Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/3

Odd collection of new accounts

I just happened to notice a whole string of accounts created in Special:Log/newusers. At the moment they run from Sdima3334 to Dmich467. I suspect that they're all sockpuppets; someone – possibly someone with Checkuser – might want to look into this. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• On what basis would you perform a CheckUser action? --JWSchmidt 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't; I don't have Checkuser. :D I just thought I'd draw it to the attention of the powers-that-be; I happened to be looking at Recent Changes, and noticed an unusual collection of new accounts with names in a similar style. I suppose it's possible that it's a set of class accounts with student numbers, or some equally innocent explanation. In any event, it might be worth keeping an eye on these accounts should they require either assistance or intervention. TenOfAllTrades 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikiversity and Wikibooks often get large numbers of new accounts like that at the beginning of a semester. We also really don't engage in pre-emptive watching, since there are plenty of custodians watching the RC feeds at any given time of day :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Accounts set up to primarily attack and discuss Wikipedians

Hello Wikiversitarians. I was kindly directed here by User:SB_Johnny. I am an administrator over on Wikipedia and have been monitoring a few editors that appear to use your site primarily to host attacks and discussions on Wikipedia and Wikipedians. I don't know if that is within the remit of your policies, but perhaps someone might like to peruse one editor's user and talk page, in addition to the comments, here, here and here.

There also the issue of an editor copying questions from the Wikipedia Reference Desk to your desk, cross linking, then offering extremely dubious medial advice (see Wikiversity:Help desk#Intracranial pressure for an extreme example). Wikipedia has policies against of offering medical advice to querents, and this appears to be an effort to circumvent that. Again, I offer no comment on whether this is an issue for Wikiversity, but it is certainly an issue for Wikipedians. Finally, many of the comments cut and pasted from Wikipedia to the talk pages linked above, then critiqued, appear to be violating the terms of reuse under the GFDL licence. I would appreciate it if someone would remind the editors in question of that. Thanks! Rockpocket 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the "attacks" that are bothering you. What do you imagine to constitute "medical advice" at Wikiversity? Can you explain how copying a line of text from a wiki editor along with the source (username/IP of the author) of the text amounts to a violation of the GFDL? --JWSchmidt 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the specific attacks on Wikipedians that bother me are:

• "There are some serious nutjobs there, like Clio, who seem to be not only allowed, but actually encouraged, to viciously attack others" [1] (this one gets bonus points for irony).
• "Clio, a clearly disturbed individual" and "now that I'm free to speak, I'll finally speak my mind. Clio is INDEED a Nazi Apologist" [2]
• "Eric or Clio or Ten ... These guys have skulls that are so damn thick they're absolutely inpenetrable" [3]
• "Don't worry that I'm openly referring to Friday as an imbecile, and Ten as an opportunistic egomaniacal prick" and "drawing the line with that spoiled brat of a revisionist historian" [4]
• "Why are we the only three of hundreds that see her for the obnoxious, conceited disgusting monster she is" [5]
• "She is just a cold and prickly person" [6]
• "some moron like Friday or Ten would issue a warning" [7]
• "More antisemitism and Nazi Apologism from Clio" [8]
• "Clio pretty much fits the bill as the model New Antisemite" [9]

Rockpocket, I also believe that Clio/Anastasia/Annie possesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension. You should probably include that one.

Let me say it again: "Annie possesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension."

And once more to be sure: "Annie possesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension."

Pretty nasty stuff, isn't it? Perhaps...could it be...a personal attack? Nahhhh! I'm sure it's totally ok.

So I'll say this: Rockpocket, based on your words, it's apparent that you too possess an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension.

One more time: Rockpocket clearly possesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension.

Just once more to be sure: Rockpocket clearly possesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension.

You should probably include that one in your little list. After all, that was a pretty nasty thing of me to say, wasn't it?

Oh, and there are plenty more like that too originating FROM Annie TOWARDS me. Too many to remember. In any case, listing them all out would be a waste of time as like I said: You clearly possesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension! No offense!

I really don't know why I'm doing this, this is such a joke! Why not just come out and say it: None of the many disgusting things Annie has ever said about me amount to anything near a personal attack. It's impossible! Annie is incapable of error!

I can just see it now:

Annie: The extermination of the Jews was never part of Hitler's ideology. He absolutely regretted it and only did it as a last resort. He used gas chambers because they were the most humane method of disposing of all those Jews whom he would have much rather had sent off to Madagascar, but sadly couldn't, due to the disruption caused by the allied involvement.

Lewis: Uhhm. Not according to Mein Kampf. From as early as 1924, Hitler spoke of the extermination of the Jews and made points that he was unconcerned about the inhumanity of his proposed methods.

Annie: Lewis, by your response, you're clearly an ugly, perverted, sadistic, pedophilic, misogynistic ignoramus. This discussion is over.

Lewis: Uhhhh....Rockpocket? Ten? Friday? Can you please tell Annie to stop personally attacking me and just address my challenge to her ridiculous and hurtful assertion?

Rockpocket, Ten or Friday: That's enough, Lewis, you're now blocked for good.

Should I just delete all that I wrote above because it's just too embarrassing for you guys for anyone to know how ridiculously biased you are or should I let you?

What the hell, you delete it. Destroy the evidence if you like, just as Annie destroyed all evidence that I'd proven her wrong. It's still in the history though, Annie! And it's there permanently!

"However, Loomis' opinion soon changed when Clio, among other things, wasn't critical enough of Nazism for his liking (Loomis is Jewish). - Rockpocket"

Indeed I am a Jew, yet I don't see how that's relevant. If you were paying as close attention as an Admin should, you'd recognize that my suspicions her authority began with some debates rather unrelated to Jewish issues. The first involved a dispute about English Common Law. That's when it all broke out. I'm a lawyer, trained in the English Common Law system, I caught an error in a response of her's to an OP, tried to kindly correct it, and THAT'S where the hysterics began.

Next was a discussion concerning, believe it or not, something as obscure as Eli Whitney, his invention of the Cotton Gin, and its effects on the economics of slavery in the 19th century US. She made an erroneous remark, one which I proved to be so, and once again, the hysterics broke out.

Look guys, I'm gone. I'm done. If you prefer Annie's fantastically "scholarly" accounts of history to the truth, that's no longer my problem, it's your's. As Rockpocket mentioned to me in an email, even he suspects Annie to be something of a "bullshit merchant", yet he doesn't seem to care. How can an Admin not care about the fact that an editor may be a total bullshit artist? This is not good. Wikipedia is a sinking ship and I'm glad I got off when I could. Loomis 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more, but you get the picture, I'm sure. I really don't see how derogatory comments of such a personal nature, regarding private individuals, further the goals of Wikiversity. At least one of individual (using accounts User:Loomis and User:Lewis) appears to use Wikiversity solely for the purposes of critiquing the comments and attacking those editors he feels wronged him on Wikipedia. He was indefinitaly blocked from Wikipedia for a sustained campaign of a similar nature. His contributions would not be out of place on WikipediaReview, but instead he chose to come here and make them.

