Wikiversity:Community Review/JWSchmidt's block

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To read his views, see JWSchmidt's talk page.}} JWSchmidt was blocked and had custodial and checkuser flags removed. I think he at least ought to be unblocked and at least have his custodian and probably also check user flags put back on. This is presuming there has been no abuse of the checkuser tool; I have not heard of any occurring. I am bringing this up for civil, respectful, polite, thoughtful discussion. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock and a reflagging of User:JWSchmidt. I do not know of any abuse of checkuser functions, and I have not seen any use of custodial tools that seems to warrant deflagging those either. Emesee 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any abuse of the tools either, and I think that is not why the tools were removed. Perhaps recent events led some people to feel ill at ease with JWSchmidt continuing to have access to the checkuser tools, but that is speculation. What I do know is from a software stand point in order to ban or block a person such tools would need to be removed in order to keep them from being able to unblock or unban themselves, so there may be no connection with abuse, just on what was required to enforce a block or ban on JWSchmidt. Perhaps the question should focus first on if JWSchmidt should of been blocked or banned, and if the community feels he should not of been, can than discuss whether the tools should be given back next? --darklama 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: John's tools were removed and then SB Johnny blocked him. Johnny hadn't cited a specific rationale for his action and it has led to an (in my opinion) confusing on-going discussion on John Schmidt's talk page where John is claiming that the block was unjustified. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the following problematic: what was started as a review of John Schmidt's action Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt become a overwhelmingly negative portrait of only the recent part of John Schmidt's work on wikiversity. It was structured as a bureaucrat report, and I found it difficult to add to it. And then it was used by Bastique on Meta to remove John Schmidt's tools, even before John had a chance to provide a wholesome answer to his charges. If there is any emergency in Bastique's action, I would like to see someone (Johnny?) point it out. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think Review of JWSchmidt was done in an attempt to satisfy JWSchmidt's request that people who had issues with him, list what problems they had with him and to provide evidence or such. I think some of the confusion might be due to some of the discussion that led to that page happened on the IRC channel, by email, by phone, and/or over voice chat. Perhaps the ones involved in its creation thought a bureaucrat report was what JWSchmidt was asking for? I think JWSchmidt mentioned responding to the list of problems on, what seems to me like, several occasions on some subpage of his. Does anyone actually know if the review page was used to justify the removal of the tools from JWSchmidt? Sounds like speculation to me. --darklama 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Darklama, Thanks. I was too lazy to provide the link to meta: Bastique removed John Schmidt's tools [1][2] at the request of SB Johnny [3]. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The first link suggests to me that Bastique thought the review was relevant to his decision to follow through on the request. The third link, where the actual request was made, suggests a different story though for why the request was made, that the bureaucrats agreed that the removal was necessary. --darklama 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it was a bureaucratic decision. However, I cannot imagine what else the bureaucrats based their decision upon if not the review which they had worked hard on. A steward usually would not remove a sysop tool without community consensus or specific reasons. And on Johnny's (or the bureaucrats'?) comment:Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Removal_of_JWSchmidt.27s_custodian_status We owe the community a more detailed explanation of the decision-making processes. ... well? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Both the block and the removal of status were decided after seeing JWS's replies to the review, which contained justifications for the behaviors, but showed very little understanding of why others found it so offensive, and absolutely nothing would give the impression that he would not repeat this in the future. His way of "making a point" was not just disruptive, but brought to the point of bullying as he responded with inappropriate tones (to put it mildly) when several users asked him to stop. We also saw a blatant misuse of ops privledges on irc :Salmon of Doubt had requested that Moulton be kicked (he was posting private correspondence, names and email addresses of people who had not given consent to do so). When Salmon asked who had ops, JWS opped himself, but did not kick or ban... he was just showing who had the tools. Salmon had been treated rather badly by JWS and Moulton on the channel prior to this, and felt this action was done in a threatening way (which is quite understandable). A second time Moulton was doing similar things I myself had asked JWS to kick him, but again he refused (I got ops later that day, as did all the 'crats and the other custodians who are regulars on the channel).

