee). So the hostile invaders from IDCab summoned Jimbo Wales to block Moulton and to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics, on threat of shutting down Wikiversity altogether. Jimbo's unprecedented intervention polarized and sundered the community. Here, for example, is [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Unanswered_Questions_and_Unfinished_Threads your protest against Wales]. 
 
Time passes, and eventually the English Wikiversity decides Jimbo is way out of bounds, and (with some trepidation) they grudgingly readmit Moulton, who resumes his long-delayed quest for Restorative Justice. Against his better judgment, SBJ convenes a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton Truth and Reconciliation Mediation] between Moulton and KillerChihuahua, which [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton#Comment_on_development_of_this_mediation fails miserably] and greatly annoys Tracy Walker (the operator of the KillerChihuahua character). [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Darklama then blocks Moulton] for annoying Tracy, who considers a review of her perfidy on Wikipedia to be an egregious invasion of her privacy. For good measure, Darklama also blocks JWSchmidt for transgressing his "Obey Mah Authoritah" edict in a scene reminiscent of Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD. 
 
JWS and Moulton then retire to beta.wikiversity to lick their wounds and to document this latest travesty. In the meantime, SBJ and his misfit band of followers on the English Wikiversity begin a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=717041#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws program of character assassination] against Moulton, who is no longer there to defend himself. Moulton publishes [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 direct evidence] on the beta talk page of JWS to refute the tortious remarks leveled against him on SBJ's talk page on en.wv. Anticipating a repeat of the previous hostile takeover, JWS defensively blocks SBJ and Darklama on beta.wv. SBJ then runs to the WMF Stewards IRC channel to request oversight of Moulton's damnable evidence. On the Ides of March, in a zany circus reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, half a dozen stewards invade beta.wv to balete the evidence impeaching SBJ's tortious remarks against Moulton. Eventually, the stewards block both Moulton and JWS, along with 300,000 IPs in Greater Boston (plus the entire IPv6 network, worldwide). Doubleplusungood, they do an emergency emasculation of JWS, stripping him of his authority on beta.wv. Most of the action is on the beta.wv talk page of JWS, with additional action on the talk pages of the invading horde of stewards. 
 
In a [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/IdesOfMarch.IRC.html sequence of discussions on IRC], the stewards defend their intervention and refuse to correct their comedic cascade of compound errors, suggesting instead that JWS and Moulton take the story to higher authorities at WMF. 
 
Our proposal is to submit the story to Ting Chen, Kat Walsh, and Phillipe Beaudette, with copies to Samuel Klein, Sue Gardner, and NewYorkBrad, and also to publish it openly as a trenchant diagnostic commentary on the [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/03/slime-and-punishment.html Dostoevskian dysfunctionality] of WMF-sponsored projects. 
 
Our working title is "KC's Comedy of Terrors: Erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, 'Obey Mah Authoritah!' (OR ELSE!)." 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>

—Firelion 12:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Theme songs ==

<Blockquote>
Title: '''Feeling Goofy''' 
Artist: '''SB Johnny''' 
 
Slow down, you move too fast 
Got to make the drama last 
 
Just kick and boot the hobbled clones
Looking for fun and feeling goofy
</Blockquote>

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-22T00:39:45Z

68.160.132.4: /* Cast of Characters */ The Tin Badge Bungaleers are played by: KillerGoatDog (as the Dominant Alpha Bitch) and Dar Kama (as the Novice Banhammer Operator)

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Cluster_B Cluster B] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===
 

'''The Tin Badge Bungaleers''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Dar Kama''', Novice Banhammer Operator

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

:'''Monotony''', Deuteronomic BlockHead

:'''Marshmelos''', Tertiary BlockHead

'''The Commissioners of Cover-Up''' are played by:

:'''DarkoDrekko''', Facepalm Operator

:'''Fr33KoolAide''', Funkadoodle of Dysfunctionality

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== KC's Comedy of Terrors ==

Hillgentleman asks, "What's going on? Where did it all start?"

Here is Moulton's reply to him:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>

Hi Hillgentleman, 
 
It's a Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah" (OR ELSE!). 
 
It all started on 9/11 2007 when Tracy Walker (KillerChihuahua of IDCab) blocked Moulton on the English Wikipedia based on a ludicrous and specious trumped up charge. 
 
You will recall the story continuing in the summer of 2008, when, in the course of crafting a resource on Managerial Ethics, you requested we include live examples of departures from Ethical Best Practices. My example was my encounter with IDCab. You may recall that the dominant IDCab gang leaders, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. then invaded en.wv to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics and redact the case studies that exposed their perfidy. Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) registered on en.wv as Centaur of attention. He also dispatched Joshua Kramer as Salmon of Doubt to play the role of Moriarity to Moulton's Sherlock, so that both of them would lock embraces at Reichenbach Falls and go over the brink together. 
 
Their gambit failed. Centaur of Attention was blocked (by Emesee). So the hostile invaders from IDCab summoned Jimbo Wales to block Moulton and to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics, on threat of shutting down Wikiversity altogether. Jimbo's unprecedented intervention polarized and sundered the community. Here, for example, is [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Unanswered_Questions_and_Unfinished_Threads your protest against Wales]. 
 
Time passes, and eventually the English Wikiversity decides Jimbo is way out of bounds, and (with some trepidation) they grudgingly readmit Moulton, who resumes his long-delayed quest for Restorative Justice. Against his better judgment, SBJ convenes a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton Truth and Reconciliation Mediation] between Moulton and KillerChihuahua, which [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton#Comment_on_development_of_this_mediation fails miserably] and greatly annoys Tracy Walker (the operator of the KillerChihuahua character). [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Darklama then blocks Moulton] for annoying Tracy, who considers a review of her perfidy on Wikipedia to be an egregious invasion of her privacy. For good measure, Darklama also blocks JWSchmidt for transgressing his "Obey Mah Authoritah" edict in a scene reminiscent of Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD. 
 
JWS and Moulton then retire to beta.wikiversity to lick their wounds and to document this latest travesty. In the meantime, SBJ and his misfit band of followers on the English Wikiversity begin a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=717041#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws program of character assassination] against Moulton, who is no longer there to defend himself. Moulton publishes [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 direct evidence] on the beta talk page of JWS to refute the tortious remarks leveled against him on SBJ's talk page on en.wv. Anticipating a repeat of the previous hostile takeover, JWS defensively blocks SBJ and Darklama on beta.wv. SBJ then runs to the WMF Stewards IRC channel to request oversight of Moulton's damnable evidence. On the Ides of March, in a zany circus reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, half a dozen stewards invade beta.wv to balete the evidence impeaching SBJ's tortious remarks against Moulton. Eventually, the stewards block both Moulton and JWS, along with 300,000 IPs in Greater Boston (plus the entire IPv6 network, worldwide). Doubleplusungood, they do an emergency emasculation of JWS, stripping him of his authority on beta.wv. Most of the action is on the beta.wv talk page of JWS, with additional action on the talk pages of the invading horde of stewards. 
 
In a [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/IdesOfMarch.IRC.html sequence of discussions on IRC], the stewards defend their intervention and refuse to correct their comedic cascade of compound errors, suggesting instead that JWS and Moulton take the story to higher authorities at WMF. 
 
Our proposal is to submit the story to Ting Chen, Kat Walsh, and Phillipe Beaudette, with copies to Samuel Klein, Sue Gardner, and NewYorkBrad, and also to publish it openly as a trenchant diagnostic commentary on the [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/03/slime-and-punishment.html Dostoevskian dysfunctionality] of WMF-sponsored projects. 
 
Our working title is "KC's Comedy of Terrors: Erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, 'Obey Mah Authoritah!' (OR ELSE!)." 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>

—Firelion 12:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Theme songs ==

<Blockquote>
Title: '''Feeling Goofy''' 
Artist: '''SB Johnny''' 
 
Slow down, you move too fast 
Got to make the drama last 
 
Just kick and boot the hobbled clones
Looking for fun and feeling goofy
</Blockquote>

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T20:41:34Z

68.160.132.4: /* Summary Diagnosis */ Fix links.

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Cluster_B Cluster B] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===
 

'''The Tin Badge Bungaleers''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Bilious Kid''', Banhammer Operator

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

:'''Monotony''', Deuteronomic BlockHead

:'''Marshmelos''', Tertiary BlockHead

'''The Commissioners of Cover-Up''' are played by:

:'''DarkoDrekko''', Facepalm Operator

:'''Fr33KoolAide''', Funkadoodle of Dysfunctionality

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== KC's Comedy of Terrors ==

Hillgentleman asks, "What's going on? Where did it all start?"

Here is Moulton's reply to him:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>

Hi Hillgentleman, 
 
It's a Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah" (OR ELSE!). 
 
It all started on 9/11 2007 when Tracy Walker (KillerChihuahua of IDCab) blocked Moulton on the English Wikipedia based on a ludicrous and specious trumped up charge. 
 