With regards to the GFDL issues, our license says "content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)" I can see only one example of a direct link back. Admittedly the comments do usually include the username of the individual who wrote them (without any link indicating the origin), but on occasion even those are changed to mock the person [10]. Rockpocket 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote "content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)" makes it clear that this policy only applies to articles, not the Wikipedia Reference Desk, talk pages, etc. Unfortunately, there is a long history of Wikipedia Admins misapplying policies and guidelines either explicitly (as in this case) or implicitly written for articles in order to impose the strictest possible rules on the Wikipedia Ref Desk. Now that practice seems to be spreading to attempts to misapply those policies here, as well. That said, I have no objection to adding a link back to the Ref Desk, but wonder, along with others, why anyone would complain about a missing link rather than adding it themselves. Unfortunately, the only reason I come up with is that they are more interested in complaining than in actually resolving the situation. StuRat 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL applies to all content at Wikipedia, StuRat, including images and talkpage content. Your continual wikilawyering that the convenient use of the term article in some policy pages explicitly excludes other pages is a busted flush. Rockpocket 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who is wikilawyering. Do you really think Wikipedia is going to be sued because we copied a Ref Desk question to a sister project ? Or are you just being argumentive ? And the use of the word "article" does actually mean "article". If they meant otherwise, they would say so. Clearly, many rules only apply to articles, such as not leaving signatures, and the GFDL concerns are another. You also failed to answer why you wouldn't add the link yourself rather than complaining about it's absence. StuRat 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The clear intent of the GFDL is that authors of copyrighted text be credited when GFDL-licensed content is copied. If a small piece of copyrighted text from a single author is copied, it is enough to indicate the author. For text authored by someone editing a wiki without logging in, does a link back to the original point of editing provide any additional useful identification of the author? I think not. For text authored by someone editing a wiki while logged in, a link back to the original point of editing might provide additional useful identification of the author, however, if the same person also has an account at a second wiki to which the content was copied, then there is usually no need to provide another link back to the original wiki, particularly if the person who made the original edit is the person who copied the text to a second wiki. If I copy to another wiki some copyrighted text created by some other logged-in wiki editor, then it might be useful to provide a link back to the original wiki. However, if a small bit of text is generic ("How many fingers do people have?"), I do not see that someone could claim copyright on that text. How can copying such a question from one wiki to another be a violation of the GFDL? --JWSchmidt 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This example directs significant content from an editor on Wikipedia to a different editor on Wikiversity. Rockpocket 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the medical advice issue. I don't know what sort of medical advice Wikiversity is content to offer. That is for the community here to decide. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that some medical opinion was being offered that is entirely uneducated and potentially dangerous should the querent choose to follow it. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia (which is the only reason it was written here, instead of there, in the first place), but if you guys have no problem with it, or don't consider it medical opinion, then the problem is not yours. Rockpocket 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, most of what Rockpocket says or points to had already vaguely crossed my radar, creating slightly suspicious blip noises.

• We do need policies on publishing material which would not be appropriate on WP, and these policies need to be clearer and more comprehensive than at present. How should we deal with edit war imports? How about WV as a refuge for the opinions of losers in an edit war? The different structure of WV means that conflicting opinions on the same topic can co-exist here on different pages devoted to the same topic, which means that WV is somewhat of an open door for this kind of thing. On the other hand, precisely because WV does not have page-topic exclusivity (i.e. allows >1 page on a topic), means that edit wars are far less likely here.
• What about WV as a refuge for "asylum seekers" - users on the run from foreign admins? If we look at real world analogies (asylum-seeker and extradition agreements between countries; rules about libellous publications attacking another country or people in that other country), the situation is complex. Even the closest of allies do not blindly apply extraterritorial law - checks are made as to whether allegations are plausible. On the other hand, real world asylum-seekers may well be considered guilty until proven innocent and lack the same constitutional rights as others.
• Reuse of WP material is an issue everywhere. Most of the world believe (in the very best of faith) they can copy WP content without attribution, and I've seen plenty of cases where that happens. Enforcing attribution is rather like Canute ordering the tide to reverse. A possible but absurd policy would involve permitting anything until a takedown notice was issued (i.e. the WM Foundation issuing a DMCA notice against itself). Less absurd would simply be to leave it up to those Wikipedians who care to track down copyright violations and enter the necessary attribution themselves.
• I've expressed an opinion on the medical and legal advice question elsewhere.

-- McCormack 04:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. See Special:Contributions/Loomis. No time to write a treatise on it this morning, but this does appear to be an attack account. I'm not sure what should be done about it though (blocking seems inappropriate, deleting the user's talk page might be an option though). OTOH, Discussions on Wikipedia could be an interesting topic, if we could get a bit more input from non-indefblocked Wikipedians as well as folks like Loomis. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I have wondered/worried about some things I've read in some people's talk pages - especially Loomis'. I think there's definite value in allowing people to 'vent' (as John pointed out in the root of this discussion on Wikipedia's RefDesk talk page) - but there's a line beyond which Wikiversity then moves into one of the many attack/vent sites around Wikipedia (eg Wikipedia Watch). How to keep discussions here productive, and how to create policies around that goal? Let's start with perhaps expanding Wikiversity:Civility - but still, this is difficult terrain. Cormaggio ^talk 11:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Telling the story is one thing, ranting is another. It would be nice to have a less kooky place than Wikipedia-watch or Encyclopedia Dramatica for people like Loomis to recover their balance after a (deserved or undeserved) beat-down on Wikipedia, but we also shouldn't let people turn Wikiversity into Wikipedia-watch or Encyclopedia Dramatica. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Options

I had time to read those talk pages this morning, and thought about them a bit while flame-weeding and re-seeding a lawn (flameweeding, by the way, is a fun way to spend a morning, and I strongly recommend it).

So here's my thoughts. I was deeply skeptical about this complaint at first, after seeing evidence of bad behavior on all sides in that Wikipedia discussion. And I sort of get the feeling that Loomis/Lewis is mostly being tounge-in-cheeky, I do think it's gotten a bit over the top. So here are the options:

1. Blank those usertalk pages, and leave a message explaining why.
2. Delete the pages, and recreate with a note explaining why they were deleted.
3. Delete the pages, block the users.

Seems to me that the blocking option is overkill. In any case, for now I'm going to blank the pages, and we can discuss whether we want to go further than that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the "evidence of bad behaviour" should probably considered in the context of the ongoing attacks made here. Its a bit like one child persistantly taunting a dog from behind safety of a garden gate, then noting the dog is being unfriendly to other children.