More later, gotta work. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What's been most distressing for me about this is that I just couldn't imagine that JWS really, honestly felt that the way he was treating others was acceptable. In the discussions leading up to the action, we all felt it was completely inappropriate for someone who treated people that way to have sysop tools (let alone checkuser, since he and Moulton were having long and public conversations on the IRC channel about the real identities of pseudonymous users). The block was intended to just give JWS some time to cool off and talk about "rules of engagement", since (again) his responses to the "review" showed anything but regret for the unfair treatment he had been giving people. We honestly thought it would be a week or so, since it's just hard to imagine anyone wouldn't understand how inappropriate that was. The problem is that since the block we have been trying to talk to him (for my part mostly about converting pages into personal critiques of a fellow Wikiversity contributor), and his responses have made it clear that this is a worst-case scenario (and a completely unexpected one): JWS either really believes his behavior was perfectly appropriate, or he refuses to admit that it was.

So there's two problems now. First, we can't expect him to show courtesey and collegiality if he genuinely believes that he has been doing so in the past, because I can't imagine many people would think that he was after eading the "cases" of the review. We also can't possibly come up with an exhaustive list of "please don'ts". Second, I don't think we can enter into a "moderation/mediation" mode with him, because he has repeatedly made clear that he considers the "charges" to be "false and twisted", and that the actions taken to try to avoid further disruption are "illegal".

I really don't see a good way forward that involves unblocking at this point. Off to work again. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading this, I would support the continued removal of his sysop (etc.) tools. I do think he should be unblocked however; if he continues to be disruptive, he can then be reblocked. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the block/an, but Support removal of checkuser access. JWS has not demonstated the maturity and level of procedural trust required in one who can violate foundation level policies at a whim. Salmon of Doubt 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Support continued block untill such time as Moulton's disruption is ended. Salmon of Doubt 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock and recall because I think there are issues being inappropriately mixed. If the same rationale to block JWS was applied on other users, there would be more users blocked. Let's move on. Dzonatas 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock - This block looks to me like a political move to unfairly disempower and stigmatize a long-standing member who refused to go along with a questionable move by other officials. Political disagreements are inevitable in any community, and it is important that fundamental issues be discussed in an open, honest, and dignified manner. JWSchmidt can't even speak for himself in this thread, where his fate is being discussed. It is a fundamental issue of fair play that a person is entitled to respond to his critics. Wikiversity diminishes itself first by blocking a well-respected academic on specious grounds and then denying him right to answer and challenge his critics. Original Spin 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This user account has no prior editing history on Wikiversity, and may be a sockpuppet or SPA. (I suspect it is a sockpuppet of Moulton). The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification - In case anyone thinks otherwise, this block was always meant as a temporary measure - it was conceived as a means of forcing John to take a step back from his editing, and reflect on how his behaviour had affected other editors. The review was not designed as an overview of everything that John has done for Wikiversity (which, I would say, has been overwhelmingly positive), but a POV on aspects of his recent editing that had been raised as problematic by various editors. Subsequent discussion has been ongoing on John's talk page. Cormaggio ^talk 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The notion of using political power to force a scholar to cease from his labors is one that I find ominous and disturbing. In any event, all it has done is force JWSchmidt to confine his responses to his own talk page, whilst denying him the opportunity to respond to his critics in the threads where his work ethic has been called into question. If his fellows scholars feel compelled to call his work ethic into question, do they not have an obligation to afford him the courtesy of a response? Original Spin 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion on his talk page, and let's not forget the Review of JWSchmidt. I'd consider all that the courtesy of a response. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. It is an egregious breach of the fundamental principles of collegial ethics to post a scathing indictment of someone in a venue where they are not permitted the courtesy of responding in a timely manner with equal vigor. Original Spin 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, he was permitted to respond in a timely manner. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One thing at a time: should JWSchmidt be unblocked?

