text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010

JWSchmidt 2010
Note: this community discussion has been censored, repeatedly.

This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review my participation at Wikiversity. I was asked to open a review of my behavior. I've long welcomed feedback on my participation at Wikiversity and I welcome feedback here in this forum. I'm comfortable in a culture where others feel free to offer me criticism and I try to learn from others. I've edited in support of Wikiversity since 2005 and all of my edits, participation at #wikiversity-en and other off-wiki actions have always been directed toward the betterment of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: there is a related community review about problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission.

WAS 4.250

 * JWS, thank you for all your edits, participation at #wikiversity-en and other off-wiki actions which have always been directed toward the betterment of Wikiversity. Nice goal. In your opinion, have your methods produced the results you wished? - WAS 4.250 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Happy face.jpg|thumb|right|100px|[[Learning fun|Encourage silliness!]]]]"Thank you WAS 4.250 for your kind words and your participation in Wikiversity learning projects. your methods" <-- My methods? I'll have to give this some thought....so I'll think while I type. In 2005 when I started helping to develop the proposal for Wikiversity, I was puzzled by the fact that Jimbo had kicked Wikiversity out of Wikibooks. Why split Wikiversity off? Most textbooks are written by people who are educators at a university. At that time, I was trying to find ways to encourage academicians to participate at Wikimedia wikis. It was about that time that I started thinking seriously about learning projects. I came to view Wikipedia's "WikiProjects as both content development projects and learning projects. I was frustrated by the lack of community at Wikipedia...frankly, it seems that some powerful people intentionally intimidate and disrupt the participant communities that grow up around Wikimedia wikis. Most of the colleagues I work with in academia view Wikimedia as an anti-scholarship joke. However, with high hope, I continue my wiki participation. I think there are ways to make Wikiversity a scholarly learning community. I realized that Wikiversity could be a much more interesting project than either Wikipedia or Wikibooks, so I pretty much shifted my attention to the development of Wikiversity as an experiment in online collaborative learning. I think it is fair to say that Aya and Jimbo "conceived" Wikiversity as an independent project; the strange union of those two Wikimedians has led to interesting subsequences. I still wonder: what were the motivations of "Aya" and how did he attain bureaucratship? It reminds me of the mystery of how Jimbo got "founders rights". By another strange quirk of fate, Wikiversity content development projects became known as Wikiversity schools and Wikiversity topics. Since Wikiversity was launched in 2006, it has been a real pleasure to spend some part of each day thinking about how I can have fun at Wikiversity with my collaborators and friends. My methods? About all I do is work towards the Wikiversity mission by trying to have fun participating in learning projects. From 2006-2008 my "methods" worked and I did have much fun, learning and friendships made at Wikiversity. It was a true joy to have worked so hard to create Wikiversity and have it exist as a fun wiki webssite that was attracting a great group of collaborating learners.Falsification of logs.png Then in 2008 the Wikiversity project was hijacked by outsiders and for the past two years participation has been a living hell. Even while I respond to you in this edit, I must look at a page protection notice that contains a falsified excuse for censoring this page. Most of the Wikiversity community has been driven away by invaders who have vastly disrupted Wikiversity. I view the continuing censorship of Wikiversity as serious violations of Wikiversity policy...the policy on civility warns against calling for unjustified blocks and bans, but the invaders use blocks and bans to intimidate and drive away honest Wikiversity participants who have done nothing wrong. I view enforcement of unjust bans as a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Since the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 it seems like the only remain learning project is the one where we find out if Wikiversity can be returned to the happy state that existed before the hostile takeover. "have your methods produced the results you wished?" <-- Not yet, this learning project is still a work in progress. --JWSchmidt 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, each of us is also a work in progress. I recommend periodic evaluations to judge if one's course is on target or should be adjusted. Do you have enough data yet to decide if (1) you need a course correction or if instead (2) you are on target for your goals? - WAS 4.250 17:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your question, but I have to go to work. I'll reply later. --JWSchmidt 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you have in mind as a possible alternative "course". Many of my Wikiversity friends have either been banned or have left the project in disgust. It is a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation that a few bullies can disrupt Wikiversity. I've been called a "troll" and it has been suggested that I fuck off and leave Wikiversity, I've been subjected to absurdly bad blocks and