I have no issue with the healthy discussion or criticism of what goes on at Wikipedia here on general terms, by anyone, blocked by WP not. But I do believe it is problematic when it becomes a refuge for those that are interested in maintaining personal vendettas. I'll take me leave now and refrain from comment on what action, if any, is deemed appropriate by your good selves. Thanks for your attention in this matter. Rockpocket 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• In general, I favor giving wiki editors a significant amount of latitude in how they use their Wikiversity user pages to explore their learning goals. Parts of User talk:Lewis read like an attempt to understand an editing conflict at Wikipedia. When I first had the "pleasure" of reading that page months ago I was able to attain amazingly high levels of assuming good faith and asked myself if I was reading personal attacks or what seemed to me a rather lame attempt to analyze an unhappy wiki editing experience. At that time, I saw no indication that Lewis and other editors of that page were engaging in, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress". I figured that only a few people at Wikiversity would read the comments, and like me, they would not know who folks like "clio" were, nor care. I could imagine little chance that the "ranting" would "causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress", in fact, I imagined that by discussing the situation, folks like "Lewis" might actually reach a state of greater calm. I imagined that after a short time the "ranting" would end and all would be fine. Now that the "ranting" has been viewed by a wider audience I can see that Lewis' edits now have the power to create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Also, I do not see evidence that "Lewis" made much effort to make use of Wikiversity as a place for scholarly study of the difficulties of wiki editing and editing conflicts. When SB_Johnny says (above) that he removed some of the talk page content because it is "ranting" that has "gotten a bit over the top" I'm left somewhat uncertain about exactly what is going on. I assume we are trying to apply principles from w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks here. Is that correct? Is saying, "she was extremely rude to me" a personal attack? I have the same question about, "Both Lewis and I have tried to talk with her, and it never works out well." "She now said that she just reacted badly to my post because she thought I was patronising her" "It has been my experience that the logical validity and/or the factual accuracy of any statement made on Wikipedia is determined entirely on sociological factors concerning the relative levels of support, the and airs of authority, and the past history of each of the parties concerned." I could go on. I do not want Wikiversity participants to adopt the bad habits that haunt Wikipedia. One of the bad habits that is all too common at Wikipedia is when administrators label anything they do not like the sound of as a personal attack. Commenting on the editing performed by other wiki participants is not always a personal attack, even if those comments do cause greater conflict and stress. Some wiki participants engage in bad behavior and then get very upset when others comment on their bad behavior. Is it sensible to delete talk page comments such as "she was extremely rude to me" just because someone complains that a talk page contains "attacks"? I started my comment here by saying that I think we should try to assume good faith about how people use their user pages. In this case, I feel that my assumption of good faith with respect to Lewis's talk page editing was not met with suitable editing in the main namespace. If Lewis had produced a scholarly Wikiversity main namespace page, say, a study of Wikipedia editing conflicts, then I might be able to view the "ranting" talk page edits as a constructive way to organize thoughts about Wikipedia editing. However, I see no clear indication that the talk page edits resulted in the creation of any true learning resources that are of use to the Wikiversity community. I'm thinking that I would like to see a user page guideline for Wikiversity that says something like, "if your use of your user pages does not seem associated with the Wikiversity mission, then you will lose the opportunity to control the content of your user pages". Wikiversity:User page says "Your user talk page is for discussions about you and your participation in Wikiversity." I think we need to put some enforcement strength behind that sentence. We have the proposed policy Blocks may be placed on accounts or IP addresses which have consistently demonstrated a lack of professionalism and respect for the editing environment on Wikiversity. While this statement is rather vague, I think it could be applied to the case of "Lewis" if there was first an effort to discuss incivility with Lewis. We also have Explain incivility, but in this case, Lewis seems to be long gone. So we are left with Removing uncivil comments and my question about "she was extremely rude to me"....are such talk page comments incivil or should these particular comments be removed from Wikiversity because the author did not make a good faith effort to respect the editing environment and mission of Wikiversity? To summarize and make clear: I favor having a mechanism for removing talk page comments from Wikiversity that does not involve dubious efforts to label everything that is removed as incivil or as being a personal attack. I'd like to limit use of the terms "personal attack" and "incivil" to cases that can be clearly stated and easily defended. --JWSchmidt 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just "for the record", I left the stuff on the Lewis talk page (didn't read the whole thing, but I agree it seemed constructive). The Loomis page stuff was what went beyond the pale after a certain ppoint, so I removed the majority of what was on that page (not deleted, just sent to the history). As Darklama pointed out on IRC, we could of course delete all revisions after things turned sour, but I'd rather not the more I think about it.

