text:
Wikiversity:Nominations for checkuser/Cormaggio

Cormaggio
I am nominating myself for checkuser, primarily because of our recent need for a local checkuser, which we currently don't have. I am committed, as I always have been, to Wikiversity's development - and I see the checkuser tool as nothing other than a means of preventing or curbing community damage. I am comfortable with handling sensitive information, and dealing with it in a way that is fair to all involved parties - and I pledge to do my utmost to be fair if the community trusts me with these tools. In order to do so, I strongly encourage comments or questions below - I would prefer to air any issues before launching into a vote (though I won't stop you from doing so!). Thanks for your consideration. Cormaggio talk 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Accept/decline the nomination
Note: This is a self-nomination, though I have been asked whether I was interested in the role on IRC by SB_Johnny.

Support

 * 1)  -- We have a lot of issues going on lately which could be dealt with a lot better with local CU tools, not the least of which being a number of rangeblocks which were made "blind" (we don't know if there were parts of the ranges being used by contributors who were not the target). We also recently were the "first choice" of a serial cross-wiki troublemaker, and while I was able to catch on to the pattern (later confirmed as he moved on to other wikis), it would be  much better if we could be sure of what we're doing. As I've mentioned in the past, the most important use of the CU tool is to allow us to correctly target any blocks, avoiding "collateral damage". The vast majority of checks run on wv have been to track cross-wiki vandals, though we of course have our own home-grown problems now as well. --SB_Johnny  talk 14:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  - we have a need for local cu, and I can't think of anyone better suited to trust with the responsibility.  --mikeu talk 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Mu301 Geo.plrd 15:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  per mikeu ZaDiak 16:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  Great editor over at en.wikipedia, and no reason to oppose. Also, at a time like this, with a certain user causing rangeblocks editing on here, we need someone like him on here. --Sunstar NW XP 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  this would hopefully bring some stability to WV's current problems with CU status. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Local CUs are needed, and Cormaggio is the right person for the job. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  Cormaggio has been one of the most helpful and friendly individuals I have met in Wikiversity.  I fully trust him to be able to faithfully use this tool.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 03:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  I cast this vote in good faith that Cormaggio has personally learned from the mistakes of the methods imployed in handling the issue with John. I hope that it is now passed and that some day tranquility can return to this place that we ALL love dearly. --Thuvack | talk 06:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  Without immersing myself in other people's disputes, my own experiences with cormaggio have been friendly, amiable and supportive.  I would support him as a checkuser.--Jolie 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  Why not? --Piotrus 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 12)  Good to Go, I do not know him, as i am new on wikiveristy but, what i read from his user page, i decided to support him. Azamishaque 10:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 13)  Seems to know what he's doing, and as far as I'm concerned, deserves the tool. [ Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do? ] 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I find Cormaggio to have acted unfairly and irresponsibly to have supported a decision to have case studies on living people temporarily banned from Wikiversities, but he then unilaterally created Learning from conflict and incivility, which quickly became a case study on living people also. He also contributed to the public review of JWSchmidt, another case study on a living person created under the ban. Maybe another time when this kind of unfairness and irresponsibility is understood better by him, as my attempts so far for him to realize this on his own seemed to have revealed that he makes no clear distinction, or does not realize, between the need to wear a regular user hat and the admin hat separately. I believe it also needs to be understand how information being posted publicly in a wiki 'outs' people, such as Request_custodian_action/Moulton's_talk_page where specific IPs are being posted along with someone's username. Cormaggio seem to have create that in response to the said attempts of Moulton 'out' people, but the reality is that page publishes more information than what Moulton ever has done. This needs to be realized. Checkusers need to understand the sensitivity of the data, what people can do with it, and therefor what not to post in a wiki page that can be publicly seen. Further, MediaWiki uses several invasive steps to track users, and to support a reason that Moulton is doing much worse to track people on his website is technically wrong. I don't agree with how easily Moulton relays sensitive information. I also don't agree with how MediaWiki uses invasive techniques to track people. There is a clear difference here, Moulton on uses information that is already available. MediaWiki uses the same information Moulton has access to and the added invasive techniques. Moulton doesn't use the invasive techniques like MediaWiki. MediaWiki reveals information that isn't publicly available, and it worse to take the information not normally public and to make it public on wiki pages. The shown lack of this kind of technicality, security concern, and to say Moulton did far worse is reason alone CheckUser is not right for Cormaggio at this time. Dzonatas 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take the point that the Learning from conflict and incivility project is also about living people - but the point of having a temporary moratorium (I never supported a ban) on such studies was only to give us time to work on policies for how to manage them. And I've already pointed out that there's a clear need to review actions of Wikiversity editors, when it directly relates to the running of Wikiversity. Similarly, documenting Moulton's IPs on-wiki is an issue which directly relates to the running of Wikiversity (ie maintaining a block on a blocked user) - whether you personally agree with Moulton's block or not. I just don't see how what you're saying indicates that I don't understand the responsibilities of being a custodian. Cormaggio talk 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears you don't want to make a distinction, so maybe you feel justified with what you do as you noted the excuse of when it directly relates to Wikiversity. There is no reason why there was a need to match a username to an IP, publicly. We don't see Google, YouTube, and many other large, heavily populated websites divulge such information so easily. In fact, even when it directly relates to the running of  their website, they have gone as far as to anomalize the logs in court. You won't Google or YouTube to have published such logs so easily as admins have here at Wikiversity. It is easy to compare your excuse and find that it doesn't justify your action or the action of others. Dzonatas 17:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno, comparing Wikiversity administration to that of Google or Youtube is pretty weird - this is a Wikimedia project, with open records, so all blocked IP addresses are stored in the block log. Checkuser is for information that isn't held in records that anyone can access, and I would never publish anything more private, except for what checkusers normally reveal, eg "this account is/isn't a sockpuppet of that one". Cormaggio talk 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is weird is that you have just attempted to justify being able to out people over 'open records' at Wikimedia when if others do the same that you consider it far worse. It doesn't take a CheckUser bit to get access to some of that information. I feel it is technically wrong for MediaWiki to show IP addresses so easily and publically, and it is even worse for those to exploit it even more than what it does. Dzonatas 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton has "outed himself" by creating accounts with his ip as the username and signing his name to those edits. To discuss this on wiki does not reveal any information that he has not himself provided.  --mikeu talk 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a regular user, there is no way to verify if that IP is actually who you think it may be. Very high chance to be spoofed (i.e. ). It could be anybody. We've had several attempts on this wiki of people being spoofed. Usually if someone signs with their IP instead of their username, the IP gets oversighted (i.e. ) There is also instances of people who state an IP is someone else that actually isn't their IP, and they know it (i.e. [& ]). There is a big difference between being spoofed and being outed. Someone may have spoofed Moulton, but it takes someone else to attempt to confirm it is Moulton without any facts or to place another reputation hit in any way at Moulton. Anybody can use an use IP to make a post and sign anybody's name. Perhaps, these become good reasons to not allow the use of IPs. One reason being because even the admins have shown lack of security over the information. The 'no big deal' to being an admin becomes a security issue. Dzonatas 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're saying that you don't like MediaWiki, and therefore, Moulton was justified as doing something equally distasteful, and therefore Cormaggio was unjustified in taking action against Moulton. Seeing as you don't think Cormaggio is the man for the job, I would appreciate it if you would nominate a few other users you think would be better candidates, Dzonatas.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jade, just because I stated it technically doesn't mean I don't like MediaWiki. It is uncalled for of all of what you just said. Dzonatas 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All I have done is attempted to rephrase what it seems like you have stated. Would you like to clarify my paraphrase?  