I think there's just too much going on in the conversation above, and that makes it more or less impossible to try to get a feel for the consensus view. Please weigh in with your opinions on whether or not the block should be kept or removed, and nothing else. I'll go first. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

JWSchmidt has responded to this whole process here. Note that his comments are, generally speaking, one long rant about SB_Johnny; indeed, he mentions SB_Johnny's name no less than 55 times in that single paragraph. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 18:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Support unblocking. We decided to block him in the first place because we were deeply concerned that he would be disruptive and get in the way of rebuilding the community. It's pretty clear to me now that the block itself is now causing disruption, so I'd rather take my chances with unblocking him. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• {{oppose}} No Opinion unblocking until it is made clear that he will not be creating any learning excersizes about me, that mock me, or that are anything other than professionally distant with repsect to me, that he will not engage in the outing of any contributors to this or other projects, and that he will cease aiding and abetting Moulton in his illicit attempts to edit this site. Salmon of Doubt 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I will reblock him if he does that. Does that satisfy your concern? --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. Salmon of Doubt 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That condition should be made mutual. No one-way conditional unblocks since especially SB Johnny said this vote should be either 'block' or "unblock' and nothing else, but the conditional unblocks is obviously already something else. Dzonatas 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, that's easy. I will not create any learning excersizes about him, that mock him, or are anything other than professionally distant withrespect to him, and I will not engage in the outing of any contributors to this or other projects and I will not aid or abett Moulton in anything, ever. Salmon of Doubt 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not conditional. I'll block anyone who tries to use Wikiversity as a medium for making grudge pages. Users who have difficulty getting along with other users should just ask for assistance from an uninvolved party. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblocking, with the understanding that he may be reblocked if no behavior change is evidenced. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support immediate and unconditional unblocking with the pledge never again to block a scholar who is participating in good faith, no matter how iconoclastic his or her views may be. An erroneous belief or misconception will fail the test of time, but stifling a minority view is not only uncollegial, it undermines the very function of scholarly research, which is to develop insightful new ideas that potentially overthrow existing misconceptions. Original Spin 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to remind ourselves sometimes that the whole point of creating things via wiki is that we can share the burden of creating something great. The "brick and mortar" academic world tends to emphasize individual achievment (professors getting tenure or grants, students getting grades), but on a wiki we need to focus always on community achievement. You need to be humble, and always be "just one of the guys". We're all scholars here, but we're all equals. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely sure that it's appropriate for Moulton, who is currently blocked, to be voting here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Unblock. I think he should be given a chance to move on. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε}
• Comment the whole situation distresses me. I don't like the fighting, the problems, or the rest, and I hope there wont be any future ones. I don't know if there is an answer to this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I missed that there was even a vote going on here. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I do not support an unblock at this time, because I would like to see more progress on addressing the issues that have been raised. But the discussions on JWSchmidt's talk page seem to have reached an impasse so I'm will to give other methods a try. --mikeu ^talk 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is a longstanding user Geo.plrd 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes please! I'm glad things seem to be moving in this direction, and hope JW is unblocked very soon :-) Privatemusings 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblocking Countrymike 06:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblocking - on condition that John specifically acknowledges his problematic behaviour (as seen by others), and promises to develop personal and site-wide principles on the basis of this understanding. We need to face different perspectives in order to "move on". Cormaggio ^talk 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation

Not quite a day yet, but I'd like to offer my interpretation thus far. Of the argued supports for unblock (as opposed to simple votes), most seem to favor a degree of conditionality, in that the block should be reinstated if certain behaviors are repeated. The two neutral comments (which I take as conceding to the will of the community) also request some sort of conditions. The rest of the supports seem to emphasize the need to move on.

