I kind of like "collegiality" since it has both an egalitarian sense and an academic sense. It's also not the name of a policy, which might be better as well. --SB_Johnny talk 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I defy anyone to find so much as an ounce of collegiality in yesterday's sham (and atrociously scripted) Bill of Attainder.
Thomas Jefferson was demonstrating collegial insight when he led the civilized world in abandoning Bill of Attainder, having recognized that it's a corrosive and corrupt tool of government that inevitably sinks any regime that comes to rely on it. Shortly after the Founders outlawed Bill of Attainder in Article I of the US Constitution, the British followed suit, abandoning both Parliamentary Bill of Attainder and Monarchial Bill of Attainder.
It's disturbing to witness you and other misguided officials reintroducing this antiquated relic from the rubbish heap of political history into the current practices of Wikiversity. Is this the kind of unwise practice you wish to teach to impressionable youth of the 21st Century? Can you imagine what would happen to anyone who tried to adopt and employ that hoary and unsustainable practice in the real world of an authentic 21st Century learning organization?
Moulton 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I heartily endorse the above advice of WAS 4.250. KC's uncollegiate practice of summarily deleting valid scholarship is an unacceptable practice in an authentic learning community. Time and again we have urged her to craft her own alternative theses, and then to defend them with evidence, analysis, and reasoning, per the protocols of scholarly ethics. —Moulton 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, please feel free to create a learning set of pages expressing your points of view. Deleting other people's points of view is a poor way of creating learning resources. This is Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 10:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, all the pages deleted by Jimbo, Darklama, Mike Umbricht, Mike Ingram, et al, should be restored so that impartial professionals may review them, per Dark Obsidian's wise and urgent suggestion. To my mind, the more public eyes on the case, the better for everyone. —Moulton 11:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to recent issues regarding Moulton it doesn't seem wise to remove those pages yet, until a decision is made on the Community Review - if the Verizon, M.I.T. and other internet/security providers does become involved they may want to view these pages, I suggest you wait for the time being. Dark Obsidian@en.Meta-Wiki 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Moulton, WAS 4.250, and JWSchmidt continually prompted KC to submit her version of events and support them with evidence, analysis, and reasoning, per the protocols of Policy on Scholarly Ethics. Instead, she consistently edited, redacted, or deleted the signed contributions of other scholars. In the Scientific Method, it is customary to examine multiple alternative theses, hypotheses, or models and then to undertake to falsify each of them with evidence, analsysis, and scientific reasoning. I hypothesize that the reason KC declined to submit her own independent alternative version was because she knew (or feared) that Moulton or JWSchmidt would trivially falsify it, just as they demolished her specious, vacuous, and trivially falsifiable reasons for the original indef block of Moulton. And I hypothesize that the reason she redacted the analyses of Moulton and JWSchmidt was because she could not properly falsify them by means of scientific methods of peer review. In short, KC appears to be woefully unfamiliar with the protocols of the scientific method when it comes to crafting or examining alternative hypotheses or theories. —Barsoom Tork 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course KC has an interest because she's among the subjects of the investigation. You (JWS) also have an interest as one of the authors. Having an interest doesn't necessarily entail a conflict of interest. She has just as much right to share her views as you do. --SB_Johnny talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a sham Parliamentary Bill of Attainder, Johnny. And you should be ashamed of yourself for convening such an outrage to 21st Century education. —Montana Muse 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a court, it's a discussion of options to be taken by a community that's rapidly shrinking and seriously needs to move on. It is completely inappropriate for you to accuse the people participating in this discussion of acting in bad faith.
You've already made it clear that you don't like the process. Point taken, so please respect people's right share their views, and to have their views taken seriously. --SB_Johnny talk 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)