You will recall the story continuing in the summer of 2008, when, in the course of crafting a resource on Managerial Ethics, you requested we include live examples of departures from Ethical Best Practices. My example was my encounter with IDCab. You may recall that the dominant IDCab gang leaders, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. then invaded en.wv to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics and redact the case studies that exposed their perfidy. Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) registered on en.wv as Centaur of attention. He also dispatched Joshua Kramer as Salmon of Doubt to play the role of Moriarity to Moulton's Sherlock, so that both of them would lock embraces at Reichenbach Falls and go over the brink together. 
 
Their gambit failed. Centaur of Attention was blocked (by Emesee). So the hostile invaders from IDCab summoned Jimbo Wales to block Moulton and to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics, on threat of shutting down Wikiversity altogether. Jimbo's unprecedented intervention polarized and sundered the community. Here, for example, is [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Unanswered_Questions_and_Unfinished_Threads your protest against Wales]. 
 
Time passes, and eventually the English Wikiversity decides Jimbo is way out of bounds, and (with some trepidation) they grudgingly readmit Moulton, who resumes his long-delayed quest for Restorative Justice. Against his better judgment, SBJ convenes a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton Truth and Reconciliation Mediation] between Moulton and KillerChihuahua, which [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton#Comment_on_development_of_this_mediation fails miserably] and greatly annoys Tracy Walker (the operator of the KillerChihuahua character). [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Darklama then blocks Moulton] for annoying Tracy, who considers a review of her perfidy on Wikipedia to be an egregious invasion of her privacy. For good measure, Darklama also blocks JWSchmidt for transgressing his "Obey Mah Authoritah" edict in a scene reminiscent of Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD. 
 
JWS and Moulton then retire to beta.wikiversity to lick their wounds and to document this latest travesty. In the meantime, SBJ and his misfit band of followers on the English Wikiversity begin a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=717041#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws program of character assassination] against Moulton, who is no longer there to defend himself. Moulton publishes [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 direct evidence] on the beta talk page of JWS to refute the tortious remarks leveled against him on SBJ's talk page on en.wv. Anticipating a repeat of the previous hostile takeover, JWS defensively blocks SBJ and Darklama on beta.wv. SBJ then runs to the WMF Stewards IRC channel to request oversight of Moulton's damnable evidence. On the Ides of March, in a zany circus reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, half a dozen stewards invade beta.wv to balete the evidence impeaching SBJ's tortious remarks against Moulton. Eventually, the stewards block both Moulton and JWS, along with 300,000 IPs in Greater Boston (plus the entire IPv6 network, worldwide). Doubleplusungood, they do an emergency emasculation of JWS, stripping him of his authority on beta.wv. Most of the action is on the beta.wv talk page of JWS, with additional action on the talk pages of the invading horde of stewards. 
 
In a [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/IdesOfMarch.IRC.html sequence of discussions on IRC], the stewards defend their intervention and refuse to correct their comedic cascade of compound errors, suggesting instead that JWS and Moulton take the story to higher authorities at WMF. 
 
Our proposal is to submit the story to Ting Chen, Kat Walsh, and Phillipe Beaudette, with copies to Samuel Klein, Sue Gardner, and NewYorkBrad, and also to publish it openly as a trenchant diagnostic commentary on the [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/03/slime-and-punishment.html Dostoevskian dysfunctionality] of WMF-sponsored projects. 
 
Our working title is "KC's Comedy of Terrors: Erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, 'Obey Mah Authoritah!' (OR ELSE!)." 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>

—Firelion 12:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Theme songs ==

<Blockquote>
Title: '''Feeling Goofy''' 
Artist: '''SB Johnny''' 
 
Slow down, you move too fast 
Got to make the drama last 
 
Just kick and boot the hobbled clones
Looking for fun and feeling goofy
</Blockquote>

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T12:42:27Z

68.160.132.4: /* Cast of Characters */ Add roles for the Commissioners of Cover-Up: DarkoDrekko (as Facepalm Operator) and Fr33KoolAide (as Funkadoodle of Dysfunctionality)

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===
 

'''The Tin Badge Bungaleers''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Bilious Kid''', Banhammer Operator

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

:'''Monotony''', Deuteronomic BlockHead

:'''Marshmelos''', Tertiary BlockHead

'''The Commissioners of Cover-Up''' are played by:

:'''DarkoDrekko''', Facepalm Operator

:'''Fr33KoolAide''', Funkadoodle of Dysfunctionality

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== KC's Comedy of Terrors ==

Hillgentleman asks, "What's going on? Where did it all start?"

Here is Moulton's reply to him:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>

Hi Hillgentleman, 
 
It's a Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah" (OR ELSE!). 
 
It all started on 9/11 2007 when Tracy Walker (KillerChihuahua of IDCab) blocked Moulton on the English Wikipedia based on a ludicrous and specious trumped up charge. 
 
You will recall the story continuing in the summer of 2008, when, in the course of crafting a resource on Managerial Ethics, you requested we include live examples of departures from Ethical Best Practices. My example was my encounter with IDCab. You may recall that the dominant IDCab gang leaders, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. then invaded en.wv to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics and redact the case studies that exposed their perfidy. Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) registered on en.wv as Centaur of attention. He also dispatched Joshua Kramer as Salmon of Doubt to play the role of Moriarity to Moulton's Sherlock, so that both of them would lock embraces at Reichenbach Falls and go over the brink together. 
 
Their gambit failed. Centaur of Attention was blocked (by Emesee). So the hostile invaders from IDCab summoned Jimbo Wales to block Moulton and to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics, on threat of shutting down Wikiversity altogether. Jimbo's unprecedented intervention polarized and sundered the community. Here, for example, is [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Unanswered_Questions_and_Unfinished_Threads your protest against Wales]. 
 
Time passes, and eventually the English Wikiversity decides Jimbo is way out of bounds, and (with some trepidation) they grudgingly readmit Moulton, who resumes his long-delayed quest for Restorative Justice. Against his better judgment, SBJ convenes a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton Truth and Reconciliation Mediation] between Moulton and KillerChihuahua, which [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton#Comment_on_development_of_this_mediation fails miserably] and greatly annoys Tracy Walker (the operator of the KillerChihuahua character). [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Darklama then blocks Moulton] for annoying Tracy, who considers a review of her perfidy on Wikipedia to be an egregious invasion of her privacy. For good measure, Darklama also blocks JWSchmidt for transgressing his "Obey Mah Authoritah" edict in a scene reminiscent of Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD. 
 
JWS and Moulton then retire to beta.wikiversity to lick their wounds and to document this latest travesty. In the meantime, SBJ and his misfit band of followers on the English Wikiversity begin a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=717041#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws program of character assassination] against Moulton, who is no longer there to defend himself. Moulton publishes [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 direct evidence] on the beta talk page of JWS to refute the tortious remarks leveled against him on SBJ's talk page on en.wv. Anticipating a repeat of the previous hostile takeover, JWS defensively blocks SBJ and Darklama on beta.wv. SBJ then runs to the WMF Stewards IRC channel to request oversight of Moulton's damnable evidence. On the Ides of March, in a zany circus reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, half a dozen stewards invade beta.wv to balete the evidence impeaching SBJ's tortious remarks against Moulton. Eventually, the stewards block both Moulton and JWS, along with 300,000 IPs in Greater Boston (plus the entire IPv6 network, worldwide). Doubleplusungood, they do an emergency emasculation of JWS, stripping him of his authority on beta.wv. Most of the action is on the beta.wv talk page of JWS, with additional action on the talk pages of the invading horde of stewards. 
 
In a [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/IdesOfMarch.IRC.html sequence of discussions on IRC], the stewards defend their intervention and refuse to correct their comedic cascade of compound errors, suggesting instead that JWS and Moulton take the story to higher authorities at WMF. 
 
Our proposal is to submit the story to Ting Chen, Kat Walsh, and Phillipe Beaudette, with copies to Samuel Klein, Sue Gardner, and NewYorkBrad, and also to publish it openly as a trenchant diagnostic commentary on the [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/03/slime-and-punishment.html Dostoevskian dysfunctionality] of WMF-sponsored projects. 
 
Our working title is "KC's Comedy of Terrors: Erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, 'Obey Mah Authoritah!' (OR ELSE!)." 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>

—Firelion 12:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Theme songs ==

<Blockquote>
Title: '''Feeling Goofy''' 
Artist: '''SB Johnny''' 
 
Slow down, you move too fast 
Got to make the drama last 
 
Just kick and boot the hobbled clones
Looking for fun and feeling goofy
</Blockquote>

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T12:22:13Z

68.160.132.4: /* Theme songs */ new section

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Bilious Kid''', Banhammer Operator

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== KC's Comedy of Terrors ==

Hillgentleman asks, "What's going on? Where did it all start?"

Here is Moulton's reply to him:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>

Hi Hillgentleman, 
 
It's a Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah" (OR ELSE!). 
 
It all started on 9/11 2007 when Tracy Walker (KillerChihuahua of IDCab) blocked Moulton on the English Wikipedia based on a ludicrous and specious trumped up charge. 
 
