User talk:JWSchmidt/Abd

User:JWSchmidt[edit]

I am asking for a review by a neutral administrator of the behavior of JWSchmidt (Talk | Email | Contribs | SulUtil). I and other administrators have warned him about tendentious incivility, but he has defied the warnings, claiming abuse, even for just warning, and has persisted in the behaviors involved. For the most recent example, the occasion for this report and request, see this move to an archive titled "silly attacks and nonsense," and review the preceding discussion, which begins at [1] (block notice), and which should be read in the context of a preceding warning. This is part of a long-term pattern of provocative actions which do not seem to be a part of addressing and actually resolving long-term disputes and problems, but only of blaming and counterattacking, such that even when an administrator is simply expressing what is likely actual consensus, as with the comment moved, above, to archive, the admin is accused of bias and is considered worthy of desysopping for it. This is disruptive, and I've warned JWSchmidt about it, and have discussed it with him at painful length.

The behavior should be reviewed and a decision made about the benefit to Wikiversity of JWSchmidt's continued participation here, in light of his seeming inability to drop the old disputes, ironically just as we may be making baby steps toward directly resolving them. My tentative request is for an indefinite block, because it is clear that this is not just some transient error or outburst, but has a deeper basis. I would want to see his return, and previously suggested that he might regain admin tools -- which were removed out-of-process -- if he becomes willing to address his own dysfunctional behavior or at least to assure the community that the behavior that others find objectionable will not return.

I am notifying JWS of this request on his Talk page. If others think that wider attention is needed, please feel free to link to this at the Colloquium. A previous subpage is at en:Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt. Possibly this new request should be moved there, but I must move on to other activities at this moment. --Abd 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with what has been said here. As Abd notes, this is just the latest example of a long pattern of what I'd suggest seems to be a failure to comply with the civility policy. When I saw this latest incident I did consider blocking indefinitely myself and raising it for discussion but refrained from doing so since I am slightly involved with this. It might be worth considering an indefinite block pending wider discussion of this issue to ensure those discussions can proceed without the distraction of the same old repeated accusations from JWSchmidt. Adambro 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Review of JWSchmidt" subpage is not the only review to have taken place. en:Wikiversity:Community Review/JWSchmidt's block and en:Wikiversity:Community Review/Topic bans for User:JWSchmidt are two others. -- dark lama 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JWS responded to my notice on his Talk page. I'm not responding there. If he should be blocked, however, discussion of the block could take place on his Talk page. Reviewing the prior lengthy discussions, there is a basic error I've seen on Wikipedia as well: assuming that an allegedly disruptive editor who does not acknowledge that there is any problem or who, if not acknowledging the problem, does not at least agree to avoid behavior considered problematic, will somehow magically change and become nondisruptive, is naive and rarely leads to a good end. At no point in those discussions did I see JWS acknowledge any error or even that someone might reasonably imagine that there was one. --Abd 05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic error here is the use of the blocking tool, which has no place in an authentic learning community. It's an appalling disruption of the collegiality and congeniality of an authentic learning community. Can you imagine a genuine educational institution that employed something comparable? It's ludicrous. This site will never rise to the stature of an authentic educational culture as long as Custodians are clubbing people over the head with their banhammers. That just turns this site into a pathetic version of Mafia Wars. --Barry Kort 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can start and/or participate in a en:Community Review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I start or participate in a collegial conversation on the Colloquium or address problematic issues in a en:Community Review when Custodians like Adambro and Ottava sytematically and unceremoniously revert my comments and block my access? —Barry Kort 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

By and large "adult" edits seem to remain; "child" edits seem to have a greater probability of attracting "parent" punishment responses, thereby triggering a Karpman drama triangle. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes the character of Caprice so fascinating to work with in a didactic exercise. Because there are plenty of occasions in life when there is a Persecutor and a Victim, but no Rescuer. Caprice exhibits the ability to be a Self-Rescuing Victim — the Scape-Goat Who Returns. Barry Kort 06:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Individual members of any community may lose their rights to participate in community discussions, this is true for all communities, without exception. Barry, you have no right to participate here, you lost it through a series of unfortunate incidents, regardless of blame, and, to regain the rights, whether or not they were properly removed, you would need to follow due process. Here, you have essentially lost your community membership. That leaves you free to sock all you want, but understand that this also sets up conditions where anyone can revert your contributions (not just admins), just as anyone can revert them back in. While you are blocked (not only "banned"), any admin may block your IP. Some will do it, some not, but this is well within administrative discretion, it is simply an enforcement of a block. If you have been conducted from the campus by campus police, you may not simply re-enter at your will, it's trespassing, whether or not the expulsion was "legitimate." It is not up to the police to determine if you were "guilty" or not. That's a judicial function, not an executive one, except as to ad-hoc application of discretion. Individuals may not "ban," that's been established, not even Jimbo was able to pull that off, he merely tried and some of the damage hasn't been cleaned up. But for now, Barry, you are effectively banned here, not because of what Jimbo did, but because of what you did in response.