I would, however, like you to nominate a few other users who you think would be better candidates.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not read like an attempt to rephrase. It is your own, uncalled for opinion: put_words_in_someone%27s_mouth. Dzonatas 21:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Read my comments more carefully, please. I said "it sounds like", which shows that I am attempting to paraphrase what you have said, to verify whether or not I have understood what you have said.  If you feel that my paraphrase is incorrect, please specifically address which elements of it are incorrect; preferably by quoting yourself with explanation.  As to whether or not my opinion is uncalled for, well, I do think in a community discussion, opinions are indeed, called for.  Or do you feel that your own opinions are uncalled for?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: "...please specifically address which elements of it are incorrect; preferably by quoting yourself with explanation." Clearly, a straw man at this point. Back up and directly address what I said and not what you made up. Dzonatas 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a straw man, it's a request. Please remember to respect people.  If you are uncertain about the difference between a straw man and a request, I would be glad to explain it to you.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your request is a straw man. You made up an argument and you requested me to find it incorrect. That completely avoids what I originally addressed. If you feel I didn't respect you because I rather address concerns about what I actually said than your made up argument, then there surely is a problem with the respect people policy that allows an easy straw man game. I'm sure it is not hard for you to pick out something specifically from what I wrote and then you can ask a question about that. Do explain, step by step, how you deduced your statements: . Dzonatas 16:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What argument do you believe I have made up and assigned to you? You have not pointed one out.  And you never did answer either of my requests in this thread.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just pointed it out: "Do explain, step by step, how you deduced your statements: ." Don't complain that I never did answer your straw man argument when you haven't even provided any deduction. "It sounds like" your opinion and only your opinion, and the way you stated is uncalled for: "Seeing as you don't think Cormaggio is the man for the job, ..." is a rude statement. What I did is oppose this nomination and left my reasons. Dzonatas 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dzonatas, that is not a straw man argument! I said "it sounds like you are saying...".  A straw man argument is a statement which is fabricated by someone and then assigned to someone else directly; if I had said:  "You are clearly saying..." instead of it sounds like (which shows that it is my perception of your words being given, and I am not directly assigning the  connections to you), and you had not said those things, and I had then used that to refute your arguments, then it would have been a straw man.  Regardless of what appears to be your misapplication of the term, I shall gladly explain what caused me to perceive your statement as such.
 * You stated: "Further, MediaWiki uses several invasive steps to track users, and to support a reason that Moulton is doing much worse to track people on his website is technically wrong."  In my mind, this implies that "you don't like MediaWiki, and therefore, Moulton was justified as doing something equally distasteful".  In other words, it seems like you're saying that checkusing is as bad as what Moulton did (to wit:  You said that it's wrong to say that Moulton is doing something worse than mediawiki is).  You then say that "to say Moulton did far worse is reason alone CheckUser is not right for Cormaggio at this time"; implying that "Cormaggio was unjustified in taking action against Moulton".  Thus my statement.  Does that help you understand how I developed my perspective?  If you would like more help understanding the difference between a straw man and my perception, I would gladly discuss the issue with you at length, though this may not be the most appropriate place to do so.
 * Why is it rude to say that you don't think Cormaggio should be a Checkuser? You are opposing his nomination; it is clear to everyone that you don't think he should be a checkuser.  Why is it rude to point this out?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I already said, "just because I stated it technically doesn't mean I don't like MediaWiki." You then went on to say that you wanted me to find your statement incorrect even after I stated that, which shows I didn't misapply the term at all. (See: ) On your question about why is it rude, I opposed this nomination, and I do not endorse the way you said it, Jade. Dzonatas 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you "do not endorse the way [I] said" something, does not make it rude, Dzonatas. Surely you understand that?  If you do like MediaWiki, that means you have no problem with the posting of IP's and the CheckUser system which are integral to MediaWiki?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you attempt to make it seem like like it is something I said when I did not say such, then it is very rude and uncalled-for. The conclusion you draw about MediaWiki is wrong, and I don't even see how you possibly can make such an assertion. Let me explain the perceived illogical you have stated in any way, user A likes blue, user B's eyes are brown, therefore Jade tells everybody user A doesn't like user B. That is just the illogical, but there is more. Perhaps, you haven't installed and configured MediaWiki before, as if you did you would know there is an option to turn off permission that allows IPs to edit. The presence of such option disqualifies your assertion. Further, I have gone into much detail about how to improve MediaWiki, and noted here on Wikiversity things to consider: User:Dzonatas/Ethics_and_MediaWiki/Use_cases. If I didn't not like MediaWiki, I wouldn't even have done that much. Now you further try to change it around and ask if I like MediaWiki "that means you have no problem with the posting of IP's and the CheckUser system which are integral to MediaWiki?" Which is a weird question (and another illogical) since I explained in my opposition above what security issues I feel CheckUsers need to understand, which those who wish to become CheckUser. Dzonatas 01:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have only attempted to portray what you have accurately said; I am still waiting for you to correct me in the particulars. I see no connection whatsoever with your blue-eye statement and my statement; instead of drawing analogies, what would be helpful would be for you to take a sentence I have stated representing your beliefs which you find in error, and correct it by clarifying what you mean.  I think it's quite evident that Cormaggio understands how the MediaWiki software works, Dzonatas.  Do you believe that you understand the MediaWiki software and Foundation's goals and policies better than he does?  Perhaps, however, I generalized too much for your liking.  Let me rephrase:  "It sounds like you're saying that you don't like certain elements of MediaWiki, and therefore, Moulton was justified as doing something equally distasteful as those elements, and therefore Cormaggio was unjustified in taking action against Moulton."  Better?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  To my knowledge, User:Cormaggio has never stood for community evaluation as a Wikimedia project sysop. The Wikiversity community now needs to carefully evaluate Cormaggio's past actions, not vote, without discussion, to give him access to the checkuser tools. Cormaggio supported an indefinite duration block against me here at Wikiversity for which there was no valid reason for imposing the block. Cormaggio did not use the sysops tools to make the bad block himself, but he fully put his support behind the bad block, so he equally shares the responsibility for the bad block and the bad block does constitute misuse of his custodial power. Cormaggio has repeatedly claimed that the false charges he made against me "justify" this bad block. He imposed the bad block on me while I was still in the process of responding to the many false and distorted charges he made against me. Cormaggio has shown that he has never had any interest in discussing the false and distorted charges he made against me, he has only used them as an excuse for blocking me and removing my custodial status. In order to "justify" blocking me, Cormaggio made the false claim I needed to be blocked because I encouraged Moulton to disrupt Wikiversity: "his return to teamwork with Moulton and encouraging Moulton to transfer his "work" to beta.wikiversity.org". I have explained to Cormaggio that this is a false charge against me. After Jimbo suggested some changes, that we turn "an eye towards developing principles for dealing with such projects in the future. One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals", I began to think about modifications to the Wikiversity research policy. I take my collaborators as I find them, and Moulton expressed some willingness to help improve the research policy. I asked him to read the research policy and make suggestions for improvements. I would have done exactly the same for anyone who showed an interest in collaborating with me to improve Wikiversity. Cormaggio has repeatedly assume bad faith to the extent that he has manufactured false charges against me and continues to try to use those false charges to "justify" the bad block he imposed on me. Cormaggio has clearly misused his custodial power in collaboration with SB_Johnny, Mu301 and User:McCormack. This gang of custodians has not only misused their custodial powers, they have also banned participants from the #wikiversity-en IRC chat channel in order to take control of Wikiversity's main discussion channel. I was banned from #wikiversity-en with no discussion, no warning and no reason given. I remain banned from that channel. They are now using that channel to coordinate and stack votes for Wikiversity support staff, such as this nomination for checkuser. They are bringing to Wikiversity outsiders who have intimidated long-term Wikiversity participants and have told long-term Wikiversity participants to leave the project. I have been repeatedly told to either admit to the