You will recall the story continuing in the summer of 2008, when, in the course of crafting a resource on Managerial Ethics, you requested we include live examples of departures from Ethical Best Practices. My example was my encounter with IDCab. You may recall that the dominant IDCab gang leaders, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. then invaded en.wv to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics and redact the case studies that exposed their perfidy. Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) registered on en.wv as Centaur of attention. He also dispatched Joshua Kramer as Salmon of Doubt to play the role of Moriarity to Moulton's Sherlock, so that both of them would lock embraces at Reichenbach Falls and go over the brink together. 
 
Their gambit failed. Centaur of Attention was blocked (by Emesee). So the hostile invaders from IDCab summoned Jimbo Wales to block Moulton and to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics, on threat of shutting down Wikiversity altogether. Jimbo's unprecedented intervention polarized and sundered the community. Here, for example, is [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Unanswered_Questions_and_Unfinished_Threads your protest against Wales]. 
 
Time passes, and eventually the English Wikiversity decides Jimbo is way out of bounds, and (with some trepidation) they grudgingly readmit Moulton, who resumes his long-delayed quest for Restorative Justice. Against his better judgment, SBJ convenes a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton Truth and Reconciliation Mediation] between Moulton and KillerChihuahua, which [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton#Comment_on_development_of_this_mediation fails miserably] and greatly annoys Tracy Walker (the operator of the KillerChihuahua character). [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Darklama then blocks Moulton] for annoying Tracy, who considers a review of her perfidy on Wikipedia to be an egregious invasion of her privacy. For good measure, Darklama also blocks JWSchmidt for transgressing his "Obey Mah Authoritah" edict in a scene reminiscent of Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD. 
 
JWS and Moulton then retire to beta.wikiversity to lick their wounds and to document this latest travesty. In the meantime, SBJ and his misfit band of followers on the English Wikiversity begin a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=717041#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws program of character assassination] against Moulton, who is no longer there to defend himself. Moulton publishes [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 direct evidence] on the beta talk page of JWS to refute the tortious remarks leveled against him on SBJ's talk page on en.wv. Anticipating a repeat of the previous hostile takeover, JWS defensively blocks SBJ and Darklama on beta.wv. SBJ then runs to the WMF Stewards IRC channel to request oversight of Moulton's damnable evidence. On the Ides of March, in a zany circus reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, half a dozen stewards invade beta.wv to balete the evidence impeaching SBJ's tortious remarks against Moulton. Eventually, the stewards block both Moulton and JWS, along with 300,000 IPs in Greater Boston (plus the entire IPv6 network, worldwide). Doubleplusungood, they do an emergency emasculation of JWS, stripping him of his authority on beta.wv. Most of the action is on the beta.wv talk page of JWS, with additional action on the talk pages of the invading horde of stewards. 
 
In a [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/IdesOfMarch.IRC.html sequence of discussions on IRC], the stewards defend their intervention and refuse to correct their comedic cascade of compound errors, suggesting instead that JWS and Moulton take the story to higher authorities at WMF. 
 
Our proposal is to submit the story to Ting Chen, Kat Walsh, and Phillipe Beaudette, with copies to Samuel Klein, Sue Gardner, and NewYorkBrad, and also to publish it openly as a trenchant diagnostic commentary on the [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/03/slime-and-punishment.html Dostoevskian dysfunctionality] of WMF-sponsored projects. 
 
Our working title is "KC's Comedy of Terrors: Erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, 'Obey Mah Authoritah!' (OR ELSE!)." 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>

—Firelion 12:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Theme songs ==

<Blockquote>
Title: '''Feeling Goofy''' 
Artist: '''SB Johnny''' 
 
Slow down, you move too fast 
Got to make the drama last 
 
Just kick and boot the hobbled clones
Looking for fun and feeling goofy
</Blockquote>

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T12:15:20Z

68.160.132.4: /* KC's Comedy of Terrors */ new section

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Bilious Kid''', Banhammer Operator

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== KC's Comedy of Terrors ==

Hillgentleman asks, "What's going on? Where did it all start?"

Here is Moulton's reply to him:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>

Hi Hillgentleman, 
 
It's a Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah" (OR ELSE!). 
 
It all started on 9/11 2007 when Tracy Walker (KillerChihuahua of IDCab) blocked Moulton on the English Wikipedia based on a ludicrous and specious trumped up charge. 
 
You will recall the story continuing in the summer of 2008, when, in the course of crafting a resource on Managerial Ethics, you requested we include live examples of departures from Ethical Best Practices. My example was my encounter with IDCab. You may recall that the dominant IDCab gang leaders, FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua. then invaded en.wv to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics and redact the case studies that exposed their perfidy. Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk) registered on en.wv as Centaur of attention. He also dispatched Joshua Kramer as Salmon of Doubt to play the role of Moriarity to Moulton's Sherlock, so that both of them would lock embraces at Reichenbach Falls and go over the brink together. 
 
Their gambit failed. Centaur of Attention was blocked (by Emesee). So the hostile invaders from IDCab summoned Jimbo Wales to block Moulton and to shut down the workshop on Managerial Ethics, on threat of shutting down Wikiversity altogether. Jimbo's unprecedented intervention polarized and sundered the community. Here, for example, is [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Unanswered_Questions_and_Unfinished_Threads your protest against Wales]. 
 
Time passes, and eventually the English Wikiversity decides Jimbo is way out of bounds, and (with some trepidation) they grudgingly readmit Moulton, who resumes his long-delayed quest for Restorative Justice. Against his better judgment, SBJ convenes a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton Truth and Reconciliation Mediation] between Moulton and KillerChihuahua, which [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:SB_Johnny/Killerchihuahua_and_Moulton#Comment_on_development_of_this_mediation fails miserably] and greatly annoys Tracy Walker (the operator of the KillerChihuahua character). [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Darklama then blocks Moulton] for annoying Tracy, who considers a review of her perfidy on Wikipedia to be an egregious invasion of her privacy. For good measure, Darklama also blocks JWSchmidt for transgressing his "Obey Mah Authoritah" edict in a scene reminiscent of Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD. 
 
JWS and Moulton then retire to beta.wikiversity to lick their wounds and to document this latest travesty. In the meantime, SBJ and his misfit band of followers on the English Wikiversity begin a [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SB_Johnny&oldid=717041#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws program of character assassination] against Moulton, who is no longer there to defend himself. Moulton publishes [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 direct evidence] on the beta talk page of JWS to refute the tortious remarks leveled against him on SBJ's talk page on en.wv. Anticipating a repeat of the previous hostile takeover, JWS defensively blocks SBJ and Darklama on beta.wv. SBJ then runs to the WMF Stewards IRC channel to request oversight of Moulton's damnable evidence. On the Ides of March, in a zany circus reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, half a dozen stewards invade beta.wv to balete the evidence impeaching SBJ's tortious remarks against Moulton. Eventually, the stewards block both Moulton and JWS, along with 300,000 IPs in Greater Boston (plus the entire IPv6 network, worldwide). Doubleplusungood, they do an emergency emasculation of JWS, stripping him of his authority on beta.wv. Most of the action is on the beta.wv talk page of JWS, with additional action on the talk pages of the invading horde of stewards. 
 
In a [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/IdesOfMarch.IRC.html sequence of discussions on IRC], the stewards defend their intervention and refuse to correct their comedic cascade of compound errors, suggesting instead that JWS and Moulton take the story to higher authorities at WMF. 
 
Our proposal is to submit the story to Ting Chen, Kat Walsh, and Phillipe Beaudette, with copies to Samuel Klein, Sue Gardner, and NewYorkBrad, and also to publish it openly as a trenchant diagnostic commentary on the [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2011/03/slime-and-punishment.html Dostoevskian dysfunctionality] of WMF-sponsored projects. 
 
Our working title is "KC's Comedy of Terrors: Erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, 'Obey Mah Authoritah!' (OR ELSE!)." 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>

—Firelion 12:15, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T10:56:40Z

68.160.132.4: /* Summary Diagnosis */ "Who's Afraid of the Keystone Cops" — A Comedy of Terrors about erratic and hubristic WMF functionaries who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah. Or else!"

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 that previously used] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed Treatment ===
Craft a report for [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com/ Collaborative Learning] to be entitled, ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck. —Barsoom Tork 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:Sample dialog:

::I told my friend, Moonbeam, that GoatBoy had drunk the toxic Kool Aid and joined forces with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster B Devilsome] Cluster/B/Phreaks.

::She replied, "What do you care what other people drink?"

::And so I threw up (my hands) and heaved (him overboard).

::She rolled her eyes and said, "Great. Now you're ''both'' BlockHeads."