Process was begun that could have allowed you, under certain conditions, not yet established, and subject to negotiation, to return to participation here. However, you neglected and defied warnings, instead of respecting them and, perhaps, appealing them, if you disagreed. In recent events, this month, you have not been treated outside of academic norms, your idea of some kind of total freedom in academia, as to access to university resources and publications, is a fantasy, not a reality in any established institution. While this is not Wikipedia, you have pointed out that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a fantasy, as well. It's "anyone except...." But such advertising claims are puffery, and that level of puffery is routinely accepted, and challenging it legally is very difficult, if it is to be challenged at all. It is, after all, an ideal and not a promise. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but there is no guarantee that the edits will stick. You have shown that, in spite of blocks and locks, you can edit Wikiversity, but you are complaining that the edits don't stick. We can all read them, they are not actually being censored. Merely removed from the standing transcript. If you have something to add to that transcript, to the "minutes" of our meeting, all you have to do is to convince another to revert it back in, taking responsibility for it. If nobody is willing to do that, your effort is doomed.

Personally, I'd prefer that the IP not be blocked, but it's not all up to me, is it? I'd prefer that the IP not be blocked to encourage you to use a stable address, so you contributions can be watched. I'd prefer that you were allowed to use the account that was set up for you by Diego, and I'd support his unblocking that, and, indeed, I'd prefer, for example, bot reversion to blocking, and voluntary compliance with restrictions to either of them. But, with you, I couldn't move to any of these and an unqualified unblock became completely out of the question due to your behavior. You could fix this, but apparently you don't want to. That's your choice, I can't even call it "childish," but maybe it is. You have at various times expressed a belief that you, indeed, were helpless over your own reactions. But that's your personal psychology and is really your business, not ours. I'm just trying to get a functional community going here, that is capable of moving on from the events of 2008-2010, whether or not the specific damage is ever undone. Sometimes one has to rebuild a place that has burned down, even without identifying the arsonist or bringing him to justice. --Abd 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, there is no due process at WV, just as there was none at WP. This was one of the very first issues I raised 2 1/2 years ago. Jimbo acted unilaterally, as a bully, threatening to shut down the site if anyone dared oppose him, and that was that. He had sundered any pretext to due process. There simply are no governing principles or rules at WV. The bullies with the banhammers just do as they please.

That's why I have not sought reinstatement into the community (because there simply is no community). When Adam disrupted the dialogue with James Neill, he demonstrated that there simply is no collegial dialogue at WV, full stop.

This whole discussion about blocking and banning is an anachronism that has no place in an authentic learning community, full stop.

I understand that you have elected to convert WV into a lame imitation of Mafia Wars. Fine. If that's what you want, that's what you have.