false charges that have been made against me or leave the project. This is the most abusive misuse of sysop power I have ever seen in a wiki community. They continue to make outsiders custodians; outsiders who either have no interest in this project or who came here in order to actively disrupt this project and drive away other Wikiversity participants. These activities constitute a coordinated hostile take-over of Wikiversity by a small team of custodians who have no qualms about misusing their custodial powers. User:Cormaggio is also a Wikiversity bureaucrat. As a bureaucrat, Cormaggio should be acting as a wise and trusted "interpreter of consensus". However, Cormaggio has claimed to be acting in his capacity as a bureaucrat to act outside of community consensus and to make false charges against me and to try to use those false charges to justify blocking me and removing my custodial status and checkuser status. After having performed this abuse of his bureaucrat power and position, he now comes before the community in an effort to assume the checkuser position that he improperly stripped from me. Bureaucrats "must also have the ability and willingness to thoroughly explain decisions or he or she makes, as well as to admit fault". I have explained to Cormaggio that he has made false charges against me. For example, he charged that my actions at Wikiversity have been misguided because my actions have been guided by an effort on my part to fight with my enemies at "Wikipedia and the foundation". Cormaggio has refused to respond to my demand that he support this false charge by listing my enemies at "Wikipedia and the foundation" just as he has refused to discuss any of the false and distorted charges he made against me. Rather than thoroughly explain his poor decisions, he has repeatedly refused to do so, instead relying on the support of a his team of like-minded custodians who feel free to make false charges against me and use those false charges to "justify" blocking, banning and de-sysoping me. Cormaggio has shown the Wikiversity community that he is skilled at conspiring off-wiki with SB_Johnny to misuse their custodial and bureaucrat powers, and now they come before the Wikiversity community asking for the power to have joint access to the checkuser tools. The reason for having two checkusers is to prevent possible abuse by having two checkusers who will each monitor the other's activities. Cormaggio and SB_Johnny have already shown that they cannot be trusted in this capacity. Cormaggio claimed that I have acted throughout this lengthy episode with the sole intention of preventing community damage within Wikiversity. However, I believe that Cormaggio has an unfortunate conflict of interest that makes him unable to correctly perform the duties of a Wikiversity custodian, bureaucrat or checkuser. Cormaggio is attempting to launch a career in academia by performing research on Wikiversity. This makes his number one priority the survival of Wikiversity. Anyone from Wikipedia who threatens to get the Wikiversity project terminated has great power over Cormaggio. This past summer, threats have been made against the continuation of the Wikiversity project by corrupt Wikipedians who do not want their violations of Wikipedia policy to be studied by Wikiversity participants. Cormaggio's apparent conflict of interest and his actions suggest that he feels compelled to block, ban and de-sysop a long-term Wikiversity participant such as myself rather than risk the termination of the online community that is the subject of his academic research project. In my view, this apparent conflict of interest makes Cormaggio unsuited for Wikiversity checkuser status. I call upon Cormaggio to keep his own promise, made on this page, "that if anyone gave any clear indication or good reasoning that I had abused any of these roles, I would give all of them up immediately." --JWSchmidt 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * John, I have not assumed bad baith on anyone's part; I have based my actions on what I have observed (and I have admitted that some of those actions were mistaken, and am taking actions to learn from that). But if you had read in good faith what I said in response to your questions below, and what I've been saying during your block period (and since), you wouldn't have posted the above. You yourself make a number of claims here that are categorically false (eg that I refuse to explain or discuss the circumstances of your block); others that are misguided (eg the "coordinated hostile take-over of Wikiversity"); along with others that are absurd (eg that I have a conflict of interest in preventing Wikiversity being shut down/compromised because I am researching it!). This is hostile in the extreme, and ignores - even wilfully misinforms about - what I've actually been saying throughout this whole episode. :-( Cormaggio talk 19:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears both of your reactions, JWS's and Cormaggio, appears somewhat mutual about each other. Both have called each other hostile. Both have stated each other misinforms. Both have stated, in one way or another, each other doesn't acknowledge the other. And so on, but both can't be right like this, and it forces others to take sides (which unfortunately we have seen done), which isn't fair to the community. This is gonna take time to solve, and it would be best for Cormaggio to wait. Dzonatas 19:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I have not assumed bad baith on anyone's part" <-- When you blocked me from editing (without a valid reason) you tried to "justify" your bad block by claiming that I was disrupting Wikiversity by encouraging Moulton to participate at Wikiversity. The truth, which I have explained many times, is that Moulton and I were collaborating to address changes in Wikiversity policy that Jimbo suggested. Rather than recognize that we were working together to improve Wikiversity, you assumed bad faith on my part, and claimed that I needed to be blocked to prevent me from disrupting Wikiversity. The plans made by Moulton and I to work on the Wikiversity research policy were made openly in #wikiversity-en. You seem perfectly happy to not only work shoulder-to-shoulder with SB_Johnny to impose a bad block on me but also to ban me from #wikiversity-en, a ban that was a clear abuse of channel ops, and which you still allow to stand. Can you explain why you feel comfortable banning Wikiversity participants from #wikiversity-en, Wikiversity participants who were using that channel to plan how to improve the Wikiversity research policy and to develop the other Wikiversity learning projects we were collaborating on? "if you had read in good faith what I said in response to your questions below" <-- I read your response (below), but part of Assuming Good Faith is the idea that, "editors are no longer expected to assume good faith when, despite the best possible construction we can place upon the actions of another, it is clear that they do not wish to serve the project's goals". In particular, I have taken note of your "clear instances of intentional deceit" in the false claims you have made against me and your refusal to retract those false claims after I explained that they are false and you have repeatedly refused to provide evidence to support the false claims you made, even when I have explicitly requested that you do so. Rather than support the Wikiversity mission and project goals you have thrown your support behind SB_Johnny's misuse of custodial and IRC channel ops power: I am sickened by the idea that you are comfortable with holding a double standard by which you lecture me about civility and also conspire off-wiki with SB_Johnny to impose a bad block on me: do you agree with SB_Johnny that I should just go fuck myself and leave the project? Is this really the best you can do to lead the Wikiversity community? "You yourself make a number of claims here that are categorically false (eg that I refuse to explain or discuss the circumstances of your block)" <-- Fine. Let's examine this in detail. Please provide a valid reason for blocking me. Please explain why you falsely claimed that I had to be blocked because I was encouraging Moulton to disrupt Wikiversity. Please explain why you made so many false and distorted charges against me, have refused to discuss those charges and have refused to retract your false charges. Please explain why you blocked me in order to prevent me from responding to all the false and and distorted charges you made against me. Please explain why you went outside of the community consensus procedure in order to impose a bad block on me and remove my custodial status. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of your bad block. I'm still waiting for you to discuss the circumstances of the bad block you imposed on me. "others that are misguided (eg the 'coordinated hostile take-over of Wikiversity'" <-- Please explain how this is misguided. I've spent years developing Wikiversity as a place where people can make use of wiki technology to help them explore their learning goals through collaborative learning projects. You seem to have thrown your support behind practices such as calling good-faith contributions to Wikiversity "garbage" and deleting them, making false charges against Wikiversity participants and calling them "troll" and "whiner" and telling me to go fuck myself, telling long-term Wikiversity participants to leave the project, banning Wikiversity collaborators and even imposing a bad block on me. None of these abusive methods was ever included in the Wikiversity project proposal or in Wikiversity policy. I've spent years working in wiki communities and I've never seen such outrageous abuse coming from "leaders" of a wiki community. Please explain how I am supposed to view your adoption and acceptance of these methods  at Wikiversity as anything other than hostile take-over that subverts everything that Wikiversity stands for. "others that are absurd (eg that I have a conflict of interest in preventing Wikiversity being shut down/compromised because I am researching it!). This is hostile in the extreme, and ignores - even wilfully misinforms about - what I've actually been saying throughout this whole episode" <-- In my view, when a wiki community is dealing with positions of trust such as what is involved in assigning checkuser rights, even an appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to disqualify candidates. "hostile in the extreme" <-- I do not agree. As someone who has devoted years of effort to establishing and developing Wikiversity I am exercising due diligence. You certainly brought this