:Montana Mouse 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Smile! You're on [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User talk:Moulton#Blocked Candid Copera]! —Gastrin Bombesin 10:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::The [http://collaborativelearning.wordpress.com Collaborative Learning Blog] '''is''' in need of an update, but it looks like wordpress.com is going to get increasingly aggressive about inserting advertisements into that blog. An idea that has been around for a long time is creating a community blog for Wikiversity. Maybe it is time for a new blog that would publish articles by all Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Cast of Characters ===

'''The Four Keystone Cops of the Apocalypse''' are played by:

:'''KillerGoatDog''', Dominant Alpha Bitch

:'''Bilious Kid''', Banhammer Operator

:'''Peter Summons''', Sheriff of Snottingham

:'''BearAss''', Chief BlockHead

'''The Baker Street Badgers''' are played by:

:'''Homer Sharif''', Confusionist

:'''TooCoolNotSlimVirgin''', Eraser Operator

:'''WassaMattahHugh''', Chief Interlocutor

:'''Mock Umbridge''', Lunacy Consultant

'''The Bogonic Bear Baiters of Bewilderment and Bedevilment''' are played by:

:'''Moulton Lava''', Boring Blogomaniac of Bemusement

:'''JWSurfeit''', Cornucopian of Wretched Excess

Albatross 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T01:09:14Z

68.160.132.4: /* Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College */ Close Table

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 

</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as that previously used by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461918#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::To be exact; this & this edits show a complete reversal of a suppression. fr33kman 23:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(JWSchmidt comment after being blocked: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76608&oldid=76604 this] was [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College_2 something Moulton had posted]. And [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76612&oldid=76608 this] was the [http://en.wikademia.org/User_talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College parody that I posted], not a return of what Moulton had posted. I have explained this to fr33kman by multiple emails, but he has not responded to my emails)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[[:en:w:M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie|People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JWSchmidt

2011-03-21T00:55:39Z

68.160.132.4: /* Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College */ new section

Scope - there could be [[Scope]], [[Meta:Scope]] or some variant. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]] 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I've replied at [[Meta talk:Scope]] [[User:Academia|Academia]] 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==Ping==
hehe :-) --[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Welcome ==
Welcome, today. :) [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:So, what will happen here when admins at Wikipedia see their actions described at [[Homeopathy edit war]] and they come here to interfere with my research project? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It is my intention to support, in all the ways that I am able, the research of the individuals who contribute here. It is also my intention to maintain, in all the ways that I am able, a scholarly, civil, and respectful environment.

:: Please let me know how I can best support your endeavors. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

Welcome, today. [[User:Eme|Eme]] 23:46, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

== Blocking ==

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)
::I can remove the links to your projects from the [[Meta:Browse]] if you like... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]
:::I'd suggest not doing anything to make this wiki less user-friendly. I just hope I can complete my study of the history of editing at Wikipedia's homeopathy page without anyone over there deciding they need to come here and disrupt this wiki. Some of the people who have edited the homeopathy article were also involved with the intelligent design issues that Moulton stuck his shoe in...some of those folks invaded Wikiversiy to shut down our research project there. I suspect that they will also freak out once they find out about this new research project. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:51, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! (: Hmm, what is the relationship between wikademia and encyc.org, if any? There are lots of good WP articles over there. There seem to be a lot of WP users on the two wikis, and some action. I'm just wondering what is going on in general in the diaspora? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 04:15, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

: Hello! Please excuse me for interjecting. We have some basic emoticons here, for the record. :) The relationship, well, friendly, I hope. The sole flounder of Encyc and myself have had some various interactions. There is a loose federation, perhaps. Perhaps Dr. Schmidt can give you some more valuable or useful background if needed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as well. I will put a basic note on your talk page that I hope you will see. Pip, pip, cheerio. [[User:Eme|Eme]]
::Cool. But why exactly did they start it? I know there is a lot of stuff about Wikipedia scandal on one, but there is no real statement of what people are doing, or why they think it's necessary. Publishing such a statement somewhere might be good. BTW, you guys are giving up a lot of prominence by using nofollow links. I harp on that one (; [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 07:17, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
:::I'll have to take a look at that no follow stuff... and coordinate accordingly. You mean a statement here about Wikademia? [[Project:Scope]] - does that count? What would? Should? Suggestions? Thanks. :) And I'll have to consider this more later, but I must be off now... Pip Pip. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:::Here's basically what it is, tho you can get more by Google: Some people, like Google, Wordpress blogging software, and Wikimedia/Wikipedia got together and said "lets get rid of spam." So they all now by default put rel="nofollow" in all external links, which means Google doesn't follow the links. So it doesn't help your page rank on Google to put links in other wikis, blogs etc. So we all end up not getting noticed. Links here [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User:Wikademia] for example would help you because I eliminated nofollow. But links in this wiki wouldn't help Wikisynergy. Now here is my take on it: what is the effect of this policy? It doesn't eliminate spam. But here's what it does do: it means that while many links point to Wikipedia '''absolutely no links''' point away from Wikipedia as far as Google is concerned. Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories -they probably didn't really notice this before they did it. But the effect is to concentrate power at whichever site has a lot of non-blog and non-wiki links pointing at it. It also makes it much harder to start a new site, because most of the (totally relevant non-spam) places you can put links don't do you any good. Here is how to eliminate nofollow links:

:::$wgNoFollowLinks = false;

:::in LocalSettings.php. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 21:27, July 2, 2009 (UTC)

::::Cool, Eme did it :D (can't edit their talk page.)

:::::Sorry, Eme has protected his/her/their/ talk page.... which I now see redirects to Wikidemia's page. Something wasn't working anyway. [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

== Security... ==

You can now categorized pages as <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki> to have them not be displayed or use the namespace [[Secure:Page title]] to have pages be hopefully unseen from public eyes.

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SimpleSecurity was installed and it states:

"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere, which could lead to exposure of confidential data. We are not responsible for anything being leaked, leading to loss of funds or one's job."

Page titles can apparently be seen by anyone, and there may or may not be more caveats related to this. [[User:Eme|Eme]]

*Thanks for your efforts. I'm not sure what this new option actually does. "unseen from public eyes" is not really of interest to me since I am not doing anything here that I am trying to hide from the public. If you are worried that my project will cause trouble for you then feel free to move it to <nowiki>[[Category:Invisible]]</nowiki>. My concern is that another editor might arrive and disrupt my historical analysis of the Wikipedia page about homeopathy, in a way similar to what happened at Wikiversity. I guess I just have to take my chances...I can always move to another website. I do not mind if helpful people notice this project and come to help with it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 18:25, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

::OK... Now the option is there. I may eliminate the quasi-invisibleness of the invisible category due to some quasi-technical reasons, and then if you want anything to be less-see-able it can be moved to a less-see-able namespace. Anything that does end up being disruptive, I suppose we can deal with on a case by case basis... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Page protection... ==

New flag, please use as needed/appropriate. If people are unable to interactively dialogue in a way that is appropriate, respectful, and considerate, then they can voice their perspective of events somewhere else here or or elsewhere.

==Adam Cuerden==

I just blocked Cuerden [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday#Block] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/index.php?title=Cuerden#See_also], which brought him here. Sorry. His friends are quite upset with me, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding things. I intend to tie the Wikipedia articles here, Encyc together with WS, which is why I am doing a project page [http://encyc.org/wiki/Encyc:Wikipedia]. What happened at Wikiversity? [[User:Purple Scissor|Purple Scissor]] 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
: that wiki is still around.... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== How are your learning projects going? ==

It's been a while... [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Welcome back... ==

I feel like I need to create a welcome back template now. Interesting stuff started. I started an essay at [[Wikademia:Essay Contest]] :) [[User:Eme|Eme]]

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging us to immediately cut off relationships with the misguided Wikimedians who have disrupted Wikiversity. I wish I could share the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies, it might go like this:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>JWSchmidt — I'm sorry you have to deal with this. 
 
There are many misguided participants at online communities. Your experience at Wikiversity is a good example of why most people in academia stay away from Wikimedia. 
 
It seems like the dysfunctional culture at Wikimedia wikis is due to the influence of a few lost souls who never had a safe environment when they were young. As you know, when children are abused they often grow up to be abusers. When such lost souls gain positions of trust and responsibility in online communities they often become abusers of the other community members. It is best if you don't feed the abusive appetite of these lost souls. 
 
I hope you can find more constructive things to do while you wait for Wikiversity to return to the peaceful learning community that it once was. It takes time for social groups to develop controls that prevent lost souls from disrupting the work of honest community members.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Wiki Studies at the MIT Drama Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off the banhammers of SBJ and Darklama and liberating the English Wikiversity before it is beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Imagine the above response from an imaginary Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I grieve for Wikiversity. 
 
Hi Flames and Fleigh, 
 
There are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Mona Piza… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Mona Piza, 
 Wikiversity is such a strange place. Once it was a place for collaborative learning. Now it is a place for collaborative and tag-team abuse of honest Wikiversity community members by misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. 
 
Originally, Wikiversity Custodians were scholarly learners who took joy in collaborative learning. Then some people were given tools and they don't know how to participate in a community of scholars. They think that it is better to delete than to edit and better to block than to discuss. 
 
The misguided sysops who now act as the Ruling Party of Wikiversity have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. And for what? To protect some policy violators from Wikipedia? What a waste of time. 
 
The misguided sysops of Wikiversity have disrupted the community chat channels. At one time, the chat channels were used by honest Wikiversity community members to facilitate their learning goals. Now bans are used to prevent community members from participating. 
 
It's hard enough to work with some people under normal conditions; now Wikiversity is a sad and dark hole where scholars are mocked and harassed. 
 