my participation in #wikiversity-en has repeatedly been harassed by sysops who abuse their channel operator power, several sysops stalk my every edit in the hope that they can invent some excuse to have me banned...hence my description of the past two years of Wikiversity as living hell. Given these conditions, I'd be wise to also stop participating here, but I'm in my 8th year of wiki editing and it is hard to just walk away. One sysop recently suggested to me that I have to learn to live under the ban hammer of sysops who are "not too abusive", that I should be happy for such an opportunity. I reject that suggestion and I feel a moral obligation to speak out when I see injustice and cruelty, particularly in an educational setting. My biggest problem is that I am made physically ill by the abusive Wikimedia functionaries who still terrorize Wikiversity. So, the easy "course" would be to leave, but I'd rather keep playing the wiki MMORPG. If you have other suggestions for an alternative "course", let me know. I feel that there are signs of improvement. A group of misguided people who think the ban hammer is an educational tool cannot forever keep control of an education-oriented non-profit foundation. I anticipate further improvements under the new head of the WMF Board. "on target for your goals?" <-- Every part of developing Wikiversity has taken longer than I expected, but I've noticed that abusive sysops eventually either get bored playing the "wiki cop" role in the MMORPG, get a job or the community finally takes away their ban hammer. Even the high school drop outs will eventually get kicked out of their parents' basement and lose their internet connection. I'm an old man, I figure I have more patience and can wait them out. Even as things stand now I can do a few constructive things at Wikiversity...that keeps my spirits up. Once the Jenga Torture Tower collapses I'll be happy to get back to full time play. --JWSchmidt 02:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy does it. WAS 4.250 07:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One day at a time. K.I.S.S. This too shall pass. --Abd 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooooo! Can anyone play? http://ask.metafilter.com/23966/Opposing-aphorisms - WAS 4.250 21:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's concern
JWS, sometimes I feel like you are too buried in the past. Yes, Wikiversity changed. Yes, a lot of problems resulted. However, sometimes we need to adapt to that change and save as much of it as possible. When there is a problem, deal with it, but things like changing the privacy policy page to a policy without allowing for some more discussion and voting is rushing things. Slow down a bit. Breath. Allow things to develop. Compromise where you can and fight when it will get you somewhere. We are a community and a family. Unlike any other project, we are all here together and we all have to accept each other like a family. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I know you are smarter than me. I'm used to that with the medical students I teach, but there are still times when I feel I might be able to teach a thing or two. I've long hoped that you could help get Wikiversity moving in a direction that would help attract more professional educators to Wikiversity. It saddens me that we have to waste our time on problem children. About policy pages, I don't believe that they are any different from other wiki pages. If someone sees a way to improve them then each edit should be evaluated on its own merits. If I put on a page, anyone else can take it off. "Slow down a bit" <-- Well, when it became open season to block Wikiversity scholars I was told that I had been blocked because the community "really needed a chance to catch up". I don't think it is fair that a WMF board member could wave his mighty banhammer and threaten Wikiversity participants and scare them into doing mean things like blocking me and subjecting me to a bogus emergency desysop when no emergency existed. You say I live in the past, but every time I edit this page I have another reminder flashed in my face telling me that abusive sysops are still allowed to terrorize Wikiversity. I know I've led a sheltered life as a nerdy academic and I never lived in a family where my brothers were harassed, censored and banned. "Slow down a bit" <-- I offered to not edit for a while and you ignored that suggestion. I've also offered to restrict my editing to the main namespace for a period of time determined by User:Jtneill. Frankly it seems like it would be easier and better for Wikiversity to just remove sysop tools from the people who continue to misuse them. "Compromise where you can" <-- Does this mean that you think I don't compromise? Frankly I curse myself for having compromised too much in the past. When dealing with bullies it does no good to let them beat on you, if you do they just get worse and attract other similar abusers. --JWSchmidt 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill's view