focus of due diligence upon yourself by making false charges, refusing to retract them and imposing a bad block. "wilfully misinforms" <-- I call them as I see them. If I am wrong about something, then explain in detail where/how I am wrong. I've been asking you to do so for many weeks and you have repeatedly refused. --JWSchmidt 17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can claim that I've refused to discuss your block with you, when I've spent the last few weeks doing so on your talk page. (That you might not understand or agree with my perspective is a separate matter.) However, I think you've raised your concerns here, so I think it would be more productive to shift this discussion back to your talk page. I'll just say here that I do not stand by SB_Johnny's comment (which I've asked him to retract) - and that I take deep issue with your characterisation of events. Cormaggio talk 16:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how you can claim that I've refused to discuss your block with you" <-- You could start with the requests I made 17:05, 18 October 2008, above. Once again you refuse to discuss the fact that you imposed an indef block on me without providing a valid reason for blocking me. I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you falsely claimed that I had to be blocked because I was encouraging Moulton to disrupt Wikiversity, but you have never explained this. I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you made so many false and distorted charges against me, have refused to discuss those charges (even when I have asked you to defend or retract them) and have refused to retract your false charges. You have never explained why you think it is fair to make a bunch of false charges against me then blocked me in order to prevent me from responding to all the false and and distorted charges you made against me. Why won't you discuss with me why you went outside of the community consensus procedure in order to impose a bad block on me and remove my custodial status? Your refusal to discuss your actions started before you imposed your bad block on me. When you and SB_Johnny started coming to my talk page it was not to discuss anything, it was to state your conclusions and tell me what to do. I asked you to make clear to me what you found upsetting about my behavior (for example, here), but you just continued to state the absurd conclusions you had reached and you expected me to agree with your position. Yes we have had discussions but they have followed this pattern in which I ask you to explain your claims and your actions and then you continued refusing to do so. You made false charges against me, impose an indef block on me while I was in the process of defending myself against the false charges (and there was no valid reason for imposing the block) and you are now pretending that you have been willing to discuss the bad block when the truth is that you have systematically avoided such discussion, including my explicit request that you provide evidence to support your false charges or else retract them. "I think it would be more productive to shift this discussion back to your talk page" <-- I do not agree. All you have done on my talk page is give me the runaround. The entire Wikimedia community should have a chance to observe your methods in action.....including stewards who should be concerned about their being gamed into removing custodial and checkuser rights without community consensus. "I take deep issue with your characterisation of events" <-- I "take issue" with the long list of false and distorted charges you made against me, and I continue the sickening process of reading and responding to them. --JWSchmidt 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  - for the time being - by a previous en.WV checkuser. I think Cormac's election - at this time (later you surely get my support vote) - could cause just more instability. But hey: even an oppose vote counts: "Candidates must have 70-80% agreed consensus or more and a minimum of 25-30 votes in support by local community members." If people really believe stewards (who can be contacted easy) can't also handle CU issues at en.WV then I guess also other en.WV users can be asked for the CU flag. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Unfortunately, I cannot supprt Cormaggio's candidacy for CheckUser, though I believe English Wikiversity needs to have CUs. I don't believe that Cormaggio has the technical knowledge and ability to perform this work effectively; CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. As well, I disagree with the candidates views about what the CheckUser role actually entails, and therefore what qualities make a good CU. It is a front-line tool for vandal fighters primarily (especially on small projects like this one, and en.wikibooks where I serve in this capacity). Thus, the best CU candidates are those who are highly active, preferably doing antivandalism, and preferably active beyond a single wiki. As well, a concern for privacy is crucial. This should not be taken to mean that Cormaggio cannot be trusted with private information. On the contrary: I believe he has a strong sense of propriety with that area. However, a good CU has other qualities (which I just mentioned); it is those other qualities where I believe this candidate falls short. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  as a cross project (active) CU & someone who has dealt with cross wiki disruption for quite some time now I could not word it better than Mike. --Herby talk thyme 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Beurocrat John should maybe not have the tools, and if Cormaggio was flagged for them, so would Beurocrat John. If a more suitable partner could be nominated then I would most likely support. Emesee 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means User:SB_Johnny. DarkObsidian  19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  At the moment I'm opposing this due to reading the comments, you have done some good work but since you haven't been active on the site nor have performed a lot of the administrative abilities I must oppose, the checkuser tool should technically speaking be restricted to only the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation.  DarkObsidian  19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think access should be restricted to staff? If that were the case, they would have no hope of keeping up with the amount of work which needs to be done on English Wikipedia, much less the >730 other wikis the Foundation operates. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view the checkuser tool is risky: the reason why I suggested that the tool should only be used by the Foundations staff is because they work for the company and have to be trusted. Half of the editors who have already gained the checkuser tool have abused the tool in the past which cannot go unpunished most have which had got away with it, think of for example Wikipedia's arbitration committee a lot of them performed the checkuser on various editors without them asking the editor in question for permission to perform the check since its in direct violation of the Data Protection Act to perform such checks without asking the editor in question and must have a valid reason to perform the check, the law regardless of the situation still applies. Although I have nothing against Cormaggio but the oppositions have made some valid points which needs looking into. DarkObsidian  17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any support for the accusation that half of all CheckUsers have abused the tool, or an explanation for the assertion that the UK Data Protection Act has been breached, or indeed why it is at all applicable? Finally, the reasoning you give here is an argument to give only trusted people access to the CheckUser tool - not staff. Why do you believe that only WMF staff should have access - couldn't a trusted volunteer do the same task appropriately? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  Cormaggio has proven he has a balanced character and I believe that every action of his is carefully thought. He has my full support, yet I won't vote for him cause I find it unethical to vote here since I don't really contribute to the English Wikiversity that much. --[[Image:Assassingr_signature.svg]]--  (profile | chit chat | email) 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  at this point. While for the most part I fully trust and respects Cormaggio's work and status within WV the unilateralism of some of his recent actions sit badly with me and the project as a whole. I also find it somewhat disturbing that he has been asked to be Checkuser by SB_Johnny who himself has taken significant unilateral and somewhat questionable decisions of late. These give me no confidence in voting for such status at the moment, yet Cormaggios general reputation around here currently keeps me from outright voting against at this point. Think that this needs more discussion than is currently present. Countrymike 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely understand this perspective, and yet it disappoints me greatly - mainly because I think myself and SB_Johnny have been misunderstood, in terms of our actions and our motivations. Having said this, I am not at all fully happy with our actions, as I've repeatedly been saying. So yes, I strongly encourage discussion of these issues - I already said so explicitly! Cormaggio talk 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
1. Why have you made many false and distorted charges against me and why do you continue to use those false and distorted charges to try to "justify" blocking me from editing Wikiversity, banning me from #wikiversity-en, and having my custodianship status terminated? Is how you have treated me an example of how you intend to use the information that the checkuser tools will provide you with? --JWSchmidt 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2. You secretly conspired off-wiki with User:SB Johnny to block me from editing before I had a chance to respond to all of the false and distorted charges against me. It is clear that you never intended to allow discussion of those false and distorted charges against me, you just used them to "justify" blocking me from editing Wikiversity, banning me from #wikiversity-en, and having my custodianship status terminated. Is making false charges and not allowing those charged to defend themselves how you intend to to use the information that the checkuser tools will provide you with? --JWSchmidt 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