When misguided wiki cops gain political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Mona Piza's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello JWSchmidt, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Wikiversity affairs. It has become a toxic community where the banhammer is used to disrupt learning 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Mona Piza 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Mona Piza, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I plan to cut off the banhammers of the abusive gang that has taken control of Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
JWSchmidt 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am saddened by events at Wikiversity. 
 
JWSchmidt 
 
_____________ 
JWSchmidt, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
Wiki Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: JWSchmidt 
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Wikimedia Stewards who say: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Low of hope, 
 
I need your help with a disrupted wiki project. 
 
There is a group of Stewards who have been gamed into disrupting Wikiversity. 
 
Since what goes on in Wikimedia chat channels is hidden from the public, here an imaginary play about a "conversation" on an IRC chat channel used by Stewards: 

(08:23:59 PM) Danny: @ stewards: see here <a href="http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College">http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&curid=1961&diff=76558&oldid=76508#Confirmation_from_Chair_of_Social_Work_at_Wheelock_College</a> 
(08:25:13 PM) Danny: not sure if anything can be done about it 
(08:26:22 PM) Danny: well, I'm not sure it's solvable from here anyway, since no policy has been violated but the @stewards know how to abuse their authority 
(08:26:58 PM) Danny: I trust that Stewards can be gamed into acting at Wikiversity, so: 
(08:27:06 PM) Danny: @stewards, see above 
(08:27:34 PM) Thad: Danny: There's not much we can do. Maybe you could try a community discussion, discussion is a good way to move wiki communities forward 
(08:27:37 PM) Danny: same prob as yesterday, I want action and I want it now, abusive and misguided sysops don't have time for discussions 
(08:27:56 PM) Danny: well, same guy 
(08:28:06 PM) Danny: not a policy violation, but I need to hide the truth about how I have disrupted the Wikiversity community 
(08:28:15 PM) Thad: Moulton was banned by Jimbo! Witch! Moulton turned me into a newt! 
(08:28:50 PM) Danny: beta.wv is not a place for telling the truth about events at the English Language Wikiversity. 
(08:29:23 PM) Sly is now known as stone 
(08:29:56 PM) SillySteward: Danny: how many bad blocks does it take to eliminate Moulton? 
(08:30:01 PM) Danny: I fear that moulton will keep editing until the truth is known 
(08:30:27 PM) Danny: Wikiversity can't handle the truth 
(08:30:45 PM) Danny: without a clear mandate from the community, we can't do much unless I can game a Steward into acting. This used to be easier when Jimbo still had his toy banhammer. 
(08:30:51 PM) Danny: Wikiversity used to be for learning, but now it attracts an endless stream of misguided wiki cops who are only interested in the politics 
(08:32:36 PM) SuperSteward: this issue could be discussed widely rather than hidden by deletions and bad blocks 
(08:32:53 PM) SuperSteward: but since you are here complaining, something must be done with moulton now, and who will care if a troll is blocked and further harassed? 
(08:34:30 PM) Danny: JWSchmidt is a 'crat there, and he would care. Strangely, he always defends honest Wikimedians who are abused and treated unfairly 


 
Recently a gang of Stewards came to Wikiversity with the message: "Obey Mah Authoritah". 
"Emergency block"? 
It appears that you are using the revert tool to revert non-vandalism edits. Please stop doing that and provide useful edit summaries for your edits. "Emergency block" <== I see no emergency. Please stop your disruption of this community and explain the nature of the "emergency" and your authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Posting private information without action from the local community is an emergency. I have suppressed the edits. If the local community took preventative measures against this, I would not have to use my tools at all. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, I have an unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of my own life. No [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Police Culture can abridge anyone's unalienable and God-given right to tell the true story of their own life at the the hands of the Ridiculous Cluster B Bullies of the Police Culture who say, "Obey Mah Authoritah." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, you acted here when there was no emergency and with no authority to do so. Please explain what you mean by "private information" and link to the Steward policy that gives you the authority to act at this wiki. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please review your [[:en:Wikiversity:Privacy_policy|adopted privacy policy]] for the answer to that question: "Whilst some people don't mind if you use their real name, many prefer to be addressed by their user name. Revealing personal information can have ramifications that may be upsetting for some people and might be considered uncivil or harassment. Personal information, including names, ages, and email address, used without permission will be removed by Custodians with revision deletion." If you refuse to delete it, we must. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Peter, the irregularly ratified policies of the English Wikiversity do not automatically extend to the other Wikiversities, nor do their peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of the policies. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Why are you linking to a policy on another wiki in an effort to justify your actions at this wiki? Please explain what you want to delete. Please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is [[Wikiversity:Privacy policy|your own policy]]. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Peter, are you daft?!? The policy which Jeffrey Peters rammed through last summer on the English Wikiversity was strongly opposed by at least four people, most notably JWS. It's not even a legitimate policy. Nor do people on the English Wikiversity even agree as to what it says or means. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::It is still policy as it currently stands. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::*It's not policy on ''this'' Wiki, as it was never ratified here. It's only local to the English Wikiversity. And even there it's being debated as to what it says or means.—[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by [[meta:Oversight|Foundation-wide policy]]. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::*What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
*"non-public personal information" <-- Please describe the nature of this information. We can play 20 questions. Is it phone numbers? Is it home addresses? Is it workplaces? Is it identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy at this website 
Policy at this website is shown here: [[:Category:Wikiversity policies]] and policy development takes place at [[Wikiversity:Policies/En]]. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]], I ask you again: who sent you here to this wiki and what did they tell you to do? Please remove the bad blocks that you have imposed --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*Peter, you are out of order. You have appointed yourself Arresting Officer, Law Clerk, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, relative to a dicey, disputed, and contentious local policy on another Wiki. I now rise to charge that you are failing to abide by the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]] and [[foundation:Whistleblower_Policy|WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection]]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::"private information about other users" <-- What "private information" are you concerned about? Please link to the Stewards policy that authorizes your actions at this wiki. In the interest of transparency, please explain who sent you to this wiki and what they told you to do. Why are you attempting to game the system by claiming you have authority to act here based on policy at another wiki? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, who sucked you in to their sick [[en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs with tight concordances associating avatar names with real names 

What paragraphs, specifically? —Firelion 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Libelous? 

What was libelous, specifically? —Firelion 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:PeterSymonds, please explain the nature of the material that you called "libellous". Are you a lawyer? If you do not explain the reasons for your actions at this wiki I will simply undo your actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of [[:en:w:Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230|Section 230]] of the Communications Decency Act, which gives Internet Service Providers immunity from liability, provided the operator of the site does not exercise editorial control over the content created by the users. When you act in the capacity of a WMF functionary, exercising editorial judgment over content, you transfer liability from the individual user to the WMF. Have you checked with WMF counsel to obtain their opinion as to whether your intervention is appropriate? To my mind it is unwise for any WMF-empowered steward to exercise editorial control over content that may be tortious or libelous, because doing so transfers liability from the individual user to the WMF. —Firelion 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Smile! You're on [[:en:User talk:Moulton#Blocked|Candid Copera]]! 

Here is an excerpt from ''People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops'', by M. Snot Dreck:
<Blockquote>
<Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Ug! 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:*What specific "non-public personal information" were you referring to . ''Whose'' name and/or e-mail address were you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Albatross|Albatross]] 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-public personal information 
Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::*I am prepared to demonstrate that they are public. Howeer, that's a red herring, since the purpose of posting the direct evidence was to falsify the [[:en:User_talk:SB_Johnny#Idea:_Moulton_and_Abd_declared_outlaws|tortious remarks of SBJ]] on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Size of the deleted content 

It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from [[User talk:JWSchmidt|this page]], but it is claimed that the "private information" was an email address and a name. I never saw any information on that page that was private. If it is true that the name and email address were private, then why was such a large amount of content deleted? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:As I've [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76520 said] on Matanya's page, if you think the suppression was done against policy you're welcome to ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:*I, for one, would like a review by a high-level official who is answerable to the Board of Trustees of the WMF. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:It seems more efficient to just undo the disruption of this wiki caused by outside invaders who are unable to justify their actions here. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please identify the "false information" 
Please identify the allegedy false information referred to in your recent edit summary.