Personally, I feel comfortable with and thankful for JWSchmidt contributions and participation in Wikiversity. Each of us has a vital role to play. The more we work with rather than against one another, the further we are likely to get towards Wikiversity's goals. Some of JWSchmidt's edits may well warrant improvements or contestation from others - in which case, play the ball not the man. Some editors have conflict with JWSchmidt which perhaps the community may be able to help with - I encourage those people to post here. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Each of us has a vital role to play" <-- It has been hard for me to play the role of learner at Wikiversity since 14 September 2008 when the abhorrent practice of banning Wikiversity scholars was imposed on the Wikiversity community. That single disruptive act led to the destruction of almost all of the Wikiversity community. Yet here we are, almost two years later and no honest Custodian will do the right thing and unblock User:Moulton (Note: Moulton's user account was finally unblocked on 16 July 2010, 22 months after Moulton was subjected to a bad block, made against community consensus. Absurdly, he still cannot us his account because of another action that was taken without Wikiversity community consensus. --JWSchmidt 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Note: Moulton was blocked again. --JWSchmidt 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)). Other honest and valued Wikiversity community members have also been unfairly blocked since the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008. It is truly not fair that I continue to be deprived of my friends and colleagues in learning. "play the ball not the man" <-- I find it hard to play the ball when the man is standing on my throat and I suspect Moulton does, too. At the very least Moulton should be allowed to participate in a community review about him. However, as shown below:

 I cannot include Moulton in a community review. According to the rules, I must notify him on his talk page. In 2008 I was subjected to an emergency desysop action when there was no emergency. My custodianship was improperly removed. An honest bureaucrat could correct that error at any time and then I would be able to move Wikiversity forward with community review of Moulton and the bad blocks, bans and harassment that he has been subjected to. It is sickening to have to come to Wikiversity each day knowing that it is a place of institutionalized injustice. Is that what we should be teaching the world? --JWSchmidt 13:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise that you would like some actions that have interfered with yours and others' learning experiences at Wikiversity simply undone. My view is that there are mechanisms to pursue each of your suggested actions here (e.g., nominate yourself for custodianship). Where proposals have undergone due process that lead to consensus that requires custodian or bureaucrat action then I'm happy to act. Recommendations emerging from your reviews could be consolidated into specific proposals for comment, determination of consensus and possible action (e.g., a proposal for how to involve Moulton in a community review). Feel free to be more direct if I'm missing hints. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect the fact that you must do what you are comfortable with. I believe that every action at Wikiversity must be taken after thought is given to advancement of the Wikiversity project's Mission. Undoing a past error is a simple way to advance the Wikiversity mission. I have made the practice of performing emergency desyops when no emergency exists a subject for community review. I would never ask for special rights in any wiki community. I believe that trusted community members automatically earn the right to be invited to help a community by becoming a sysop. I hope you realize that the Wikiversity community has largely been destroyed during the past two years. I doubt if the community review process will work to fix the problems that you could personally fix in short order. If people like you would act it might be possible to repair the damage that has been done to Wikiversity. It is truly unjust for damaging actions to be done with alacrity while simple repairs of the damage are delayed for wikilegalistic reasons. Part of the wiki system is Be bold which encourages us all to "correct a mistake". Please think about that. I hope you realize that when people who could fix a community's problems fail to act then that inaction drives away good participants. Do you remember User:Erkan Yilmaz? Please read this. Valued Wikiversity community members now view Wikiversity as a hopeless cause. The "NK" he mentions is a another wiki website where many past Wikiversity participants have taken refuge from the abuses they have suffered here at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd's view
A detailed review of the problems with JWSchmidt's editing would be voluminous, so I will start with only one example, one he has placed in front of us. JWSchmidt added to this page an image of the protection log for this page, with the caption, Example of a falsified log entry. I have seen from JWS many examples of claims that custodians have taken some reprehensible action, with terms like "falsified" being common. The charges are not supported by the evidence, and I claim that this is typical. Sometimes, particularly with older actions being described, there was some offensive action or some possible abuse of administrative privilege, but sometimes, we should remember, an administrator or custodian may have sound reason but, being a volunteer with limited time, failed to adequately explain it. Further, if, say, Adambro, the custodian who wrote that log entry, made some mistake and used the wrong word, when the reality is plain and simple in front of everyone, is this "falsification"? Falsification would involved creating some false evidence, whereas, at most, we would have, here, the use of a multivalent word with some meaning different from what JWSchmidt thinks the word should mean. What's the substance? True wikilawyers hate substance, because they wish to use words to push conclusions as if the conclusions were already established....