And JWSchmidt: this was far beyond saying "she was rude to me", and while the worst of it might have been tounge-in-cheek, it might be hard to giggle at that if you were the one he was hounding for a while. We don't need a complicated network of approved policies to justify not standing by while someone thrashes someone else (though if we did, WV:CIVIL would suffice). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I read at User:Lewis I suspect that User:Loomis is another account for the same person ("Loomis" = "Lewis"). In my analysis (above) I was trying to look at the entire Wikiversity editing history of this (I assume, single) editor in an attempt to establish a sound basis for removing some types of talk page content from this editor....content that does not fit the clear categories listed at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have also been wondering about the point where the Wikiversity community might ask a non-constructive editor to stop editing here. I agree with this statement from the "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" page, "There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion". As a specific example, SB_Johnny removed "she was rude to me" and other similar comments and seemed to justify his removal of those comments by implying that they somehow constitute or are an integral part of a personal attack. I think this action by SB_Johnny (if indeed it is being "justified" as removal of personal attacks) is not quite right because it seems to be removing some talk page comments that are not really incivil or personal attacks. Our policy on civility has a section ("Removing uncivil comments") that talks about removing specific incivil comments from talk pages. I was questioning if all the content removed from User talk:Loomis was actually incivil. On the other hand, I was trying to ask if on the whole, Lewis/Loomis has edited Wikiversity in good faith with respect to our educational mission. We do not have a policy that says custodians can do anything they want if they see someone being thrashed. It would not take a "complicated network of approved policies" to give custodians this power. We could simply adopt the approach that thrives within Wikipedia culture by which experienced editors game the system and call any edit they do not like a personal attack, thus "justifying" removal of comments from talk pages, blocks and bans regardless of whether there actually was a personal attack or not. I am not willing to stand by and let that destructive culture spread into Wikiversity. That approach is lazy and intellectually dishonest. Yes, it might take a network of several policies to have an intellectually honest way of dealing with some problem editors. If so, we should not shy away from constructing those policies. Being careful and surgically precise in removing talk page content (as, I think, current policy calls for) does not constitute "standing by while someone thrashes someone else". However, I remain interested in the idea that for a case like this there might be a reasonable response that would amount to the community deciding that Lewis/Loomis is no longer welcome. If so, it might be useful at this time to establish such a president. When I look into the future of Wikiversity it seems fairly certain that we will have to do so eventually....unless we adopt what I view as the less desirable approach used at Wikipedia, an approach that does not take into account the broader, more participant-oriented mission of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 01:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I take my leave now, but you have piqued my interest in Wikiversity and, particularly, how it can be used synergistically with Wikipedia to further learning. So perhaps i'll stick around a little longer if thats ok. I think your suggestions are generally very sensible, JWSchmidt, but am left wondering what you meant by Is it sensible to delete talk page comments such as "she was extremely rude to me" just because someone complains that a talk page contains "attacks"? It seems rather obvious to me that no custodian would delete talkpage comments just because someone complains they contain personal attacks. Am I wrong to expect the custodian would use their judgement to determine whether there were such attacks before taking any action? In light of this, and to get some perspective of what you consider to be acceptable, I'm interested in whether you consider the examples I posted above as being equivalent of or similar to "she was extremely rude to me" (which I agree is neither incivil or a personal attack) or whether these are an example that are "clearly stated and easily defended"? Rockpocket 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket: I've added some additional comments (above) since you asked these questions and I think some of those newer comments from me are relevant to your new questions. Wikipedia provides a list of clear examples of what the Wikipedia community has defined as the types of "personal attacks" that are not welcome (Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets, threats of legal action, threats of violence, particularly death threats, threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages and several others). I find it useful when editors can point to this list and say, "Hey, Lewis, your comment at X was an ethnic epithet. I've deleted that comment and I'm asking you to not make similar comments in the future." This is what I mean by a situation where identification of a personal attack is "clearly stated and easily defended". However, there are other less clear types of comments, some of which might be called "insulting or disparaging" comments, that are often called "personal attacks". In such cases we get into the realm of subjective judgments about the truth of the comments and the intent of the person making the comments. This is why the "No personal attacks" policy says that there is not always a clear way to delineate what constitutes a personal attack. It is also why I brought into my analysis (up above on this page) the issue of what constitutes "constructive discussion" and over-all constructive editing within Wikiversity (on the whole, has Lewis/Loomis done enough constructive editing or has this editor out-worn his welcome?). To some extent, if a comment is constructive discussion (within the context of the mission of a wiki) then that can shift our judgment about whether the comment constitutes a personal attack. If a troll comes to a talk page and adds an inflammatory comment, I might remove the comment and use an edit summary such as "removing comment from troll". My factual statement is constructive and in some sense excuses me for the disparaging "personal attack" that I put in my edit summary. To be blunt, I have to ask myself: are the insulting and disparaging comments from Lewis/Loomis correctly describing the behavior of other editors while he attempts to find a constructive way to deal with the bad behavior of others? Alternatively, do the comments from Lewis/Loomis represent a dishonest and completely non-constructive account of a bad editing experience? I see very little evidence that Lewis/Loomis has attempted to convert his "ranting" into a scholarly analysis of editing difficulties in a wiki environment.....something that with a huge amount of assumed good faith might be viewed as something that could develop into an "excuse" for all the talk page "ranting". As long as nobody seemed upset by -or even to be aware of- the "ranting" I was willing to take a hands-off approach. Now that the ranting has upset people, someone familiar with the editing history of Lewis/Loomis at Wikipedia could step in and help clarify things. From my perspective of ignorance about past Wikipedia editing by Lewis/Loomis, it is easier for me to try to focus on the record of editing here. Since all the "ranting" has never been backed up by a scholarly analysis of the editing difficulties at Wikipedia, I tend to suspect that the talk page "ranting" from Lewis/Loomis will never provide anything useful for Wikiversity. I've been suggesting how the Wikiversity community might be justified in losing patience with Lewis/Loomis. If my analysis is correct (above on this page), we can happily remove all the talk page "ranting" without having to go through all the trouble of trying to figure out if any of that "ranting" reflects justified complaints against other Wikipedia editors. "Am I wrong to expect the custodian would use their judgment to determine whether there were such attacks before taking any action?" <-- I hope I have made clear my view that I think the civility policy calls on us to remove only the identified incivil talk page comments. It is not enough for someone to decide that there was an attack and then, as part of the "remedy" for that attack, remove talk page comments that are not attacks. I'm not really satisfied with just removing the incivil comments and I'm not satisfied with incorrectly labeling civil comments as being "incivil". The general consensus here at Wikiversity has been to slowly develop policies as needs arise. I think our proposed blocking policy has the germ of a path towards dealing effectively with the Lewis/Loomis talk page "ranting", but about a week after the launch of Wikiversity there was an interesting edit of the blocking policy page. At Wikipedia it might be expected that Lewis/Loomis could be threatened with being blocked for personal attacks. The Wikiversity community is in the process of exploring the idea that for our education-oriented mission there is a more fundamental issue than "personal attacks" that can be fruitfully applied. Many of us expect Wikiversity participants to "take the project seriously" and attempt to learn how to participate in a "professional" manner. I think the intent of this proposed policy is to apply a definition of "professional" to participation at Wikiversity such as, "behaving in a professional manner involves disciplined research, analysis, interpretation, and scholarly pursuit of education-oriented goals." Talk page "ranting" such as that from Lewis/Loomis is not "professional" in this sense. --JWSchmidt 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the user page of "Clio" on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Remi 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a little background might be of interest here. Clio the Muse is a young historian who mainly answers question at the Humanities Reference Desk. She is a huge hit there (see her banstar collection), due to her remarkable range of knowledge and idiosyncratic style. Inevitably enough, answering question on history requires some level of interpretation, and Clio is not adverse to offering he take on certain subjects. One editor, Loomis, took an immediate shine to Clio.

"A lot of the people here are really bright, but...it's extremely rare that I'd ever admit to meeting my intellectual match, if not my superiour! My God! I'm such a proud guy that I can't even believe that I'm even considering that another may be my intellectual superiour! [11])

However, Loomis' opinion soon changed when Clio, among other things, wasn't critical enough of Nazism for his liking (Loomis is Jewish). His overt praise turned to, almost stalkerish, criticism of almost everything she posted (though my personal feeling is that there is an element of jealousy that Clio's answers are widely praised while his own rarely drew comment). Clio is certainly feisty, as SB_Johnny can attest, and gave as good as she got in response. However she rarely if at all instigated any conflict with Loomis, certainly not in the early days. Eventually they were encouraged to stay away from each other, but before long Loomis returned to criticising Clio's responses. Eventually, when it became disruptive, Loomis was blocked. I actually unblocked him when he indicated he would avoid here again, and tried to work with him and Clio (my first real involvement with either of them), but it became clear that his sole purpose on Wikipedia was to "intellectually challenge" Clio, and Clio alone. Eventually he was blocked again (though not by me). It was at this point he migrated here to continue his discussions on Clio with his sympathetic colleagues StuRat and A.Z. Incidently, with regards to JWSchmidt's suggestion that the discussion here might help Loomis reach a state of "greater calm", I would argue the exact opposite. As forum for these Wikipedians to migrate and discuss issues in parallel to their comments on Wikipedia, it appears to have stirred up the antagonism. As recently as this week I have had emails from Loomis, referring to his issues with Clio in recent discussion with his colleagues. Rockpocket 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Until recently, I was unaware of the July Wikiversity edits by "Loomis". Until folks from Wikipedia recently started complaining, I was able to hope that the Loomis/Lewis "ranting" on Wikiversity talk pages was a relatively short-lived dead-end editing effort that would quietly slide into the past without being noticed. Back in April I also had other fantasies about Loomis/Lewis possibly learning to participate in some scholarly explorations of wiki phenomena at Topic:Wikipedia studies and related main namespace pages. As mentioned by me further up this page, above, I've pretty much abandoned that wishful thinking. Some of us here at Wikiversity have been stalked into the real world by malicious Wikipedia editors and we certainly to not like the idea of Wikiversity being used as a support system for on-going edit wars, harassment, stalking or any other similar behavior. Some of us do occasionally stratagize about possible Wikiversity learning projects for wiki editors who have trouble fitting in to Wikimedia culture. We'd be thrilled if we could find ways to engage such people in constructive editing projects rather than being limited to continuations of non-constructive interactions with them. --JWSchmidt 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My say

On Lewis/Loomis: He was once a productive editor at Wikipedia, then got into a two-sided fight with Clio (not one-sided). This was then aggravated by Wikipedia Admins taking severe actions against him but either completely ignoring or taking minimal actions against Clio, when she engaged in similar uncivil behavior. Lewis could not accept this unfair treatment and this escalated until Lewis was permanently banned from Wikipedia. He then came to Wikiversity, IMHO, to "let off steam", as this was a place where he thought he would actually be allowed to present his side of the issue. While I agree that he does tend to go "over the top" at times, I also believe there are real issues of abuse of authority and favoritism by Admins at Wikipedia underlying his complaints. I've tried to let him know that I agreed with his underlying concerns, but I favored disengagement rather than confrontation. Note that he hasn't edited Wikiversity for quite some time now (no edits in August or September), so there doesn't seem to be any need to block him.