3. You have shown the Wikiversity community that you are capable of secretly conspiring off-wiki with SB Johnny to make false and distorted charges and use those charges to try to "justify" imposing an indefinite block on a Wikiversity editor without any valid reason for imposing a block. Why should the Wikiversity community grant you and SB Johnny the power to use the checkuser tools? Why should the Wikiversity community trust the two of you to not misuse the checkuser tools when you have previously misused your custodial tools? --JWSchmidt 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi John, I've already said why I don't agree with your characterisation of those specific "false charges" (ie I don't agree with you calling them "false") - while conceding that I would gladly tone down or remove some of what's in the review. I've reflected on the fact that the review might have done more harm than good, as well as your block having caused damage, and having been misunderstood. I'm trying to address the problems that led up to the recent blocks, as well as the blocks themselves - starting with this Colloquium thread. I admit I've made mistakes - as, I think, has SB_Johnny. But I will say this: I have acted throughout this lengthy episode with the sole intention of preventing community damage within Wikiversity - damage which was in progress long before Jimbo intervened. And I'll also say that this episode is by far and away the most serious situation that we have ever had to face as a community - which is why I would treat what as happened as truly exceptional. So, I would never want to act in this way again, and I would never want to have anyone be in the position you have been in (even though I don't think you fully acknowledge your own role in this). And so I would seriously challenge that I have intentionally "misused" my custodial tools - even though I fully acknowledge that I've made mistakes, and that I want nothing more right now than for us to learn from our recent mistakes and problems. I don't personally treat the roles of custodian and bureaucrat lightly, and I would treat checkuser similarly - and I will assure you that if anyone gave any clear indication or good reasoning that I had abused any of these roles, I would give all of them up immediately. Cormaggio talk 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen nothing that I would consider signs of abuse of clear violations of trust from you, Cormac, though JWSchmidt's case certainly could have been handled better. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt (do you prefer John?), I disagree with your characterization of Cormaggio and SB_Johnny's actions as "conspiring" and "false and distorted"; a few of their actions may have been ill-advised, perhaps, but that's hardly the same. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, Jade, on this. What JWS has written above does carry weight. You are not in JWS's shoes, so it is not right for you to correct that perception. There is enough that has happened it is beyond just mistakes. It is obvious one wants to be recognized for mistakes and immediately move on, while the other gets put in the penalty box. That is not fair at all. It is best for Cormaggio to wait, as this vote is just gonna damage the community more. Dzonatas 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mischaracterizing my comments; JWSchmidt did not post something as "his perception", his rhetorical language denotates that it was the absolute truth. I simply added another perspective to this (my own), that I believe that his descriptions of the events is incorrect.  In that regard, it is certainly my prerogative (and should be helpful to the community) to add one more perspective to this discussion.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They each have their own truth from each of their own individual perspective. Their truths is what is being weighed (or should be weighed) and not someones else's conflated perspective because these two need to learn how to agree with each other. Dzonatas 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a perspective, Dzonatas, including yourself. I feel that the more perspectives that we can provide, the more complete our picture will be.  Do you disagree with this?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I pointed out a conflated perspective. Dzonatas 23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that part of respecting people is "being clear to distinguish between personal interpretations and facts." I recommend you do so in this case (as "conflated" is clearly your personal interpretation).  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to be noted as an interested party, then your perspective can also be weighed as directly involved and even as an accessory to events that occurred. Dzonatas 00:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a member of the Wikiversity community, Dzonatas, as are you. That makes us both "interested parties" in the handling of events at Wikiversity, including the handling of nominations and blocks.  Don't you agree?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 05:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The scope used here for interested parties is to the events that occurred between JWS and Cormaggio. Those interested parties are a different set from a group of interested parties to Wikiversity. Dzonatas 15:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The scope used here? This is a nomination for Checkuser status (what do you think it is?)!  The community has specifically been invited to comment on that, and that means the whole community.  Do you disagree?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with how you presented your comment, which disagreed with JWS. All you had to do is either present facts to why you disagree or somehow rephrase yourself to make your perspective not a conflated perspective. Dzonatas 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See, and as a member of the Wikiversity community, you're welcome to chime in with your comments here, just as much as I am; glad we agree on that point. As to your latter claim, I do not feel my comments were conflated (and you've not shown any specific indication of how they were conflated); please remember to be respectful and separate your perspective from fact: your perspective is that my comments were "conflated".  Do you understand what separating your perspective from fact entails?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have repeated several times 'be respectful' to a degree that is disrespectful itself. I've been very patient with your stance. When you said, "a few of their actions may have been ill-advised, perhaps, but that's hardly the same," that is mere opinion without any facts to support it. What JWS provided stated a lot to his reasons why he thought things were "conspiring" and "false and distorted." From what he wrote, I have a clearer picture why he would say such things. Your disagreement doesn't acknowledge his viewpoint, as you just simply disagree with what he says to acknowledge your viewpoint. Given the weight JWS has given, more then a simple disagreement from your perspective is needed, as you would need to provide facts. Is there any more facts needed for me to repeat to you that shows JWS did write, in this very thread, what I consider a weighty dialog? Dzonatas 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's now disrespectful to respectfully remind someone to be respectful (I suppose you'll tell me next that showing respect is disrespectful*)? I have stated my perspective, Dzonatas, clearly labelled as such ("I disagree with" shows that it is my perspective I am giving, separated from fact).  Phrasing things as such is an important part of respecting people.  JWS gave his perspective, but phrased it as fact (it would have been better if he would have been more respectful and separated the two).  The reasons why JWSchmidt's actions were or were not justified have been discussed at length elsewhere, and I see no reason to dig up an analysis of every individual charge here; that is best done elsewhere.  Or do you believe that this is the appropriate forum for discussing the minutiae of what JWSChmidt did or did not do elsewhere on Wikiversity?  My disagreement with JWSchmidt provides the perspective of another user who believes that JWSchmidt's views here posted are incorrect; if you would like details, the Review of JWSchmidt would provide several.  In this space, where we are discussing Cormaggio, and not JWSchmidt, I do not believe it would be helpful to launch into a discussion of JWSchmidt's activities in detail; this is already done elsewhere.  Or do you believe the page on Cormaggio's nomination should become a project about what JWSchmidt did or did not do?
 * *This is clearly intended as a rhetorical statement to point out that it is ludicrous to say it's disrespectful for someone to ask everyone to be respectful. It is not meant to be taken literally.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the distinction between the a mere mention of it and that of it being repeated several times. I see you have no facts to present here beyond your opinion. Maybe you'll now let Cormaggio answer the questions. Dzonatas 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was repeated every time you failed to distinguish between your own personal opinion and fact; if you find that my reminding you to separate fact from opinion is bothersome, then I would like to encourage you to make sure you do so, so that I will have no reason to remind you. If you are uncertain of how, I would be glad to discuss the matter with you.  You might notice, Dzonatas, that every individual is here to provide their opinion; that's the entire point of community discussion.  What questions, I am curious, do you believe Cormaggio has failed to answer?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely don't appreciate you use of "failed," which is quite negative. All you have to do is actually point things out the facts, but being noted as "failed" has made it more personal. The only mix-up between fact and opinion is the ones you made up. Perfect factual example right there, I stated "maybe you'll now let Cormaggio answer the question." You then asked, "What questions, I am curious, do you believe Cormaggio has failed to answer?" The fact is, I never stated Cormaggio failed to answer a question. I hope you realize this. Dzonatas 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for using a word you don't like. Let me rephrase: it was repeated every time you succeeded at mixing fact and opinion.  Better?  I had no intentions of making things personal.  Dzonatas, you must understand, that by saying "maybe you'll now let Cormaggio answer the questions" implies that Cormaggio has been prevented from (not been "let") answering the questions.  So by asking me to let him answer the questions, you are implying that there are questions he has not answered (or "failed to answer").  So, I repeat, if someone has not been letting him answer the questions, which questions has he not been allowed to answer?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jade, I didn't imply those. Somehow you think bad intentions with what I say. I'm not like that for what you accuse me to be. I don't make such implications. I can understand now where JWS and Emesee thinks words have been distorted, as you did it to me right here with "failed to answer" and other made up implications. "Maybe you'll now let..." which is future tense not past tense. Your implications are past tense. End of discussion, Jade. Any further comments on this page I rather here from Cormaggio or JWS. If you got something further to say to me, do it on my talk page. I hope I made that more clear. Dzonatas 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dzonatas, it is a clear rhetorical implication of what you said. I think I've been quite clear about how this was a clear connotation of what you said.  Whether or not you intended to imply such a thing may be argued, but that your words imply such a thing is clear.  Do you need me to analyze the rhetoric further?  I never once claimed that "you'll now let" was written in the past tense; only that the connotation it carries suggests that Cormaggio "has not been let..." before "now".  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * In the laws of the English speaking world, the burden of evidence is on the accuser and not the accused. Now, if the prosecution does not supply enough evidence (e.g. "a smoking gun", or at least tight web of evidence) to support the case, is it fair or is it not to call the charges "false"?  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you consider a smoking gun, Hillgentleman? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want an example? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 00:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An explanation, rather; the implication of your statement is that there is no evidence that JWSchmidt acted in any way inappropriately at Wikiversity; I believe there is plenty of evidence of him having taken actions which were disruptive. I guess I'm looking for clarification as to what you feel is missing.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 05:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the diff that I gave Hillgentleman? Did you read the thread it's a part of? I've been trying to point out in my lengthy discussion with John that, even though the review might be flawed, it's unproductive in the current circumstances to keep calling "false charges", when there are real concerns being voiced. Dealing with the concerns that have been voiced is the only thing that I've ever been interested in during this whole episode. Cormaggio talk 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity doesn't have have judges, jurors, trials, lawyers, defendants, prosecutors, witnesses, bailiff, record keepers, evidence, cross examinations, accused, accusers, etc. Why has Wikiversity of late been plagued by trial and legal terms and thinking of things from a legal and trial perspective? Does Wikiversity need to adopt local copies of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, Wikipedia:WikiLove, Wikipedia:WikiHate and/or Wikipedia:WikiCrime to help put things back into perspective or is Wikiversity going to continue to go down the path where next we have WikiCuffs, WikiJails, and start calling people WikiCriminals and telling them there rights as they are arrested by WikiCops? Can simple discussions where people explain what their thinking or feeling and their thoughts are again without paranoia or assuming and presuming to already know and understand what each others intentions, motives, reasoning and reasons are through osmosis, presuming that everyone is aware of and knows what everyone else knows, presuming that everyone has the same values or standards, and without assuming or presuming anything really about each other? Things seem to have gotten way off track or overboard of late with current discussions like this one. --darklama 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal terms are very valid in discussion or debate, and the use of them does not mean the context has to follow some trial court procedure. Dzonatas 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure legal terms can be useful sometimes, but they seem inappropriate and out of place in this discussion and in other discussions that have taken place lately to me. There use in this discussion seems to me like the process for nominating checkusers has been turned into some sort of trial court procedure. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One's use of a term like wikilawyering is no different from any other legal term used, so it would not be fair to say one is appropriate to use while the other is not. Dzonatas 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic
– Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions for the candidate from Mike.lifeguard
 * 1) Do we need CheckUsers on this project currently?
 * 2) What qualities or skills should the community be looking for in a CheckUser candidate?
 * 3) Does the above discussion consider those attributes, or is it off-topic?