What did Adambro say? Protecting the page, he wrote as the reason: "Excessive vandalism: repeated target of blocked user." JWS calls this "falsification," which is surely uncivil if not deceptive itself. He does not look at the actual page history and compare that with the claim. It appears that it is his opinion that the edits of a blocked editor are not vandalism unless they are, what? Obscene? "Vandalism" as a term can cover any kind of alteration of a surface or text that illegitimately changes the meaning, the term implies that the alleged vandal has no right to make this change. Making a legitimate criticism on, say, my user page, could certainly be vandalism. It's not the place for that, and for a blocked editor to make any changes is not legitimate. However, if that content is reverted, any legitimate editor may revert them back in, taking responsibility for them. Thus "vandalism" refers to the act of marking, not to the content of the marks. A perfect nice drawn moustache could be vandalism, eh?

What was the history at that point? Moulton, for better or worse, is blocked. No admin has been willing to unblock him. There are admins who are not afraid to unblock, but ... apparently they don't think it proper. Ottava offered to unblock Moulton on certain conditions. Moulton responded by an equivalent of spitting in his face, it's been revision deleted, not just once, but many times now, since Moulton kept repeating it. This is a highly disruptive user who doesn't seem to have a shred of cooperation left. Except he signs his edits, but I'm not sure he does that to be cooperative.... I still appreciate it!
 * Moulton, reverted by me. I more or less invited JWS to revert this back in, if he wanted to take responsibility for it. I certainly would not have revert-warred with him, I could have been blocked for that.
 * Moulton, reverted by Adambro.
 * Moulton, followed by the page protection shown and by reversion.

Now, JWS had the power to make this all become easy. He could have requested that Moulton be allowed to edit the page, taking responsibility for what might ensue. Upon such a request, I'd have unprotected, probably, advising JWS to, if someone reverted Moulton edits, to revert back in any that he wanted to show, if he believed them useful, "good faith" contributions as he was claiming were being censored (on other pages as well.) Even on Wikipedia, there is no policy against reverting back in edits of a blocked or banned user; they tried to throw an imaginary one at me many times, it never succeeded.

What this all means is that the claims of censorship are preposterous, rather there is a mere procedural issue. I see that JWS, with this comment is taking the position that edits of blocked users aren't vandalism if they are "constructive," the point being that, then, rollback should not be used, even if the purpose (dealing with edits of a blocked editor) is clear from context. This is a position that is possibly practical with a very small wiki that hasn't encountered serious disruption. However, we must ask why the block tool exists? Why not just revert out bad edits and leave "constructive" ones? For all editors, no matter how "disruptive?" The answer is that deciding whether an edit is "bad" or "constructive" can be quite a difficult task, and sometimes a community decision is made that an editor's contributions can be presumed to be harmful, overall, and this user is blocked or banned. In a real university, if the university authorities -- or a faculty assembly, say -- have decided that a certain person is to be excluded from the campus or meetings, do they then decide, for each visit the person makes, if the visit is "constructive"? No, the campus police are instructed to act to exclude the person, until and unless some other decision is made.

This is why on Wikipedia, which has had to face much more serious problems of scale, any editor may revert the edits of a banned editor. However, if another editor reverts them back in, for the original editor to revert them out again on the basis that the original author was banned would be revert warring. I've seen editors on Wikipedia get away with this, but it was a policy violation. They get away with it if the banned editor is sufficiently unpopular.... The Wikipedia policy is sound and represents a genuine consensus there. It has nothing to do with whether the edits are good edits. If it's a good edit, or even if it's a bad edit, there is no requirement that the edits of a banned editor must be reverted. But in practice, making the decision can be more trouble than it's worth, they are simply reverted when seen. And then if someone wants them.... they aren't "censored" ..., anyone can bring them back in. Anyone can read them regardless -- unless revision-deleted.