On the removals: I agree with JWSchmidt, and others, that while some of the material on Lewis's talk page was "over the top" and removal may have been justified, SB_Johnny went overboard and removed a great deal of material that is not a violation of w:WP:NPA. I'd like to see him restore that material. Also, if our Custodians viewed this material previously and didn't find it required removal, it doesn't seem justified to remove it now, just because some Wikipedians complained. The material hasn't changed, only a few "squeaky wheels" have appeared (as in the expression "the squeaky wheel always gets the grease", meaning the person who complains gets all the attention).

In general, I think Wikiversity needs to work very hard to avoid the same authoritarian power structure which has formed at Wikipedia, due to long-standing Admins who are essentially appointed for life, and only removed for the most severe of abuses. Limiting the power differential between ordinary users and Custodians is the way to prevent this from happening here. Once it happens, it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to "get the djinni back into the bottle".

I also have some specific comments on differentiating between medical info and "practicing medicine without a license", but those comments have been made elsewhere. StuRat 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• If an unseen tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? If personal attacks are made on an obscure Wikiversity talk page do they causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress? I am one custodian who previously viewed many of the talk page edits of Loomis/Lewis and decided that since nobody seemed to be upset by those comments, nothing needed to be done about them. Two things changed. There are now talk page edits from Loomis/Lewis extending in time over at least 4 months. My "do nothing" attitude was in part based on the expectation that Loomis/Lewis might "give up" making edits at Wikiversity after a few weeks. The second change is that the talk page edits by Loomis/Lewis have been noticed by people who are upset by them: we now have an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. So while I previously took a "do nothing" approach, I now support the idea that action should be taken. I think SB-Johnny's removal of talk page content from User talk:Loomis was well intentioned. I seriously wonder if we should remove all of the talk page comments from Loomis/Lewis and ask this editor to reform (for reasons I've described on this page, above). I do not view the action taken by SB-Johnny with respect to Loomis/Lewis as being a custodial action, even though SB-Johnny is a custodian and the discussion on this page contributed to that action. In my view, the Wikiversity:Civility policy provides guidance for how any Wikiversity editor can respond to incivility, including removing incivil remarks from talk pages. I've been somewhat mystified as to why the people who are most upset by the Wikiversity talk page comments from Loomis/Lewis have not themselves taken direct action, as suggested by Wikiversity:Civility or even just plain common sense. I guess it can be argued that the indirect action of asking custodians to act is "polite" or "safe", but I'm not sure it is very effective. From my perspective, I am left guessing what others find upsetting about the comments from Loomis/Lewis. I find "his talk page comments include attacks" to be too vague to motivate me into action because those talk page comments include a rather long and winding discussion of an editing conflict at Wikipedia....a conflict that I know nothing about. However, I've suggested that the over-all pattern of editing by Loomis/Lewis can be interpreted as reasonable justification for revoking the "right" of Loomis/Lewis to use talk pages for "ranting". I agree that Wikiversity does not need to adopt less desirable elements of the culture that has developed at Wikipedia. However, that does not mean that Wikiversity has open arms for people who cannot edit constructively in a wiki environment. I'm willing to include at Wikiversity some learning resources that might help "problem editors" learn to find constructive niches inside Wikimedia wiki projects. Loomis/Lewis is invited to participate at Topic:Wikipedia studies and related main namespace pages, but in my view, the ratio of constructive scholarly editing in the main namespace compared to talk page "ranting" needs to increase dramatically. --JWSchmidt 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But Lewis's rants did end, and he hasn't said anything else in August or September. Thus, I think the "wait and hope for improvement" option did work, so no further action was needed. That said, I don't object to the removal of some of the more objectionable material from his talk page. StuRat 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I support SB_Johnny's editing of the Loomis page. My support is primarily because I feel that Loomis has already had two months of exercise of freedom of speech, and that's probably enough for this round. One of the further differences between WV and WP is that material on WV is more likely to be transitory (only useful for a limited period of time), while WP is a stab at immortalisation of knowledge. Even some types of educational material on WV are going to need to be subject to an expiration policy in the future. In fact I did, as a custodian, review some of the Loomis material at the time. I felt it was probably close to or over the line in terms of content, but in terms of context (positioning, placement) it was less harmful (e.g. because the target might never actually read it or be bothered by it). As a vandal fighter, I did not regard it as vandalism, so I left it alone, but I can see a variety of other reasons why it would be right to remove it. McCormack 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow why WV is more transitory than WP, can you explain ? StuRat 01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Education is an event, not knowledge-immortalisation. People on WP seem to think that because WP articles have eternal shelf-life, so do their talk-pages. Everything becomes a shrine on WP. With educational resources, there is a general consensus widespread in the-world-outside-Wikimedia that resources have lifecycles, with only some types intended for permanency. (For evidence, look at recognized metadata definitions for catalogues of resources). McCormack 04:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever if StuRat, JWSchmidt, or anyone else wants to restore more of the contents on that page (it's not deleted, just blanked on the current revision of the page). I just slathered the whiteout from where the discussion of the WP users began, rather than spending a lot of time parsing it. This wasn't a Custodial action (with a capital C), just a matter of courtesy as it was clear that the "target" of the discussion was feeling abused. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll put it all back, then blank the most objectionable parts. StuRat 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I took out the final section ("Eureka!"), as that appeared to be the worst part. Let me know if you think I missed anything that needs removal. StuRat 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a number of editors (including a number of Wikipedia editors, and Clio herself) were aware of Loomis/Lewis' attacks on Wikiversity at the time that they took place. We all agreed (offwiki, by email) at the time that ignoring his tantrums and rants might be best; by pretending that we weren't aware of his outbursts on Wikiversity we hoped to accomplish a number of useful outcomes.

• Loomis/Lewis would be able to blow off steam, and resume contributing in a positive way to Wikipedia.
• We would avoid any sort of 'turf war' with the Custodians and other powers-that-be at Wikiversity. It can be challenging, sometimes, to distill a months-long dispute into a clear and consise form, and to explain to a newcomer exactly what it is that is going on, and why an (ahem) aggreived party is being so cruelly persecuted by us, the evil administrators of Wikipedia.
• Not acknowledging the attacks meant we didn't have to do something about them. Clio was willing to ignore the bile over at Wikiversity in exchange for a chance at some peace and quiet.

Loomis was unable, despite repeated warnings from Wikipedia administrators and advice from his friends, to avoid continuing to call Clio a 'Nazi apologist', among other attacks. When his final indefinite block was placed on Wikipedia, for nearly a month he hadn't made any contribution there that wasn't related to prolonging his dispute with Clio. His response to requests to set his dispute aside or – at the very least – to find something useful to do were met with (at best) silence or (more often) new rants and attacks posted on Wikiversity.