As I and others have noted, a conditional unblock can't be negotiated, since it's not at all clear that JWSchmidt sees any of the behavior leading up to the block as problematic, so the "rules" will need to be quite generalized. I recommend the following conditions to start:

1. Any and all disagreements between Wikiversity participants should be discussed either on the talk page of a resource (in the case of an edit dispute), on the participants' user talk pages (as informal dialog), on the Community Review page (or a subpage thereof, if informal dialog fails and community input is desired), or on WV:RCA (or a subpage thereof, if use of one or more sysop tools may be needed to prevent escalation or disruption). Other resources (including main namespace pages, portal-like pages, etc.) may not be used for this purpose.
2. Wikiversity participants are expected to treat their peers with respect and courtesy, assume good faith, and not make negative comparative references as a way of making a point (this includes making parody sockpuppets, comparing maintenance tasks or other editing to abusing children, war crimes, etc.).

I hope that's fairly clear. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Geo.plrd 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support --mikeu ^talk 17:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support--Jolie 18:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am wary that any specific user should be put under special conditions by a community vote (or consensus). If we value these kinds of principles, then shouldn't they be written into policy for all? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the wording, I expected this was a proposal to be made into policy. I expect, after we finish this show of support here, that we'll be turning it into a policy proposal, or amending it to another policy, like "civility". The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that they are to be site principles, but I think the point was so that John could, himself, specifically recognise them as relevant to the discussion around his block (see). Take this as my Support. Cormaggio ^talk 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they're sort of a stopgappish thing to address the concerns expressed above. They should really be part of a policy (perhaps an addenda to WV:CIVIL), but rather than going through a policy amendment process (which often takes a long time), I hoped it could be adopted temporarily so that we can move ahead with the unblock, and then figure out what policy it gets added to, rewording it, etc. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is good that the two items are stated in a way that the words could be moved to broader, mutual policy. Dzonatas 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of above comments as of Wednesday, October 8 2008, 23:40

I've attempted to condense down the responses. If you feel your response has been misrepresented please feel free to modify it accordingly while still keeping with the brevity. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emesee (talk • contribs) .)

Note: I consider this "condensation" to be a simple vote count, without taking any account of the subtleties involved in reaching a consensus. I have struck my vote, because I do not want it to be interpreted in this black-and-white fashion. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also struck my vote, because I believe it was misrepresented in this context. Others should be given a chance to review this "summary" of their opinions. --mikeu ^talk 03:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any benefit of this "summary". It does not summarise how some people feel - and the comments above are needed to properly gauge consensus. I agree with Emesee (below) that the summary should be struck. Cormaggio ^talk 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, if it's "all or nothing", I Oppose, vehemently. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• No Opinion Salmon of Doubt 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblocking, with the understanding that he may be reblocked if no behavior change is evidenced. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Unblock. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε}
• Support unblock -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)c 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral --mikeu ^talk 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "I do not support an unblock at this time" was in my initial response. --mikeu ^talk 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Geo.plrd 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Privatemusings 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) yup :-) Privatemusings 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Countrymike 06:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblocking - on condition... Cormaggio ^talk 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Emesee 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well unless someone wants to salvage this quasi vote count, we could just strike it as cruff. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emesee (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC).)

[edit] Statement

Based on the above vote count I am intending to unblock JWSchmidt within no less than 24 hours assuming nothing notably different occurs between now and then. There appears to be 7 supports for unblocking, and 1 support - on condition... - and two opposes. This could be a bit different depending on how you look at things, so please feel free to continue discussion. Emesee 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Emesee, consensus is not based on numbers of votes - it's based on what people say. There is no clear consensus above - though it does seem to lean towards unblocking on condition of developing policies based on what was seen to be problematic in John's behaviour. Cormaggio ^talk 09:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There were concerns raised above that should be respected as part of the consensus building process. The point of using consensus rather than vote counting is that if you rely solely on a binary vote, you end up with one side "winning" and one side "losing". The solution should, when possible, take the concerns of all sides into account, so that those with concerns can comfortably concede. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to parole him while this discussion is ongoing? Geo.plrd 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "parole" is necessary. I think in general we need to be a bit quicker to throw some water on the fire, especially when there's a problem track record such as in this case. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by SB Johnny (talk • contribs) .)

[edit] Unblocked

As per discussions above, I'm lifting the block. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.