The comment mentioned above shows, again, JWS's approach: edit summary: (→Use of Rollback for other than clear vandalism.: If the edits are constructive then there is no basis in Wikiversity policy to revert them) This is Talk for a Policy page. This is like saying we can't have a policy because there is no basis for it in policy. In fact, blocking policy assumes the right to prevent editing of the project by a person, and that, then, implies the right to remove "graffiti" or "essays" posted by the person through evasion of the block.

The page semiprotection was routine, in fact, it is normal to semiprotect a page when there is a slew of edits to it by a vandal or blocked editor. Edits by blocked editors are vandalism, by definition, even if they are also constructive. (put this another way: some vandalism is good. I'm sure Moulton would agree with that!) Moulton expects to be blocked and reverted, it makes his day. If his edits are good, JWS is free to bring them back and I'm certainly not going to remove them -- unless they involve outing or such a clear violation of policy that JWS might be blocked himself for reverting them back in, in which case he probably wouldn't even be able to see them, they'd have been revision deleted, from what I've seen. JWS is making up offenses in order to impeach Adambro, and it's disgusting. Adambro is one of the few active custodians left, and he's clearly serving the community and responsive to it. If we ask Adambro to stop, say, blocking Moulton IP, I'm totally confident that he will. It would be a tragedy if JWS were to succeed in driving him away, from frustration at dealing with all the flak. That's probably Moulton's agenda, make it as hard as possible on anyone enforcing his block. --Abd 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "The charges are not supported by the evidence, and I claim that this is typical" <-- Do you really think that this page has been vandalized? If so, please provide links to the relevant vandalizing edits so that we can discuss the nature of the vandalism. "failed to adequately explain it" <-- I accept that communication can break down, what is mysterious is when I ask a question or request information from Wikimedia Functionaries and there is no reply, sometimes even after years of me repeatedly asking for a response. I think Custodians have a special obligation to respond to questions and provide requested information. is this "falsification"? <-- falsify: to make incorrect. "What's the substance?" <-- The substance is that if you provide links to the "excessive vandalism" of this page then we can discuss our different views of "vandalism". Please provide a definition of vandalism that you prefer, as I did, then we can compare our understandings of what constitutes vandalism. "as if the conclusions were already established" <-- I'm always open to new data. After 8 years of editing Wikimedia wikis I think I can tell when a wiki page has been vandalized, but I'm always willing to learn new things. Please link to the vandalizing edits of this page. "the alleged vandal has no right to make this change" <-- Wikiversity welcomes all good faith edits. Even misguided edits are not vandalism if they are made in good faith and advance the Wikiversity project. I reject the effort you are making to define all edits by banned users as vandalism. All edits should be judged on their merits. This is a collaborative learning community, not some MMORPG where sysops sit around inventing arcane meanings for words just so they can exclude the contributions of targeted community members. "for a blocked editor to make any changes is not legitimate" <-- Please quote a Wikiversity policy that supports your view. Please explain how it benefits Wikiversity to censor community discussions so as to exclude good faith contributions from community members. "an equivalent of spitting in his face" <-- In my culture, using someone's name is not a spit in the face. What culture are you from? "This is a highly disruptive user" <-- Please list the Wikipedia policies that Moulton has violated. Moulton was participating constructively at Wikiversity then he was targeted for a ban by a group of Wikipedians. Moulton was blocked on a trumped-up charge and then subjected to a show trial. The disruptive user was the "wiki hitman" who came from Wikipedia on a mission to get Moulton banned. "I'm not sure he does that to be cooperative" <-- honest Wikiversity participants are proud of their contributions (edits); why shouldn't Moulton sign his edits? What is astonishing is that a few misguided sysops pretend that Moulton is disruptive. Abd, each time you censor one of Moulton's edits you disrupt Wikiversity, so please stop the censorship. Please treat all good faith Wikiversity participants with respect and judge all edits on their merits. "the claims of censorship are preposterous, rather there is a mere procedural issue" <-- I don't understand what you are trying to say. I ask you to just stop disrupting Wikiversity. Please stop trying to define good faith edits as vandalism. Please stop protecting pages. Please stop removing Moulton's comments from Wikiversity community discussions. If you don't like what Moulton has to say then just move along and ignore what he has to say. I want to see what Moulton has to say and I enjoy learning with him. If you don't like Moulton then find your own collaborators who you can learn with. "we must ask why the block tool exists?" <-- Look in the logs for the first two years of Wikiversity. The block tool was used to block vandals. Then Jimbo brought the