Wikiversity Custodian, SB_Johnny, explains:
As for the whole "how did Jimbo get involved thing", yes, it was a total failure of cojones on our collective parts (on my part especially). But we did not ask him to do something, we certainly did not seek him out, and the reasons he gave were not the ones we thought he was going to give (or at least not the ones we thought we were supposed to have agreed to).
Jimbo Wales, himself, writes:
QUOTE(Jimbo Wales on Wikiversity Colloquium)
After discussion with other admins, in which I was requested to personally make this block, I have indef blocked Moulton from this project.
The disparity between these two statements led me to formulate this scientifically crafted pair of hypotheses:
QUOTE(Moulton's Wikiversity Talk Page)
Community-Wide Peer Review of Exceptional Practices
I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:
So far, the acknowledged actions of the majority of resident scholars here has reified (rather than refuted) H1. It is still possible for H1 to be falsified, but to the best of my knowledge and awareness, that has not yet happened as of this moment in the remarkable history of Wikiversity.
Moulton 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose a scholarly examination and peer review of the following two scientific hypotheses:
H1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are systems scientists, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty. Those here who are actors in a constructed reality soap opera will probably have little or no idea what I'm talking about.
- H0:Benign AGF (Assume Good Faith) that nothing sinister, nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary has happened here in Wikiversity or in the associated IRC channels.
- H1:Speculative (and as yet unproven) hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be an immediate consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was inappropriate for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).
So far, the acknowledged actions of the majority of resident scholars here has reified (rather than refuted) H1. It is still possible for H1 to be falsified, but to the best of my knowledge and awareness, that has not yet happened as of this moment in the remarkable history of Wikiversity.
Moulton 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Since then, I have provided multiple additional opportunities for the cojones-challenged custodians of Wikiversity to falsify H1.
See for example, this unblock request and this reminder, posted on SB_Johnny's talk page.
On every occasion, without fail, the Custodians of Wikiversity have reified H1 rather than refuting it by falsifying it.
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome hypothesis?