Barry Kort 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

source

Anyone can start and/or participate in a Community Review <-- The Wikiversity Community Review system has interesting historical origins, particularly in the context of policy development at Wikiversity. When Wikiversity started, community members used the Colloquium as a central page for community discussions. I've never thought it makes any sense to put important community discussions (about things like imposing bans on Wikiversity participants) on another page (en:Wikiversity:Community Review), but if important community discussions are to be hidden in that way, then there should at least be sensible rules (for example, you can't run a witch hunt against a wiki participant unless you at least let the victim defend himself). In 2008 a few Wikipedians started disrupting Wikiversity by imposing Wikipedia's procedures, rules and policies on the Wikiversity community. The main force behind this shift in direction at Wikiversity was Jimbo, who banned Moulton. Rather than let folks like Jimbo arbitrarily block and ban Wikiversity participants, I believe that Wikiversity should have a few key policies such as policy for bans. User:SB Johnny decided that, rather than collaborate to develop needed Wikiversity policy, he would attempt to impose topic bans on me (by making use of the Community Review system, see en:Wikiversity:Community Review/Topic bans for User:JWSchmidt). Of course, I was not allowed to fully participate in that community discussion; I was subjected to a two week long block. I objected to the block but Adambro enforced it. While I was blocked from editing, starting near the end of August 2009, en:User:SB Johnny created a new policy and rushed it along, making it on "official" policy before I was unblocked. I certainly would have participated in the drafting of that policy, but en:User:SB Johnny had engineered a block on me, making sure that I could not participate. This sorry story of policy manipulation is just one example of how policy development has been disrupted at Wikiversity. I'm not happy about what has been done to Wikiversity by invading Wikipedians and I intend to continue objecting. Lately. en:User:Darklama has continued the process by which policy development has been disrupted during the past two years. Rather than edit collaboratively to develop needed policies, en:User:Darklama prefers to make threats and impose blocks (en:User talk:JWSchmidt#24 Hour Block). I will, of course, continue to object to such disruptions of Wikiversity. Maybe some day we can get Wikiversity and policy development back on track. For now, a few folks from Wikipedia and Wikibooks prefer to continue abusing their sysop powers so as to impose the rules of those other communities on Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this background - I appreciate it - I seem to recall that en:WV:CR came about quite quickly? The policy talk page could be used to discuss improvements? Colloquium or talk pages etc. should be preferred I think. When an issue outgrows those places, then consolidating in something like a Community Review page would seem preferable at least to en:Request custodian action. I'm not particularly fond of person-focused "community reviews" - esp. if the person in question can't edit - I'd prefer the focus to be on content and process. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific case of making needed modifications/improvements to en:WV:CR, I believe that a good approach would be: invite en:User:Emesee, en:User:Thekohser, en:User:Moulton (and any other Wikiversity participants who have been unfairly excluded from participating) to help develop the en:WV:CR policy. --JWSchmidt 16:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WV:CR did indeed come about quiet quickly. WV:CR got used before there even was a policy in place for it. WV:CR got created because people felt there was a need for it. WV:CR policy came later because people felt there was a need to document and have a common understanding of how it should be used. WV:CR policy when it was developed and gained consensus already included a requirement that people use talk page and other means to deal with problems first before bringing it up there. "I need help with a problem. I tried to deal with it myself here. I need the community's help because ..." is pretty much how I think WV:CR is expected to be used. WV:CR got used the last time Jimbo Wales came by and did some things people didn't agree with for example. -- dark lama 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"people felt there was a need for it" <-- In practice, the review process was misused by people who wanted to impose practices from other websites and who disrupted needed policy development at Wikiversity. Bogus "community review" witch trials are a tool developed at Wikipedia. A hit man was sent to Wikiversity by the gang at Wikipedia that had harassed and blocked Moulton at Wikipedia rather than fix a policy-violating biography about a living university professor. That hit man was allowed to participate in orchestrating a "community ban" of Moulton with the assistance of en:User:SB Johnny and others who were reacting to a threat that Wikiversity would be shut down (en:Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's block). Fearing that I would wheel war, I was subjected to an emergency desysop procedure when no emergency existed. I was subjected to an absurd block "until guidelines are agreed upon". I was removed from participation at Wikiversity so that Wikipedians including the hit man could take control of Wikiversity. The deceptively titled community review (en:Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's block) was improperly closed as justifying a community ban of Moulton. To this day, Jimbo's foot soldiers continue to enforce the ban. Two years ago my attempts to develop needed policy to deal with use of real world names were sabotaged by people who did not want their take-over of Wikiversity to be inhibited by community rules. The hit man from Wikipedia also disrupted the attempt to examine Jimbo's bad block of Moulton. The hit man was rewarded for his massive disruption of Wikiversity by being made a Custodian. Another similar witch trial could be imposed on Wikiversity at any time using the community review process. --JWSchmidt 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Moulton happened almost two years ago here. The "rewarded" custodian isn't any more, that whole situation having been finessed. Moulton would be back if he wanted to be. He doesn't. Temporary blocks are just that: when a wiki administrator believes a user is disrupting the community, the admin generally asks the user to stop. When the user doesn't stop, the admin blocks. Such blocks are not bans, they exist to protect the community. Sure, they can be abused, but so can anything, including the editing privilege.