bash and harass culture to Wikiversity and started blocking scholars. The banhammer is not a learning tool and it is not welcome at Wikiversity. Please stop using vandalism-fighting tools against honest Wikiversity community members. "sometimes a community decision is made that an editor's contributions can be presumed to be harmful" <-- and sometimes not, such as when Jimbo has gone against against community consensus, bullied the Wikiversity community and vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. Moulton has been subjected to an absurdly bad block, harassment by a wiki hitman and even sickening harassment by Wikipedia thugs at his personal website and work place. Please just stop the madness and let Moulton interact with me and the other Wikiversity community members who recognize him as a valuable partner in learning. "In a real university" <-- Jimbo and his absurd banhammer would not last 10 minutes in a real world educational institution. Please stop applying the disruptive methods of Wikipedia to this community of scholarly learners. "This is like saying we can't have a policy because there is no basis for it in policy" <-- I've never said anything like "we can't have a policy because there is no basis for it in policy", so please stop putting such words in my mouth. There is no basis in Wikiversity policy for the way you have been misusing your Custodial tools, so please just stop. "blocking policy assumes the right to prevent editing of the project by a person" <-- Please quote from -and link to- the blocking policy so as to support your claim. "it is normal to semiprotect a page when there is a slew of edits to it by a vandal or blocked editor" <-- This is not Wikipedia. This is a collaborative learning community. Every time you remove one of Moulton's edits you disrupt Wikiversity, so please stop doing it. "Edits by blocked editors are vandalism, by definition" <-- No. This is not Wikipedia. Any good faith edit is not vandalism. "Moulton expects to be blocked and reverted, it makes his day." <-- Why not unblock Moulton and let him respond to this claim? Please just stop the abuse of Wikiversity community members. Please let us get on with the purpose of Wikiversity. We are here to learn. If you have a burning desire to wave the banhammer then go play the wiki cop MMORPG at Wikipedia. "they involve outing" <-- using the name of a colleague is not outing. "JWS is making up offenses in order to impeach Adambro" <-- Please list all the offenses that I have made up on this page so we can discuss them. "It would be a tragedy if JWS were to succeed in driving him away" <-- Reality check. It is Jimbo and his banhammer culture that drives away honest Wikiversity community members. I've never driven anyone away. There was one thug who came to Wikiversity from Wikipedia to harass Moulton and he was blocked from editing Wikiversity. I even argued against that block. Blocks are for vandals. I'd like to find a way to make Adambro stop using his vandalism-fighting tools against honest Wikiversity community members. If you think he'd stop waving the banhammer if asked then please ask him. I have not found a way to get through to him. Really, it is absurd. Moulton is an expert in online learning communities and one of the best Wikiversity participants. Why won't you to stop pounding on him with your toy banhammers and try collaborating with him in some learning projects? "That's probably Moulton's agenda" <-- Moulton's reasons for participating at Wikiversity can be seen here. --JWSchmidt 05:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see something like twenty-one issues or questions or controversies raised above. Pick one, please. Each one of these could take a tome to fully address. That simple and even moot issues (was this page vandalized? according to what meaning? And with what consequence?) become complex and intractable ones is a function of how those involved approach the issues. If they are approached seeking agreement and consensus, it would be easy to move beyond this. So, ... pick one. If we can't resolve one, especially one picked and accepted by both parties, there is no hope in resolving twenty-one. Thanks. --Abd 16:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, you came to this page and made a large number of claims. Custodians have a special obligation to explain themselves to Wikiversity community members. You asked for one question, so here is one: when you wrote "there is no hope" did you expect that would relieve you of your responsibility to explain the many assertions about my "problems" that you made on this page? Abd, if you don't respond to me here I'll just add my unanswered questions and requests to this list and let the Wikiversity community evaluate how you responded to me. --JWSchmidt 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed action
I've been very busy with RL stuff and will remain that way for some time. First, this is my description of the present situation: Accordingly, I propose the following:
 * JWS continues to demand, over and over, explanation of a multiplying list of charges, often of events that took place long ago or that are moot now or that are simply his imagination. If a custodian or other user posts a comment to this or the other related discussion, which does not accord with JWS's real or pretended position, he demands proof. This is a wiki and all users are volunteers. Even the community has no right to demand any explanation of anything, because explanations take time and time is what we have -- or don't have -- to give to the project.