The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes.
 * 2) I think:
 * 3) A friendly, helpful attitude
 * 4) A track record of responsible contributions
 * 5) No clear abuses of custodial powers (in conflicts of interests, etc.)
 * 6) No bans on any WMF project
 * 7) Mostly off-topic
 * No problem with you answering, however I did intend for Cormaggio to answer my questions in the "Questions for the candidate section above. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I definitely think we need local checkusers - for example, we've had a difficult period recently, with some blocks of IP ranges - which is far, far from ideal. Having local checkusers would, amongst other things, mean being able to make blocks much more specific - thereby reducing the risk of anyone else being blocked. Having to run to stewards is not ideal - it sometimes means having to explain a complex situation - when a local checkuser would be familiar with the full context. In terms of skills/qualities that are desirable, I think that a checkuser needs to have sound judgement when deciding whether to do a check in the first place, and in deciding what to do with any information uncovered in a check. A checkuser needs to take the absolute minimum action necessary, in weighing up an individual's right to privacy, and damage (or potential damage) to the community. This is all in addition to having the project's best interests at heart, and a track record of positive contributions. I'd add that a personal caveat for me would be to recuse myself from any decision as a bureaucrat, if I had had a related role in a checkuser capacity. In terms of the above discussion, I am responding to John's criticisms on his talk page (since it is a continuation of our previous discussions, and not fully, or at all, related to this discussion). I'm finding it hard to see what I can respond to in Dzonatas's comments. I think, in general, the relevant critiques have been around my judgement - though, while I do acknowledge there have been mistakes made, and that I would not take action in the same way again, I fully stand behind my rationale for and intentions in taking any action of late. I also question Erkan's assertion that this would bring any "instability" to Wikiversity - it's the exact opposite that I'm hoping to restore, and that I have been working towards this whole period. Cormaggio talk 13:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is important for a CheckUser to be readily available (for example, by IRC, or generally being online often)? Would the ideal CheckUser be a vandal fighter, or a content contributor? Does it matter? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it helps for a checkuser to be readily available online - though it is not imperative, since a check should only be done in careful consideration, and not as a knee-jerk reaction. I am online the majority of the time, though, while I have been on IRC most of the time recently, I sometimes have to give it a miss in order to get work done. ;-) At such times, if I am not on IRC, I am likely to see an email quickly. I don't think it matters what a checkuser spends most of their time doing - though I think it's best not to be too 'gung-ho' about it, i.e. not to treat it as a means of ramping up a vandal-fighting agenda. (I take the perspective that contributors should be helped and encouraged as much as possible - including people who initially appear not to understand or respect Wikiversity policies.) Cormaggio talk 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Questions for the candidate from Dzonatas