I applaud StuRat's advocacy for the downtrodden, but I would caution him not to let his personal opinion or disputes with a few Wikipedia editors/administrators (I am one) permanently distort his view of Wikipedia as a whole. TenOfAllTrades 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am not certain that it is appropriate for StuRat to be deciding what material of Lewis/Loomis' is appropriate to preserve on Wikiversity. StuRat was a participant in that dispute, and it might be best for neutral third parties to make these sorts of decisions. Of course, I'm content to let sleeping dogs lie, here. TenOfAllTrades 12:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I was not a participant in this particular dispute (over Clio's alleged Nazi apologism), and I still take no position on whether I agree or disagree with Lewis. I did, however, advise him to disengage, which he now appears to have done (no edits from him here in August or September). So, your previous decisions (to ignore this dispute) seemed wise to me, and seemed to be working, why the sudden change despite a lack of any recent edits by Lewis ? StuRat 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever since I became aware of the July Wikiversity edits by the "Loomis" account I have been reluctant to let "sleeping dogs lie". What most stimulated my curiosity was this: "I've finally figured out how to finally turn the tables and begin to manipulate the system," and "I want to do a bit of testing of my theory just to make sure it's indeed valid." I have a hard time finding a way to assume good faith with respect to these comments from "Loomis". The closest I can come to accepting what "Loomis" wrote is if I imagine that "Loomis" really feels he is doing battle against a form of corruption and that by "manipulating the system" he might be able to help Wikimedia projects improve. In the past few days, I have asked myself if I should assume good faith with respect to the ability of "Loomis" to "manipulate the system" and by so doing help matters or if I should worry that "Loomis" will just find a novel way to become involved in unproductive wiki editing. With the goal of doing the best I can towards being able to answer my own questions about "Loomis" from an informed position, I have spent a significant amount of time examining the Wikipedia edits of the "Loomis51" account and those of other Wikipedia editors who have had significant talk page interactions with "Loomis51". My exploration of those Wikipedia edits has centered on what might be called "reference desk specialists", editors who do little more than edit reference desk pages. Reference desk questions that involve "prickly" historical matters can quickly expose differences in opinion between editors. The editing guidelines of Wikipedia have been evolved for the purpose of helping to facilitate the gradual production of encyclopedia articles that attempt to provide a balanced presentation of all significant existing alternative points of view with respect to the article topic. When editing articles, editors who have different points of view can take their time in finding ways to include multiple points of view, roughly in proportion to the extent that each POV has been defended by previously published experts. The situation is different at the reference desk in that the continual posting of new questions creates a limited time window for discussion before all the comments are archived. Some "reference desk specialists" fall into the trap of rushing to critically judge the meaning of reference desk posts and then charging into verbal battle when they become irritated by the edits of others. Trying to speak as a "neutral third party" calling things as I see them, "Clio" appears to have a talent for making edits that provoke irritation in other editors. In two specific early cases I found for 5 December 2006 (StuRat) and 8 December 2006 (Loomis51), it appears to me, as a casual observer, that both StuRat and Loomis51 rushed into confrontations with Clio over relatively trivial matters. I suppose it is possible that each of these situations involved "a straw that broke the camel's back" and all I have seen is the last piece of straw. For the sake trying to understand the conflict that lies behind the Loomis/Lewis Wikiversity talk page "ranting" I have tried to reconstruct the complaints from StuRat and Loomis51. As I see it, the suggestion has been made that Clio has a pattern of editing that involves repeated attempts to pass off sloppy thinking as being valid forms of historical interpretation. Loomis51 seemed to feel that Clio unfairly "got away with" bad editing that is damaging to the purpose of the reference desk. As I read the record, both StuRat and Loomis51 have complained that Clio sometimes includes in her wiki webpage comments what might be called snide or derogatory comments about those who hold views differing from hers while at the same time not responding constructively to calls for further explanations of earlier reference desk comments that have been challenged as being enigmatic or misleading. What seems to have fed the flames is when Clio felt that she had adequately explained something in detail but Loomis51 kept insisting that the matter should not yet be dropped. It is basically at this point in the interactions that Clio requested that some experienced Wikipedians examine the situation. This request seemed to lead to the suggestion from outside parties that Loomis51 should not hold unrealistic expectations about his ability to get more out of Clio.....when an editor says, "I have nothing more to say on this matter," it is usually not constructive to keep pressing for more. However, Loomis51 found it impossible to keep from getting involved in new disputes with Clio, disputes that tended to quickly include unproductive name calling and assorted charges of personal deficiencies. The Loomis51 account was blocked several times and Loomis/Lewis complained that Wikipedia administrators had not been fair in their interventions. I hope the preceding analysis captures the essential core of the dispute....the parties involved can correct me if I am missing or distorting any of the essentials. My interest in these matters centers on how to respond to the Loomis/Lewis talk page edits that, for convenience, I have been referring to as the "ranting". I am willing to give people room to "vent" on talk pages when they feel that they have suffered an injustice, but I feel strongly about the idea that Wikiversity talk pages are to be used by Wikiversity participants for purposes that further the educational mission of Wikiversity. I do not see that happening with the "Loomis/Lewis" accounts. My little trip down "memory lane" at Wikipedia has not inspired any new sense of expectation that "Loomis/Lewis" will suddenly take a turn away from the "ranting" and start contributing constructively to Wikiversity. Thus, I view the "Loomis/Lewis" talk page "ranting" as a failed experiment and a lost opportunity for "Loomis/Lewis" to convert hurt feeling and a sense of injustice into a well-referenced critique of the kinds of difficulties that can arise from editing at a wiki reference desk (something that people might be able to learn from). I think it is the responsibility of those who view comments from "Loomis/Lewis" as being harmful to step in and remove the edits as suggested at Wikiversity:Civility. I'm not going to complain about StuRat participating in the process of removing the "Loomis/Lewis" edits that seem to be fruitless "ranting". I can now understand how StuRat has been involved in the disputes at Wikipedia, but removing talk page comments is an open process and if StuRat makes any questionable edits it is up to other involved parties to step in and participate in the "sanitation" process. --JWSchmidt 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you refer to this diff in my case: [12]. If so, then yes, that is a good example of a case where I felt a personal attack was being made by Clio (not against me in particular, but against anyone who challenged her view of events, apparently). However, favoritism there is such that no Admins will take any serious actions against her for such statements. StuRat 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind. I think, "some people are clearly inclined to pontificate about Catholicism and sexuality without having a clue about the subject," can be fairly described as a snide comment. Someone who actually has no clue would not be able to pontificate. People who know a small amount about a topic do pitch in at the reference desk, in my experience, usually with an openness to having such participation help themselves learn more about the topic. Most people are pleased when someone with a greater depth of knowledge also participates or even corrects earlier comments by the less well informed. The system can break down when people have a mis-communication or a disagreement about the topic of discussion. --JWSchmidt 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be more likely to refer to this diff, which shows some rather deep hostility to both the Wikipedian crowd in general and w:User:Clio the Muse in particular. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A few specific Editors and Admins there, not everyone, or even most people there. Then there was your moment of frankness: [13], in response to Clio's rather insulting comment here: [14]. This also appears to show a great deal of hostility toward Clio, but I won't hold it against you. Please offer me the same consideration. StuRat 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not holding anything against you (your opinions about these people really are none of my business), just pointing out that you do seem to harbor some hostility. And yes, I found Clio's comments rather demeaning to a project and community I hold near and dear, and made my opinion of that clear. Clio and I quickly called a truce, however, while you seem to be nursing a grudge (which, again, is not for me to judge because I don't know how it started between you two). It does at least create the appearance of a conflict of interest, don't you think?