 * While a few custodians have attempted to open negotiations with Moulton, JWS has done nothing to help resolve this situation and move forward. He complains about censorship but does not act to restore deleted Moulton contributions, though he certainly could do so and it would probably be respected and stand. He is clearly interested in blaming and impeaching custodians rather than in actually establishing a functional Wikiversity, which might include participation by WMF critics such as Moulton, but which also must clearly establish ethical guidelines for criticism of WMF and WMF volunteers before this is possible.
 * WikiVersity has not developed explicit guidelines and policies in many areas. This is how wikis start; the operating basis is community consensus, not explicit regulations or guidelines. When custodians act based on their personal understanding -- which is part of standard wiki process -- or on their understanding of basic or overall consensus, JWS demands reference to WV policy, which he knows doesn't exist. Yet he continually asserts that custodians have violated policy, when no policy trumps community consensus.
 * JWS opened Community Review/Problematic actions, an Omnibus review of actions covering something like two years of events, many of which involve people who are not active Wikiversitans; in particular, there are complaints about Jimbo's actions and "Wikimedia functionaries." Wikimedia functionaries -- which included Jimbo -- are not within the jurisdiction of the Wikiversity community, and there is no current WMF interference in Wikiversity; to criticize these functionaries is only to invite and attract response, similar to what happened before. While it is possible that WV resources could study WMF ethics, it is also clear that to do so without creating massive and unnecessary disruption will require the development of ethical policy on such study, that this must be approached with caution; it is also possible that such study is impossible here, but would need to take place in another similar environment. We are subject to WMF policy and operating consensus, as well as to decisions of the WMF board, and we must respect restrictions that arise from these, which includes, possibly, privacy policy (thus the issue of "outing.")
 * I originally became involved in this mess because I noticed a pattern of strong incivility on the part of JWS, and I asked him to stop it. He responded with massive questioning of practically everything. To document all this would multiple words without benefit. Many of those currently participating are aware of the pattern. Wikiversity is strongly committed to open particpation, to the maximum degree possible, so it is very difficult for this community to make ban decisions. There are, however, intermediate possibilities if an editor is willing to cooperate with the community by voluntarily accepting certain restrictions. What we have here, however, is an extended situation where two editors accept no restrictions at all. Again, I could provide abundant evidence; I've done this kind of thing before on Wikipedia, and my summary is that it can take days of effort to document abuses, and it doesn't necessarily make any difference.
 * To develop and perhaps simply to survive, the Wikiversity community must develop means of responding coherently to situations that threaten its stability and function. There are classic means to do this, but it will take some level of settled conditions to even approach solutions. Until then, we have only the adhocracy of individual custodial actions.
 * Nearly every custodian who is participating has some conflict of interest.
 * However, I see this clearly: JWS is without support on the issues he's raising. The block of Moulton was previously considered by the community and that review, again, when I set aside such complications as the participation of clearly biased users, still confirmed the block. I see no support here from any custodian for the actual unblocking of Moulton; there is some support for negotiating with Moulton or trying to find ways to cooperate, but none for allowing unrestricted editing. That the original block by Jimbo was "out-of-process" (what process?) is thus irrelevant.
 * I see no sign that JWS is likely to return to cooperative activity here. He apparently believes that continually disrupting this community is an obligation, quite like Moulton (who sees it as "educational").