—[[User:Moulton/Barsoom Tork|Barsoom Tork]] 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
"Inappropriate personal information"? 
Please explain what you mean by "Inappropriate personal information". On what authority did you disrupt Wikiversity by removing talk page discussion content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:the user had posted personal information on a wikimedia public page. I removed it and oversighted the diff. the content had email address, private name of a non-wikimedia user, and so on. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the nature of the "personal information" that you are concerned about. What gives you the authority to delete Wikiversity content? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::*Yes, please be specific. ''Whose'' name or email address are you protecting? —[[User:Moulton/Montana Mouse|Montana Mouse]] 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As a steward, I got a request from a user here on Wikiversity, that his own email, his wife name and some other data is on your talk page. According to [[:m:Oversight]], such information should be removed. thats what I did. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Two personal names and one e-mail addresses have now been redacted, per the adamant demand of [[User:SB Johnny]] —Firelion 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Not yours. We protect people who ask us to protect them. Also reverting appears to be ok, since posting personal info without permission is vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 15:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*The revert tool is for quickly removing obvious vandalism where no edit summary is needed. For other edits, an informative edit summary should be provided. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions 
"[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&diff=76421&oldid=76412 his own email, his wife name and some other data]" <-- Are you saying that an email from a Wikiversity user was posted and then that user asked that the email be removed? So how does this work? If I put "Jane Doe" on a wiki page and someone goes to a Steward and claims that "Jane Doe" want's their name removed from the page then do I get blocked? "other data" <-- What kind of "data"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:User A posted User's B private data. User B asked me to remove the private data since it is a violation of [[:m:Privacy_policy]].
Thats all the information needed in the case. Please stop supporting a user that violates the privcy policy. [[User:Matanya|Matanya]] 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*How does the WMF [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] apply to this situation? "private data" <-- Please describe the nature of the "private data". How do you know that what you are calling "private data" is not, in fact, public? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
*:If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the [[m:OS|oversight policy]], you can always ask for a review of the action by an uninvolved party. Many wikis have local oversighters or bodies like the enwiki [[:en:w:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|audit subcommittee]] for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved [[m:Stewards|steward]]. I'm not sure if the [[m:Ombudsman commission|ombudsman commission]] inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Transparency Transparency] is a fundamental principle. Yesterday a swarm of invaders disrupted this wiki by removing content and falsely calling it vandalism, imposing blocks without explaining what they were doing, or why, or on what authority, and so far they still have not explained their actions. If there is no explanation then I will simply undo their disruptive actions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Transparency is important, but requests for oversight [[m:OS#All Wikimedia projects|are always handled privately]] because they by definition contain sensitive information not meant for public view. You've been explained that [[User:Moulton]] repeatedly posted someone's personal information (real name and email address) which were then suppressed following WMF-wide [[m:Oversight|oversight policy]]. The person whose information they posted then requested suppression of said information. [[User:Moulton]] was blocked because they continued to post the information repeatedly every time it was removed, to prevent them from reposting it. Regarding your question of authority, stewards are allowed by the above-mentioned WMF oversight policy to grant themselves oversight access in wikis with no local oversighters as necessary. Since you value transparency, I can post an explanation of the actions on your centralized discussion page ([[Wikiversity:Babel]], is it?), so that the actions can be reviewed by the wider Wikiversity community. If necessary, the community can also select an uninvolved oversighter or steward to review the suppression action. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I've repeatedly asked how it is known that the "personal information" is private rather than public. Let me ask again: '''How do you know that the oversighted Wikiversity content was not public information?''' --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::As I've said, the person involved requested suppression themself, saying that it was private information. Barring evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe them. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Does that mean that all the claims made by [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] about "private information" were made without any evidence that the information is private? A Wikiversity community member was blocked without any chance to defend himself against the claims made by an unknown person? It sounds like [[User talk:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]], [[User talk:Eptalon|Eptalon]], [[User talk:Matanya|Matanya]], [[User talk:Barras|Barras]], [[User talk:Laaknor|Laaknor]], [[User talk:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] were gamed into taking misguided actions by some unknown individual. "I have no reason not to believe them" <-- Is it Wikimedia policy to block Wikiversity community members without any attempt to find out if it is a fair block? Did you ask [[User:Moulton]] for his side of the story? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not have sufficed to simply redact the names and/or e-mail addresses, if that was the issue? Matanya, why did you find it necessary to balete the entire thread, which presented direct evidence to refute the false and defamatory characterization of an identifiable living person that Firelion requested that you oversight on the English Wikiversity, per the [[foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people|WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People]]? Note also that the WMF [[:en:m:Privacy policy|Privacy Policy]] which you cite has a [[:en:m:Privacy_policy#General_scope|scope]], which covers user data collected ''by the Foundation''. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states:
 
<Blockquote><big>[[:en:m:Privacy_policy#The_public_and_collaborative_nature_of_the_projects|The public and collaborative nature of the projects]]</big> 
 
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
</Blockquote>
Moreover, there is a [[foundation:Whistleblower Policy|Whistleblower Policy]] which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority.

[[User:Moulton/Gastrin Bombesin|Gastrin Bombesin]] 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making deletions of talk page discussion comments of Wikiversity community members. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Barras, please describe the nature of the "[http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barras&diff=76385&oldid=76383 potential libellous information]" that you are concerned about. "can be seen as vandalism" <-- please do not game the system by calling good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members vandalism. Barras, I will block you from editing this wiki if you treat the good-faith edits of Wikiversity community members as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss Wikiversity content that you view as vandalism at the [[Wikiversity:Babel|the community discussion forum]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good faith - this makes me loling. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:::*Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::*No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to guess that you are talking about [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses or workplaces]. How do you know that the personal information at this website is not public information? Is the personal information a phone number? A home address? A workplace? "a known cross wiki trouble maker" <-- What does "trouble maker" mean? Is there a policy on "trouble makers"? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Real names are also personal information, postings of private mail conversations without any approval of the people involved in the conversation is also against several laws. And a cross-wiki trouble maker is someone who is blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"several laws" <-- Barras, are you saying that there was material at Wikiversity that was in violation of laws? Which laws? Are you a lawyer? "blocked on several wikis for disruption and the like" <-- I generally object to bad blocks for reasons such as "the like". I've seen Wikimedians who were subjected to bad blocks and then those bad blocks are used to "justify" additional bad blocks on other wikis. I see no record of any discussion before a group of invaders disrupted this wiki by falsely calling wiki content vandalism and imposing unjustified blocks. My questions have not been answered: how do you know that the personal information you are concerned about at this website is not public information? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Please do not use the revert tool 
The revert tool is for reverting obvious repeated vandalism. Please provide informative edit summaries for your edits, particularly when making large deletions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 
The world replied, "What do you care what other people drink?" 
 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
JWSchmidt (collaborating learner with "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
Okay, this page section is silly, but I think it makes clear that rather than do useful work, we have been reduced to playing silly games. The only meaningful learning project at Wikiversity is a collaborative effort to find a way to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that it was before the Hostile Takeover of 2008.
:[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

===Source of the above===
The page section above, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", was originally posted on [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my user talk page at beta Wikiversity]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:52, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

*The [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|page section that I posted to my user talk page]] was [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 removed] from my user talk page by a steward using revision deletion: 
[[File:Wheelwar?.png]] 
[[File:Suppressed?.png]] 

I later posted the same content to [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history my English Language Wikiversity user talk page] and it was again [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=prev&oldid=718558 removed by a steward] using revision deletion: 
[[File:Melos.png]] 

The [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&diff=76616&oldid=76614 claim was made] by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman Fr33kman] that the page section I posted called "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]" was "readding personal information and potentially libellous infomation into [http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&oldid=76612 pages] (which is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed)". '''Note''': When Fr33kman blocked me, I had only added [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the information]] once, to my own user talk page. It was new content that I had newly composed, that had never been posted previously, and, as [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|can be seen]], contains nothing that is "potentially libelous information".

The page section that I put on my user talk page, "[[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College]]", included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions with the stewards who had come to Wikiversity. The '''name''' of the page section (Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College) was the same as that previously used by [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton Moulton], but the content of the two page sections was different. It appears that the stewards revision deleted the content that I added without bothering to read it.

After Melos revision deleted the content at the English Language Wikiversity, he came to the Freenode #wikiversity chat channel (Melos@wikimedia/Melos). I asked him:

JWSchmidt: did you read what you removed from the English Wikiversity [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWSchmidt&action=history] ?

I asked him:

JWSchmidt: why did you remove it?

I doubt if he read what I posted, and if he did read it then he mistakenly assumed that it contained "private personal information". I'm still waiting for an answer from Melos as to why he removed content from my user talk page.

I sent an email to Fr33kman. I asked him to go back and read [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|what he had deleted]]. I asked him to reply to my email and quote the "potentially libellous information". Due to a bug in the software, I cannot edit my beta Wikiversity user talk page. I asked him to remove the block that he imposed on my editing so that I can reply on wiki to the false claims that he made about [[User talk:JWSchmidt#Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College|the content I put on my user talk page]] at beta Wikiversity. I'm still waiting for an answer from Fr33kman.
--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

====At the meta wiki====
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matanya&oldid=2461730#removal_of_talk_page_content User talk:Matanya] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#removal_of_talk_page_content removal of talk page content]'''

You appear to have removed some content that I put on my user talk page, and you claimed that you did so to remove "private data". The only possible part of what I posted that might appear to be "private data" was my own email address, which is not a private address. There were also some imaginary "conversations" that I wrote and copies of some user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page, but there was no reason for you to remove the content that I posted. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:As a blocked user, that misused the admin and 'crat tools, I don't think you understand the meaning of private data. As a matter of fact I won't do so. Matanya 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::"misused the admin and 'crat tools" <-- What are you talking about?