 * 1) Cormaggio, please explain further how you weighed Jade Knight's edits and JWS's edits in such a way that brought you to nominate Jade Knight for custodianship but at the same time expressed JWS needed to be blocked. This page seems to have revealed that Jade Knight's edits can be compared to JWS's, for they are similar as you have stated on your talk page (as I noted here: ), especially over the straw man argument being understood as offensive. In consideration of that talk on your page, there should be no question why I stated Jade Knight's edit above as uncalled-for. You noted above you think my comments are mainly about your judgment, so I ask how you weighed this out between JWS and Jade Knight?  Dzonatas 16:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask how that is specifically related to a request for checkusership? If it is not, it should likely be dealt with in a more appropriate forum. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clearly addressed Dzonatas' complaints here, and also added a comment in response to his at Cormaggio's talk page. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not "compared" edits by JWSchmidt and Jade Knight - I interpret edits in their own right, and in their context. As I've said on my talk age, I would tell Jade Knight if something bothered me about his edits. I don't see JK's "straw man" you've drawn attention to (ie I don't think it's a straw man - or anything remotely near one). I don't know what Salmon of Doubt means by calling you a "Joan of Arc vandal", since I'm not aware of the full backstory (ie context) - but I agree that it wasn't a nice thing to say. In any case, I don't see how this has a direct relevance to this nomination - I would only act in any administrative capacity (including checkuser) if I felt that there was a sufficiently clear problem - and I don't see a clear enough problem in what you've highlighted for you to expect me personally to have intervened. Cormaggio talk 10:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cormaggio, to bring up actions that a particular wikipedian has done to me is a pain. My daughter's identity was exploited. Her name was made fun of. Many hurtful things were said about my family due to the attention that wikipedian wanted to get. It appears not enough people cared what happened and what hurt was being caused. They cared more to support that wikipedian actions. I can get into details, but I believe I have avoided and not brought up most of the issues here on Wikiversity. What Jade Knight did was to bring up that action that the wikipedian did. Most likely, Jade Knight either does not know what kind of hurt is behind that drama, or he intended to cause more hurt. Either way, I now make it clear again that it is hurtful due to the drama that did happen. That wikipedian couldn't let things go. If Jade want to bring it up here, it is obvious that wikipedian is not the only one who can't let things go. Cormaggio, you need to recognize this pain and not just what Salmon did. Do also recognize that since my daughter was exploited Wikipedia that I am very concerned about someone who holds CheckUser bits to be sensitive to these issues and be fair. I've seen my info display due do someone that claims to do 'vandal' investigations, but they need keep that information secure; instead, they make it public on wiki. I've received threats by phone that highlights this problem. I have not seen you tell Jade Knight that you find a problem with his action to bring it up here. I am concerned about you being able to have Checkuser bits until you do recognize this pain. I can't guarantee I won't be concerned when you do show recognize it, but I can say I will be even more concerned if you don't at all. Dzonatas 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about your family, dude. Did you make a request for oversight?  That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that should be oversighted.  Frankly, I knew nothing about your family troubles at Wikipedia.  I only knew that you were blocked for engaging in behaviors that seem similar to behaviors you're engaging in here.  I don't personally think you should be blocked over this sort of thing, but I do think you might want to reconsider whether or not the sorts of behaviors discussed in your RfA are likely to be well-received by other reasonable users here.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 10:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Community discussion

