User talk:JWSchmidt

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

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

Ping

hehe :-) --Erkan Yilmaz 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome, today. :) 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? --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. Wikademia

Blocking

You should be able to block users now, in case, heaven forbid, you need to. Wikademia

Hopefully nobody will notice my little research project. I'd prefer to work in peace and quiet. --JWSchmidt 06:25, June 13, 2009 (UTC)

I can remove the links to your projects from the Meta:Browse if you like... 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. --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? 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. 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 (; 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. 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 [1] 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. 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. Purple Scissor 20:54, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

Security...

You can now categorized pages as [[Category:Invisible]] 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. 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 [[Category:Invisible]]. 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. --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... 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 [2] at WikiSynergy for doing the same thing he did to your article. A link to your article was added [3], 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 [4]. What happened at Wikiversity? Purple Scissor 06:14, July 8, 2009 (UTC)

that wiki is still around.... Wikademia

How are your learning projects going?

It's been a while... 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 :) 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:

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.

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.

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:

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… 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 Mona Piza's reply: 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 My response: 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 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.

JWSchmidt 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, for the record, is my previous message to the world:

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. --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. 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 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." —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. --JWSchmidt 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please review your 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. 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. —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. --JWSchmidt 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, Peter, tell us who is jerking your strings in this lunatic psychodrama. —Moulton 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) It is your own policy. You do not need to know who sent me here; the fact is, I am here. 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. —Moulton 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC) It is still policy as it currently stands. 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.—Moulton 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please note that removal of non-public personal information is supported by Foundation-wide policy. Since this wiki has no local oversighters, stewards will perform oversighting when needed. Jafeluv 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) What non-public personal information are you concerned about? —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? --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. 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 --JWSchmidt 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Not while you continue to support users revealing private information about other users. 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 WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People and WMF Policy on Whistleblower Protection. —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? --JWSchmidt 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Peter, who sucked you in to their sick Cluster B "Obey Mah Authoritah" Game? —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. --JWSchmidt 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC) If you do, you will find yourself in a very difficult situation. PeterSymonds 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Peter, are you aware that here in the US, the WMF enjoys the protection of 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 Candid Copera! Here is an excerpt from People of the Tin Badge: The Hope for Educating the Keystone Cops, by M. Snot Dreck: 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. --JWSchmidt 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC) I did. 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? —Albatross 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Non-public personal information Please describe the nature of the "non-public personal information". --JWSchmidt 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Real names and email addresses of people who have not made that information public. Jafeluv 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Jafeluv, how do you know that the real names and email addresses are not public? --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 tortious remarks of SBJ on his user page on the English Wikiversity. —Moulton 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Size of the deleted content It appears that a large amount of content was deleted (oversighted) from 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? --JWSchmidt 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC) As I've 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. 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. —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. --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. —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. --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? --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. 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? --JWSchmidt 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) do you want me to tell you the personal information? I didn't understand. 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. --JWSchmidt 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) O.K. sorry. yet reposting discussions that were removed due to personal information is vandalism. Matanya 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Please describe the "personal information" and your authority to delete it. --JWSchmidt 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, please be specific. Whose name or email address are you protecting? —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. 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. -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. --JWSchmidt 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Questions "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"? --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. Matanya 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) How does the WMF 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? --JWSchmidt 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) If you're concerned that information has been suppressed in violation of the 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 audit subcommittee for this purpose. Betawikiversity doesn't have such people locally afaik, but you can always ask for a review from any uninvolved steward. I'm not sure if the ombudsman commission inspects oversight use, but that might be one possible way to request review of a suppression. I hope this helps. Jafeluv 12:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 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. --JWSchmidt 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Transparency is important, but requests for oversight 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 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. 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? --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. Jafeluv 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Does that mean that all the claims made by Jafeluv, Eptalon, Matanya, Barras, Laaknor, 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 Jafeluv, Eptalon, Matanya, Barras, Laaknor, 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? --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 WMF Policy on Biographies of Living People? Note also that the WMF Privacy Policy which you cite has a scope, which covers user data collected by the Foundation. More to the point is the next section of the policy, which states: The public and collaborative nature of the projects 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. Moreover, there is a Whistleblower Policy which protects those who call fouls on erratic WMF functionaries who exceed their authority and abuse their power. Under that policy, Moulton is protected from reprisals by those erratic or abusive WMF functionaries who inappropriately overstep their otherwise legitimate authority. 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. --JWSchmidt 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) This was a potential libellous information which can be seen as vandalism. -Barras 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Barras, please describe the nature of the "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 the community discussion forum. --JWSchmidt 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Good faith - this makes me loling. -Barras 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Barras, do you think it is funny to revert good faith edits? --JWSchmidt 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) No, but those ongoing additions of personal information and he as a known cross wiki trouble maker... -Barras 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I'm going to guess that you are talking about 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"? --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. -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? --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. --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. 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. JWSchmidt 02:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)