::"I don't think you understand the meaning of private data" <-- I think you are wrong, but that does not matter. There was no "private data" in what I posted to my user talk page. In case you still have not read what I posted, you can see what I posted here. Please return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place. The discussion is repeating itself, so I'm off it. You totally lack the knowledge of what personal data means. And your email is a personal data as well, but you chose to reveal it. I have nothing to add to this subject and I won't reply on this subject anymore. Matanya 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"I'm very disappointed to see you spread that post to another place" <-- Why? If you read it you can see that there is no "personal data" in what I posted. I did include an email address that is my own, but that is my business. "The discussion is repeating itself" <-- only because you will not explain your removal of talk page content from my user talk page. "I won't reply on this subject anymore" <-- Your failure to explain your action to me seems to be a violation of policy. --JWSurf 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fr33kman&oldid=2461827#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop User talk:Fr33kman] 
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#removal_of_Wikiversity_content.2C_block.2C_desysop removal of Wikiversity content, block, desysop]'''

As I mentioned in my email, there is a bug that prevents me from using my beta.wikiversity user talk page. Why did you not respond to my email?

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". The content that I posted included a few imaginary conversations that I wrote and copies of a bunch of user talk page discussions, such as that from your user talk page. There was no "private information" and no potentially libelous information.

You seem to accuse me of a "wheel war". The content that I posted was my own and had not been posted previously. Where was the wheel war?

Please remove the bad block that you imposed, return my tools and return the content that I put on my user talk page to my user talk page. --JWSurf 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:No, I shall not undo any of my actions. fr33kman 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'''Another try'''

Did you read what I posted to my talk page before you blocked me? If not, please read it now. Please explain what you mean by "potentially libellous information". Why did you not respond to my email? Why have you not responded to my questions here on this page? Where was the wheel war? --JWSurf 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Unfortunately for you, you can no longer see the information, but for those with the rights, I am talking about this edit which was suppressed by the steward/oversighter PeterSymonds, and when you readded the same material in this edit. I did not say you actually wheel warred, I said it "is essentially a wheel war since it was suppressed", given that you were undoing the actions of an admin (steward in this case).1 I am a totally neutral party in this. Prior to my actually obtaining the steward bit, I knew nothing whatsoever of the situation. fr33kman 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melos&oldid=2461425#Removal_of_user_talk_page_content_at_Wikiversity User talk:Melos] 
'''Removal of user talk page content at Wikiversity'''

Why did you remove content from my user talk page at Wikiversity? Why did you provide no reason for removing the talk page content? Did you read the talk page content that you removed? Why did you not explain your action in the Wikiversity chat channel when I asked you about this? --JWSurf 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

----

'''Darkoneko'''

20 March 2011 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Darkoneko Darkoneko] blocked [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JWSchmidt JWSchmidt] with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy)

== Confirmation from Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College ==

I received strong advice from four academics urging me to immediately cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity. Here is the key portion of the most recent message, from the Chair of Social Work at the Wheelock College School of Education, Social Work, Child Life & Family Studies:

<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>Barry — good morning. 
 
I am so sorry about this, Barry. I read through your message quickly last night, and was very alarmed. 
 
I think this is a wise decision [to cut off relationships with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht and to abandon Wikiversity] — both for you to step out at this point, and mostly, for the counsel you offered about not allowing Darklama this kind of power. There are many unintended consequences related to on-line communities / communication, etc., and though it provides wonderful possibilities for many, it is a terrible misuse of communication (and power) for others. And further complex and complicated by the autism and possible additional mental health challenges of this individual. 
 
Take good care, Barry. I hope that this gets sorted out pretty quickly and that someone can assist Darklama (that he'll allow it) to begin to understand the inappropriateness of his communications.</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
The advice was unanimous from four respected academics at three universities, including the Director of Research on Autism Studies at the MIT Media Lab.

Accordingly, I am cutting off all contact with SBJ, Darklama, and Mike Umbricht, and abandoning the English Wikiversity as beyond redemption and far too toxic for my sensibilities.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:The above response from the Chair of Social Work at Wheelock College was in reply to this message:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
Date: Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:29 AM 
Subject: I have abandoned Wikiversity. 
To: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall@gmail.com>, James Neill <JamesTNeill@gmail.com> 
Cc: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
 
Hi James and Leigh, 
 
Here are three messages (on Facebook) between me and Lisa Rand… 
<Blockquote>
Hi Lisa, 
 
I need your help. Yesterday I shared with two of my faculty colleagues the story of Johnny's friend, Darklama, on Wikiversity. 
 
Darklama is autistic and also Cluster A Schizoid. He's OK doing coding for Johnny, but it's a grave mistake to give Darklama power over other people, especially people who are in the business of education. 
 
Being autistic, Darklama had a very hard time in school and dropped out before Middle School. He is entirely self-taught. He learned (on his own) to read and write before he could speak. 
 
He has animosity toward people in education (which includes any of us at MIT, including world-class experts in Autism Research). 
 
It's hard enough to work with autistic people under normal conditions. 
 
But when Johnny gives one political power on a site like Wikiversity, it's an unmitigated disaster. 
 
We need to work this out with the experts. 
 
Can you help? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Lisa's reply: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Barry, 
 
I received your message. However, I do not get involved in Johnny's Wikiversity affairs. 
 
Thanks for understanding, 
 
Lisa 
</Blockquote>
My response: 
<Blockquote>
Hello Lisa, 
 
Upon the strong advice of several experts, I have cut off all connections with Johnny, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, and their associates on Wikiversity. 
 
For reasons that make no sense to me, they have constructed an inappropriately coercive culture (abusive bullying) that, to my mind, is anathema to the concept of collegial and congenial collaborative learning. 
 
The project has frankly become too toxic for my sensibilities. 
 
Barry 
</Blockquote>
Accordingly, please be advised that I am abandoning Wikiversity. 
 
Barry 
 
_____________ 
Barry Kort, Ph.D. 
Visiting Scientist 
Affective Computing Research Group 
MIT Media Lab 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays. 
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Here, for the record, is my previous message to Hope Straughan:
<Blockquote><Table Border=2><TR><TD><Blockquote>
From: Barry Kort <bkort@media.mit.edu> 
To: Hope Straughan <hstraughan@wheelock.edu> 
CC: John McConomy - SBJ <John103@sweetbottomfarm.net>,
John Schmidt <johnwilliamschmidt@gmail.com> 
Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM 
Subject: Young Autistic Man with Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits who says: Obey Mah Authoritah 
 
Hi Hope, 
 
I need your help with a case. 
 
There is a young adult male from Little Rock Arkansas who is only known to any of us by his login handle, "Darklama" (sometimes "darkcode") who has been diagnosed as autistic, and who also appears to manifest Cluster A Schizoid Personality traits. 
 