It's not that I personally have any objections to what you restored, but then I'm not sure why you would be so interested in restoring it as you did except for the sake of the dog you have in this fight. You two had a conversation, you know each other's views, and you know that it annoyed the hell out of the person you are talking about. That conversation adds absolutely nothing to Wikiversity aside from serving as a big sign saying: "Clio isn't welcome here". We didn't delete it, you can find it if you want it, but can't we please just relegate it to <double entendre>history</double entendre>? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you've read through my contributions at Wikiversity, you will see that I favor disengagement from Clio; for Lewis, A.Z., myself, and anyone else who has been insulted by her (I suppose that now includes you and the entire Wikiversity community). Clio will also claim she favors disengagement, but nevertheless misses no opportunity to attack, such as her recent comment on Wikiversity: "...a place for rats and loonies!". The "rats" part was apparently an unprovoked insult aimed at me. I've managed to restrain myself from responding in kind to that particular insult. StuRat 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, you wrote "I view the "Loomis/Lewis" talk page 'ranting' as a failed experiment and a lost opportunity. I think it is the responsibility of those who view comments as being harmful to step in and remove the edit." Why not simply state on the talk page that it was a failed experiment? Why should failed experiments be deleted?

The page Talk:Logical fallacies and/or factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia seems to be an attempt at constructive criticism by Lewis, with a more productive approach. This page may make people start assuming good faith. a.z. 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• In my comments (above, 03:11, 8 September) I pointed to the "Logical fallacies and/or factual inaccuracies" stuff as an example of a path towards potentially useful editing at Wikiversity. On this page, I have also previously discussed in great detail my attempts to assume good faith with respect to talk page edits at Wikiversity that dwell on editing conflicts that took place at Wikipedia. I think enough time has passed to judge that these discussions of editing conflicts at Wikipedia have not contributed to the educational mission of Wikiversity. A path by which some of these non-constructive discussions can be "deleted" is by application of the civility policy which calls for the removal of incivil comments. In terms of custodial action, my personal view is that each additional non-constructive mention of editing conflicts at Wikipedia brings us closer to the point where the Wikiversity:Blocking policy will have to be used. As I've previously argued, I think the on-going discussions of Wikipedia editing conflicts and personal comments that were made during those conflicts can reasonably be viewed as demonstrating a lack of professionalism and respect for the editing environment and mission of Wikiversity. User pages are for the purpose of facilitating participation in Wikiversity and the educational mission of this wiki project. As soon as myself or any other custodian grows tired of the on-going non-constructive discussions of Wikipedia editing the path will be open to both blocking user accounts and deleting talk pages of blocked user accounts. --JWSchmidt 15:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with JWSchmidt, with the proviso that warnings should first be issued. A couple of the discussions going on recently are purely destructive, the worst thing about them being that they foul up otherwise useful, important and frequently used pages (colloquium, request for custodian action), making them just about as usable as a vandalized page. I think the minimum action we should take at this stage is to invite the participants to remove their comments to subpages where they won't disturb other users; if they decline, we should move the discussions for them. --McCormack 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I have made changes to Lewis's talk page now. I also explained on Clio's talk page that one of my comments that she thought was an attack actually wasn't. a.z. 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Custodian action

TenOfAllTrades: do you think "Custodian action" is necessary at this point? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you guys, really. If Clio is bothered by Lewis' remarks here, I'd urge you folks to err on the side of courtesy and expunge with vigour. As you've noted, Loomis/Lewis hasn't shown any recent sign of wanting to contribute positively to Wikiversity (or Wikipedia) or even of paying any attention, and I doubt it's really part of Wikiversity's mandate for it to be a permanent record of and monument to a particular individual's disputes.

As something of an involved party (I checked the logs and it turns out that I was the one who issued Loomis' final block from Wikipedia) I'm not going to fiddle with userpages on this site. I would recommend to StuRat that he also leave the matter to uninvolved – or at least neutral – third parties here. I am concerned that his personal disputes with other individuals (me, Clio, and many others) present a conflict of interest here. TenOfAllTrades 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You said "Loomis/Lewis hasn't shown any recent sign of wanting to contribute positively to Wikiversity (or Wikipedia)". Well, that's true, I suppose, but, of course, he hasn't shown any sign of wanting to contribute negatively either, in that he hasn't been here at all. StuRat 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll ask Clio then. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for someone neutral and uninvolved in the dispute for an opinion, why ask Clio, who is clearly at the very heart of it all ? StuRat 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio

Hello, everyone; it's me, Clio, the 'nutjob'; the 'Nazi Apologist'; the 'Anti-Semite', both old and new; the person who issues 'curses' and practices 'black magic'; the person who wants to 'gas all Jews'; the fraud, the deceiver. Yes, you will find all this and more here on Wikiversity, spread across the talk pages of Users Loomis/Lewis, StuRat and A.Z. Oh, let me assure you that the 'nutjob' is not here to stay, but I felt the wider community might be interested in a word of explanation. I do not want to bore you all, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. Those who wish any further detail can follow my edit history at Wikipedia. My real name is Anastasia and I am a historian by training and profession, having submitted my doctoral dissertation earlier this year at the University of Cambridge in England.

I would, first, like to thank Johnny for inviting me over here. We did not get off to a good start at Wikipedia, though I quickly came to understand that he was acting in good faith and with the best of motives. Second, I would like to offer a sincere apology to the general Wikiversity community, all those of you with whom I have never had any contact. I wrote some hurtful things about Wikiversity, as Johnny knows, in the course of a discussion about giving advice on medical issues on Wikipedia. I said from memory that it was 'the realm of the stupid, the spiteful, the petty-minded and the second-rate'. Yes, it was wrong, I know; but you see, for me that is precisely what it had become. I judged on the basis of what I saw, and what I saw was malevolence and hate; a campaign that had begun at Wikipedia continued here with a complete lack of restraint; an abuse, I believe, of the forms of freedom you allow. In private discussions with people at Wikipedia I had previously agreed that no formal complaint should be lodged here, because as far as I was concerned it said far, far more about the three individuals in question than it ever did about me. What I could not stand, what made me angry, was the advocacy of Wikiversity during the medical debate, because for me this place stood for one thing, and one thing only-hate, hate and yet more hate.