Now, what's happening here? JWSchmidt has been on a rampage of complaint since 2008, it appears. Anything that seems to him to be even remotely abusive he complains about, at length. He doesn't seem to understand that there are other sides to issues. He takes friendly warnings as insults and stronger warnings as abusive threats and bullying and he takes actual blocks as proof that the jackboots are in charge. It's gone on too long. Now, I tried to warn JWS about excess, when I first became involved with Wikiversity. I'm no stranger to admin abuse, I successfully confronted it at Wikipedia. But this had gone way beyond any legitimate attempt to restrain administrative power, and there was no sensitivity to how problems could be addressed non-confrontively, and no sensitivity to how his own behavior was regularly uncivil and thus disruptive. I confronted admin abuse at Wikipedia and, I hope, never did so uncivilly. I'd question an admin's action and the normal response was civil and respectful and frequently the admin would apologize or acknowledge that something could have been done better. It was only a few who insisted on abuse, those were the cases that ended up at ArbComm.

In any case, I'd tried to point out to JWS that his archiving practices were uncivil, as were other contributions. He argued tendentiously. When he was short-blocked for premature policy tagging after being warned, he complained bitterly. There were legitimate and non-disruptive ways to do what he wanted to do. I came largely to the conclusion that he was seeking to be blocked, which was definitely the case with Moulton yesterday, not that JWS is responsible for what Moulton does nor the reverse. But because he and I had disagreed over his behavior, I would normally consider myself obligated to recuse. I did not start a community ban discussion. I saw behavior that was endangering the wiki, by extending and preserving conflict. So I went, not to Community Review, but to the Custodian Request page. That's an early intervention measure. I'd already tried to solicit third-party intervention, without success. I am not arguing for a ban for JWS. I'm arguing the following, and it is very simple:

JWS has been warned about various behaviors, and has continued with them and has insisted on them. He's been blocked and then unblocked, but without displaying any recognition of the problem. After some history like this, it is completely unreasonable to assume that he will change unless he actually tells us he will. I'm asking a neutral admin to look at his behavior and assess if it should be restrained. If so, that admin could warn and request voluntary compliance with reasonable restrictions. If JWS refuses to agree, and continues the behavior, then this admin would block.

Problem is, there may not be any neutral admins left, except maybe the newest, Diego. In which case, we will have no other recourse than a Community Review or the like. I dislike using the Colloquium for this, but a major review could certainly be announced there. This whole thing could be avoided if JWS would start fairly considering his own behavior. He was originally offended, greatly, by some quite offensive behavior. But he's still fighting those battles, when the "enemy" isn't even in sight.

If I'm wrong, fine. I'll drop it. I'm not about to engage in some extended battle, my job, generally, is to anticipate consensus and stimulate it. I saw a specific uncivil action that JWS took. He has not refactored or reversed that action. It stands, and it's offensive. That's what I pointed out at the Custodian Request page. JWS does not have to go "on trial." It could simply be this one action, is it justifiable or permissible? Should Wikiversity permit this kind of usage of user space? He's persisted in spite of warning. Should that be allowed?

Suppose I started a page here about the misbehavior of an admin on Wikipedia, making very personal accusations. I could certainly do that! Would this be allowed? Should it be? I'd say that, outside of carefully established ethical guidelines, and for clear educational purpose, we should not permit this wiki to be used in this way. JWS's abusive archives are not educational except to demonstrate how great offense can be taken from small or even non-existent offenses. I could, as well, delete them or seek to have them deleted, depending. But JWS will, it seems, continually present us with these provocations. He sees them, I think, much as Moulton sees his own activities, as speaking truth to power, as confronting abuse. But incivility and excessive confrontation are themselves abusive.... --Abd 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view of these matters in general is that some edits by some people make some other people uncomfortable. We have some rough, incomplete guidelines and policies to help guide our behaviours in such situations, but the more we revert to relying on such policy, the less it seems we are relying on the more basic trust that makes a wiki world go around - and we can end up with pettiness. If we could cut each other a little bit of slack and get on with creating educational content, then I suspect we might have a healthier community. The reality in the meantime is that we have a messy history and present and we are each imperfect in our efforts to deal with that. Let's not forgot that each page has an edit button, so it can be improved and there are an infinite number of new pages which can be created - wiki can be a library of babel. I am not wanting to sweep things under a carpet, but I am concerned sometimes that we might be missing the forest for the trees. Owners of blocked accounts can demonstrate a case for unblocking for community consideration - or can try a different account or anonymous IP. Editors using accounts with sysop tools should IMHO be spending as much time as possible thinking and behaving as normal editors and content creators and relatively little time using or thinking about using delete/block. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source