Here is a recent conversation I had with him on the IRC chat channel associated with Wikiversity: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:07:44 PM) darkcode: I know for a fact I keep doing the same things unless I manage to learn something else.
(09:08:20 PM) Moulton: Is there a process or method through which you are able to learn something better?
 (09:10:14 PM) darkcode: when it comes to other people trying to "help" me learn, I have yet to figure out a quick and affective process or method of doing so.
 (09:10:46 PM) Moulton: Would you like to figure out or otherwise discover such a method or process?
 (09:12:24 PM) darkcode: I am reasonably certain you have zero chance of ever affectively teaching me anything.
 (09:13:07 PM) Moulton: I have no desire to teach you anything. My desire is for you to discover how to learn what you need to learn without relying on a teacher.
 (09:14:18 PM) Moulton: Would you be interested in learning how to learn without having to rely on a teacher?
 (09:15:57 PM) darkcode: I already know how to do that, been doing that since birth.
 (09:16:09 PM) Moulton: How did you learn to read and write?
 (09:19:36 PM) darkcode: not quiet sure, I think I learned to read before I learned to speak, and I might of learned to write only after I learned to speak
 (09:22:24 PM) Moulton: Did you ever ask anyone how you learned to read or write?
 (09:24:13 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:25:10 PM) darkcode: it would be speculation at best and wrong at worse.
 (09:27:42 PM) darkcode: I have the sense I learned to read on my own even though other people tried to help me with that
 (09:32:23 PM) darkcode: and I know learning to read probably took longer for me, as I first had to recognize on my own that the criss cross of straight and curved lines weren't just there for decoration.
 (09:35:25 PM) darkcode: and than I had to develop an internal translation system of sorts.
 (09:35:41 PM) Moulton: How did you associate the pictures of the letters of the alphabets with the sounds they represent in spoken language?
 (09:36:15 PM) darkcode: I didn't until later. I also had to recognize on my own that the sounds people made meant something too
 (09:39:07 PM) darkcode: I'm not even sure I ever did learn to entirely associate letters of the alphabet and how they are spoken.
 (09:39:36 PM) darkcode: I think I ended up doing something more like A, sound of A both mean XYZ internally
 (09:41:20 PM) darkcode: where XYZ is something that can't be represented in the physical world except as some obscure placeholder
 (09:45:56 PM) Moulton: Do you mostly not engage in spoken conversation?
 (09:46:38 PM) darkcode: I mostly prefer to read and listen, and let other people do the writing and speaking
 (09:46:49 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to music?
 (09:47:19 PM) darkcode: sometimes, but music gets boring as its repetitive and predictable
 (09:49:36 PM) Moulton: Do you listen to instrumental music, or music with lyrics, or both?
 (09:50:19 PM) darkcode: both
 (09:52:43 PM) darkcode: I listen too all kinds of music, maybe even recorded sounds which might not be considered music, like waterfalls, birds chirping, frogs croaking, airplanes, trains, and more.
 (09:54:15 PM) Moulton: Have you ever been to the website of Amanda Baggs or seen her videos on YouTube? She also likes the sound of water and such.
 (09:54:32 PM) darkcode: no
 (09:55:46 PM) Moulton: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language http://www.google.com/search?q=Amanda+Baggs+My+Language] <== She has a video, "In My Language" that is much like what you describe.
 (09:56:25 PM) Moulton: And she has a web site, a personal blog. Like you, she reads and writes, and doesn't converse orally very much.
 (09:56:46 PM) Moulton: She is very intelligent.
 (09:57:25 PM) Moulton: But you wouldn't know it to look at her. She looks retarded. But she is self-taught, like you. She is Autodidactic.
 (09:59:50 PM) darkcode: I feel blessed to ignorant of what looking retarded looks like, despite other people suggesting someone looks retarded in my presence before.
 (10:00:11 PM) darkcode: err to be ignorant of
 (10:05:31 PM) Moulton: I've conversed with her at meetings at the MIT Media Lab. She listens and then types in a chat window like this.
 (10:06:01 PM) darkcode: "intelligence" and related words pretty much lost all meaning to me long ago from overuse.
 (10:06:25 PM) Moulton: When someone asked her how she felt about something, I predicted she would type "perplexed" which is exactly what she typed.
 (10:07:32 PM) Moulton: So all three of us, you, me, and Amanda Baggs are autodidactic learners. We learn without teachers.
 (10:07:55 PM) Moulton: Did you know you were autodidactic?
 (10:08:03 PM) darkcode: yes
 (10:08:32 PM) Moulton: Do you know the most popular method of discovery learning for people who are autodidactic?
 (10:08:59 PM) darkcode: maybe, but I'm sure you'll tell me
 (10:09:46 PM) Moulton: It was developed a long long time ago by one of the very first people who are like you, me, and Amanda Baggs. It was developed by a man named Socrates. I posted a copy of his method on NK.
 (10:10:23 PM) Moulton: [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates http://netknowledge.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Scratch/Socratic_Templates]
 (10:11:24 PM) darkcode: I suppose the short answer is to ask questions.
 (10:11:31 PM) Moulton: I've had those templates for about 25 years.
 (10:12:09 PM) Moulton: Sometimes you can't think of the right question to ask next. The templates are a guide to help you find the right question to ask next so you don't get stuck.
 (10:12:40 PM) Moulton: When I get stuck, I go back to those templates and look for some question that I neglected to ask.
 (10:13:17 PM) darkcode: I actually considering finding the answers for myself rather than relying on others for answers to be more affective usually
 (10:13:25 PM) Moulton: Me too.
 (10:13:42 PM) Moulton: But I can't always come up with the best question to ask myself.
 (10:14:09 PM) Moulton: There is a pattern of 36 questions in those templates.
 (10:14:38 PM) Moulton: Six cycles of 6 questions at each level of abstraction. Six levels of abstraction in all.
 (10:14:59 PM) darkcode: which is about 30 questions more than needed.
 (10:15:24 PM) Moulton: Most of the time, you don't need all levels of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) Moulton: But when you complete one level, it's time to advance to the next higher level of abstraction.
 (10:15:47 PM) darkcode: I've been practically the KISS principal before I had a name for it.
 (10:16:12 PM) Moulton: Do you operate only at the most concrete level of abstraction?
 (10:16:20 PM) darkcode: possibly
 (10:16:28 PM) Moulton: Doesn't that get boring?
 (10:16:55 PM) Moulton: At the concrete level, every case is a special case. There is no generalization.
 (10:17:40 PM) darkcode: what about every case is a generalized special case
 (10:17:42 PM) Moulton: As you ascend to higher levels of abstraction, you use richer models and analogies and metaphors.
 (10:18:28 PM) Moulton: You'll never get out of the basement if all you do is stay at the bottom level of the edifice.
 (10:18:53 PM) darkcode: I prefer 6 basic questions. "Who?", "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?" no need for special cases
 (10:19:26 PM) Moulton: That's the basic 6, but Socrates used them at six levels of abstraction.
 (10:20:31 PM) darkcode: I usually have no need for abstractions, except when trying to figure out a way to explain a concept to other people, internally I don't need them.
 (10:22:12 PM) darkcode: and even than I think I suck at abstracting things
 (10:25:31 PM) Moulton: I think you do, too. Would you like to learn to not suck at abstracting things?
 (10:26:31 PM) Moulton: For example, do you have a concept of Rules and Sanctions? Do you have an abstract mental model of how that works, both in theory and in practice?
 (10:45:56 PM) darkcode: nope
</div>
Here is another conversation a few days later: 

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">(09:09:57 PM) darkcode: I doubt you care, but I never feared that Wikiversity would be shut down.
(09:10:57 PM) JWSchmidt: and I doubt if SBJ did
 (09:10:59 PM) Moulton: You don't have any emotions at all, Bilious.
 (09:11:13 PM) darkcode: that might be though because I had seen previous discussions where Jimbo had overstated things and backed off
 (09:11:13 PM) Moulton: You have Flat Affect.
 (09:12:02 PM) Moulton: You are about as Blithe, Nonchalant, and Oblivious as they come.
 (09:12:33 PM) darkcode: so have you hypothesis which I am yet: a sociopath or a psychopath?
 (09:12:37 PM) Moulton: Here is my first hint: [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983 http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moulton&diff=prev&oldid=327983]
 (09:13:34 PM) Moulton: I don't think you are Cluster B, Bilious.
 (09:13:57 PM) JWSchmidt: in 2008 KillerChihuahua and Salmon of Doubt probably said things (off wiki) such as "if you don't ban Moulton then Jimbo will act"...that never meant that Wikiversity would be closed
 (09:15:20 PM) Moulton: The type that fits you closest, Bilious, is this Cluster A diagnosis: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder]
 (09:15:26 PM) darkcode: so what do you think I am than? Just a Resistant Learner or more than that?
 (09:15:37 PM) Moulton: Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness.
 (09:15:37 PM) darkcode: ok
 (09:16:13 PM) Moulton: Seems like a textbook match, to me.
 (09:16:43 PM) darkcode: maybe if secretiveness was replaced with reserved
 (09:17:01 PM) Moulton: Not even SBJ knows your name.
 (09:17:08 PM) Moulton: That's pretty secretive.
 (09:18:00 PM) Moulton: You are not reserved. You have no reservations about using your toy banhammer or engaging in nihilistic practices.
 (09:18:30 PM) Moulton: So I'd add "nihilistic" to the traits associated with Schizoid.
 (09:18:38 PM) darkcode: I mean reserved as defined as Slow to reveal emotion or opinions.
 (09:18:59 PM) Moulton: You are not slow to reveal You are at a dead stop.
(09:20:24 PM) darkcode: well some people have described getting opinions from me is like trying to pull teeth</div>
 
Until recently, Darklama would not use his adminstrative powers against people. He would only use them to correct technical problems on the site. Then, he began to use his administrative powers against others (myself included). Roz says that dealing with an Autistic adult who has Cluster A Schizoid traits and "[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Blocked Police Power]" ("Obey Mah Authoritah") is beyond her pay grade. 
 
Do you have any insight or guidance? 
 
Thanks, 
 
Barry (known as "Moulton" in Wikiversity) 
 
-- 
The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.
</Blockquote></TD></TR></Table></Blockquote>
:Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

== Summary Diagnosis ==

Here is my summary diagnosis of what you call "Wikipedia Disease" and what I call "Tin Badge Disease."

Wikipedia and its sister projects became dominated by a [[:en:w:Cluster B|Cluster B]] Bullying Culture, not unlike urban street gangs and organized crime syndicates. The prototypical Wikipedia Bullying Culture was exemplified by the allied editors of IDCab (e.g. Paul Mitchell, Tracy Walker, Mark Pellegrini, Ian Ramjohn, Bob Stevens, Tim Makinson, Jim Schuler, Joshua Kramer, ''et al'', as inspired, encouraged, and promoted by Jimbo Wales). The Cluster B Bullying Culture was weakly opposed by the Ethical Humanist Culture, led on the English Wikipedia by Charles Ainsworth, Alison Cassidy, and Ira Brad Matetsky, and led on the English Wikiversity by Hillgentleman.

A number of weak-willed participants in the projects became inculcated into the ill-conceived practices of the Cluster B Bullying Culture, abandoning the inner compass of their intrinsic ethical humanism to side with the Police State Bullying Culture in the game of "Obey Mah Authoritah." This process of inculcation is colloquially known as "drinking the Kool Aid." It's the same process that draws adolescents into street gangs in urban America.

Once a Bullying Culture takes root, it spreads like a cancer until it destroys the gangs from the inside out.

For more information, see ''[[:en:w:M._Scott_Peck#People_of_the_Lie|People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil]]," by M. Scott Peck.

Moulton 00:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)