There are two points over which Rockpocket is not quite correct: my problems with User Loomis did not start because I wasn't critical enough of Nazism; they started because I dared to disagree with him. Second, we were not encouraged 'to stay apart'; I deliberately, and of my own volition, decided to disengage completely when he started his bullying last December. Here, below, is a copy of a statement I made at the time to the Wikipedia community (I'm sorry; I'm still not good with some of the technical things like diffs and links, but you will find the full discussion in Archive 17 of the Wikipedia RD talkpage)

Now that the lava has ceased to flow I will risk one final statement, in full knowledge that it is likely to incite yet a further eruption. I have been subject here, and on the Humanities page, to a vicious personal attack. Amongst other things it has been suggested that I have 'a pathological intent to mislead', that I represent a threat to the quality and integrity of the reference desk, that what I do, and what I am, cannot be tolerated, and other more petty insults. And for what? Because I dared to suggest that there was an alternative way of looking at a historical question, and that some attempt should always be made to understand the past in its own terms. Some other users have weighed in on the side of my accuser, some of whom I am not even conscious of ever having come across. Others have ventured a word or two in my defence, for which I am really grateful. But everyone seems to have missed the bigger point at issue. I have read on this talk page seemingly endless discussions concerning the freedom to express a view over what I would consider quite trivial matters. Yet nobody, 'nobody', has seen the real dangers in this assault on my integrity, and the simple right to make a reasonable argument at all hazards. The unrestrained forms of prose used against me, spluttering on the verge of almost complete incoherence, reminds me of work I carried out not so long ago on propaganda in Stalin's Russia. I never thought to find myself in the position of people like Anna Akhmatova, my favourite Russian poet. Yet, here I am, in the midst of of a Wikipedia 'Yezhovschina'. I suppose if this really were the Time of Terror I would now be on my way to the mines and camps of Kolyma. But I am not. I thought for a moment or two, just a moment, of giving this up, that I had no wish to be involved in a project that embraced such people as Loomis, who express loathsome forms of verbal intolerance. I am now told that I never know what I am talking about, and this from the same person who not so long ago wrote' I've never been so blown away by another's intellect. A Lot of people here are really bright, but...Wow!. People will find this along with other equally gushing and devotional remarks on my talk page.

So, how will I respond? I will stay, that's how. I will continue to answer such questions as I am able. I will continue to be as I am. I will not retreat, and I will not give way to venom, innuendo and vicious attempts at character assassination. I will survive. You need not fear, Loomis; you will never receive a message from me, either through the post or by any other means. My presence alone should be sufficient to unsettle petty-minded bullies like you, a person who is quite capable of shifting from one extreme to another, without being aware of the insight that gives to his character and personality. And this is the final direct response you will ever receive from me on any matter.

Clio the Muse 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And so it remained: I ignored him; I ignored the insults; I ignored the compliments (yes, these came to); I ignored his questions; I ignored his provocations. In March of this year he came to my talk page offering an apology (Mea Maxima Culpa), which I accepted but still said, in the light of his past history, that we keep apart. But the 'apology' was followed by a fresh campaign, increasingly obsessive in nature, based often on a perverse misreading of my words. It got so bad that he was finally blocked though I never, at any point, lodged a formal complaint against him. Rockpocket allowed him back on the understanding of reformed behaviour; but the same old thing started up again, as tiresome, as repetitive, as obsessive as ever. Latterly his edits were nothing but attempts to undermine me. He 'retired' (he kept retiring and reappearing) only to post further attacks on his Wikipedia talk page just prior to his final ban. I was asked by Rockpocket if I would like these removed, but I said they should remain, a perfect epitaph.

The worst comments here appear on his Lewis page but please also look at his exchanges with StuRat on the latter's talk page. Now, you are all better judges than I over what is and what is not allowed here. Let the hate remain, if you wish; it really does not bother me. It is not good, I believe, for the credibility and value of this learning project, though that is another matter. Finally, let me say that I now feel sorry for Loomis/Lewis more than anything else. There is something quite troubling about his obsession with me, an indication of more deeply rooted problems. Yes, I feel sorry for him, but I despise those who have nurtured and encouraged him. I do not think I need to name names.

Anyway, that's it. I've gone on far too long, I know. I leave it to your good sense to decide what is best. I will be happy to clarify any of the above, and will answer any questions you may have. I will not, however, enter into any form of discussion with StuRat or A.Z., both of whom I studiously ignore at Wikipedia. I hope you understand my reasons. My best wishes to you all. Anastasia Clio the Muse 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about this is taking place on Clio's talk page. a.z. 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough

This is getting absolutely rediculous. I'm starting a discussion on WV:RFD. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong place/method to deal with this. Why not continue - here - with discussing what specific instances of hurt we need to deal with and how, and to generally addresss the broader question of how interpersonal differences and frustration can be kept within a civil and educational process? Cormaggio ^talk 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just think this is taking a disproportionate amount of time and energy for what is essentially a conflict of personalities. At least too much of mine :). I will speak no further on the subject, unless personally asked to do so. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Here!

Jeez! I just came here out of curiousity to see what was going on, but wow! I never expected to be the subject of such discussion! I'm truly flattered!

K, maybe I can reduce the whole argument to its bare fundamentals: A question regarding history is asked at the RefDesk. One contributor tries to give her take on it. Another contributor finds the response of the first objectionable and so he then gives his take. Long story short, the second contributor is blocked. What an amazing, broadminded way for OPs to learn about history!

Look people. I'm gone. Clio is now the all-knowing historian who is never wrong about anything. If that's how you like Wikipedia to be, then so be it. Just include me out.

In any case, I just can't help but voice my opinion that Clio clearly posesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension. Really. I'm serious. Based on what I've read above, she obvioulsy posesses an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension. Sorry Clio. I know that was nasty of me and I'm sure you have many other talents, yet I must say again, you clearly posess an almost total lack of intellectual comprehension.

Funny, the other day, I was watching some interview of some celebrity. The interviewer asked him to comment on some ridiculous rumour concerning him.

His response: "Don't believe everything you hear on Wikipedia!" lol

In other words, Wikipedia is going the way of the National Enquirer. Society is seeing more and more the tabloid bunk that it is.

I saw this coming. I tried to help, only to be blocked.

All hail Clio!

At least the Enquirer has some funny cartoons. Loomis 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this response from Loomis/Lewis neatly summarizes the problem here. He hasn't contributed to Wikiversity for more than two months as either User:Loomis or User:Lewis. The bulk of his contributions then were using Wikiversity as a soapbox from which he could continue to heap insults on another individual.

It was asked earlier whether intervention of any sort was required, as Lewis/Loomis had apparently left Wikiversity. Well, here you go—he's back to the same abuse. He's trying to revive the same bickering and abuse that he specialized in before; his first contributions in two months are a renewed diatribe. The custodians here had apparently pretty much lost interest in the issue, and still he couldn't resist trying to start a fight.

All right then—given this new information about Lewis' attitude and conduct, what response is best, in support of Wikiversity's civility policy? And is it sufficient for him only to increase his positive contributions [15], or would he be well-advised to eliminate his attacks as well? TenOfAllTrades 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT suggest that he "only increase his positive contributions", this is a misrepresentation of what I said. I suggested that he do that and reduce his attacks. StuRat 06:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"what response is best" <-- I guess it is possible that continuation of this thread might eventually lead to custodian action.....a specific request for custodian action might increase the chances of that. Until then, Wikiversity:Civility invites all editors to remove offensive comments. I hope that this might have a positive effect. --JWSchmidt 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If a neutral third party would be willing to remove Lewis/Loomis' comment above, that would be appreciated. If the rest of this thread goes too, so be it. TenOfAllTrades 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, my personal preference would be to just throw all six of you in a large room with some paintball guns and a sandbox full of jello. Assuming that option is unavailable, feel free to get dirty and throw paint around here and get it out of your systems. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)