 * Hi, i am quite new to the issues raised here, and after reading the very lengthy debate (took me some weeks in between breaks to read things that links on and on back to wikipedia) thus cannot be sure on a sober vote. In principle i vote yes to anyone who wants to volunteer and do admin work, and should be given a chance to prove or be disproved by other peers with a sense of duty above self. Community health and coherence is vital, debates and all. Have to stop here, or it will add to the off-topic nature. Last word is that if those in opposition and counter opposition shows some reconcilation then it is solved and count my positive vote in. Otherwise preference to wait and be sure. Highest Regards, congrats to the good work thus far, and Happy New Year. - Red1 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


text: Template:Policies

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Policies


text:
Wikiversity Genomics Database

Overview
The Wikiversity Genomics Database (WGD) is a database where fundamental information about overall characteristics of genomes can be readily accessed. Its objective is to make specific types of genomic information available for a variety of species. It was created by Anne Friedman in 2008.

Volunteers are encouraged to participate in the following projects, and to start others. Be bold!
 * Gene Number Project: compiles data on species' gene numbers
 * Mutation Rate Project: compiles data on mutation rates

Genome Size (number of nucleotides)

 * Animal Genome Size Database
 * Plant DNA C-values Database
 * Fungal Genome Size Database

RNA

 * ASRP: Arabidopsis thaliana Small RNA Project
 * fRNAdb: Functional RNA Database
 * Methylation Guide snoRNA Database
 * miRBase: microRNA Database
 * ncRNAdb: Noncoding RNAs Database
 * Plant snoRNA Database
 * Rfam: RNA Families Database
 * RNAdb: Mammalian Noncoding RNA Database
 * snoRNABase: a comprehensive database of human H/ACA and C/D box snoRNAs
 * SRPDB: Signal Recognition Particle Database
 * Yeast snoRNA Database

SNP

 * SNPs in Environmental Health Genes
 * SNPs in Inflammatory Response Genes

title: Wikiversity Genomics Database


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/JWSchmidt's block

JWSchmidt
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? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 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 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. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Darklama, Thanks.  I was too lazy to provide the link to meta: Bastique removed John Schmidt's tools  at the request of SB Johnny . 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. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 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:Request_custodian_action 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)

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)

Comments

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Unblock. I think he should be given a chance to move on. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * unblocking Countrymike 06:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * . The Jade Knight (d'viser) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Geo.plrd 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --mikeu talk 17:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --Jolie 18:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 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 . 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)

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.
 * 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)

 * --SB_Johnny talk 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it's "all or nothing", I, vehemently. --SB_Johnny talk 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No Opinion Salmon of Doubt 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Unblock. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε
 * unblock -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)c 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * --mikeu talk 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I do not support an unblock at this time" was in my initial response. --mikeu talk 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Geo.plrd 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Privatemusings 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) yup :-) Privatemusings 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Countrymike 06:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * unblocking - on condition... Cormaggio talk 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Emesee 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well unless someone wants to salvage this quasi vote count, we could just strike it as cruff.

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.

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