 * This situation cannot continue, it is damaging Wikiversity every day by the diversion of user resources and attention. It is possible that projects can exist here that would continue to explore the issues, but it cannot continue as massive attention on major community pages.
 * JWS is subject to a topic ban, covering all criticism of the WMF, WMF volunteers, Wikiversity custodian actions, and any controversial discussion of the history of the Moulton affair, his loss of custodial tools. This ban may be extended as needed should disruptive contention expand. After warning by a custodian, a second custodian may so extend it, pending community review, in lieu of block. This ban does not initially apply to his user talk space, he may create pages there to consider issues, acting with quasi-administrative status on those pages.
 * If JWS respects this ban, he may continue to make, without restriction, normal contributions to educational resources. He may apply to have his sysop tools restored, and presumably if the community is satisfied that he will not use these tools to perpetuate this old conflict, he could be granted probationary custodianship or other conditional custodianship.
 * If JWS does not respect this ban, and after warning by any custodian, he may be blocked for a term according to the discretion of any custodian other than the one warning. Normal recusal policy will not apply. He will continue to be allowed access to his Talk page.
 * If JWS believes that he has a positive contribution to make in the area under ban, he may do so by making a self-reverted edit. He may make reference to this edit on his user Talk page. He may make simple and neutral reference by diff (without argument, only a notice that the self-reverted edit has been made, inviting review) to this edit on the Talk page of any other consenting user (but not massively unless by specific consent of notified editors.) He may refer to this edit off-wiki, of course. Any other registered editor willing to take personal responsibility for the propriety and usefulness of calling the attention of the community to this material may revert it back in. Note that this is quite equivalent to standard deliberative process requiring that a motion be seconded before being debated, a rule that, outside informal meeting as committees, is universal in functional assemblies.
 * Custodians are expected to be tolerant of a certain level of incivility. Almost all of JWS's incivility has been directed to custodians (or above to WMF functionaries). This ban is not a punishment for incivility, it is designed to prevent disruption and unnecessary demands on the time of custodians and others, who are encouraged to ignore JWS's incivility and demands -- except as they violate this ban! --, but only address the needs of the community.
 * I will create a poll on this. However, if consensus does not appear in this poll, I consider it my obligation to act, within a reasonable period of time, to effect this ban, under the common-law principle of public policy (called IAR on Wikipedia), in the event that no other custodian is available to address the issue. I hope that's not necessary, though, I hope that consensus will be shown, in which case I certainly will follow it. --Abd 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Even the community has no right to demand any explanation of anything, because explanations take time and time is what we have -- or don't have -- to give to the project."
 * Abd, I'm on my way out the door to go to work, but I see your comments. I only read the first few sentences, so far. When WMF functionaries don't respond to wiki community members it intensifies one of the existing problems that is deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. If a Custodian does not have time to respond to questions from the Wikiversity community about their actions then resignation is one option to fix the problem. I believe that Custodians have a special obligation to be responsive. More later. --JWSchmidt 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Custodians have an obligation to explain their use of tools. Beyond that, they have no special obligation. Custodians only make ad-hoc temporary decisions, and the level of explanation required is actually low. What's happened is that the actions JWS has questioned have been explained ad nauseum, but then he shows no sign of understanding the explanations, of even hearing most of them, and then demands even more explanations, and he does this with each explanation and comment, over use of tools or just plain commentary -- i.e., just as any other user --, spinning off more and more questions, often repeated over and over. Bottom line: most wiki behavior will never be explained, it takes far too much time. If a custodial action is incorrect, not to mention abusive, it can be corrected, if there is a basis for that in community consensus or even just the independent behavior of another custodian. That is how wikis work, in general. What JWS demands is really not "explanation," but justification or defense against charges of abuse, and there is no obligation to defend against such charges, period; indeed, standard wiki advice is to not personally respond to charges of abuse or misbehavior, to let others defend you. JWS, quite simply, has no understanding of how wikis work, in general, but only some experience when the scale was small and he was an important part of it, and this is similar to Moulton in that Moulton rejects the adhocracy (especially the custodial adhocracy), i.e., the fundamental basis of how Wikiversity operates currently. Moulton's criticism of the adhocracy is cogent, generally, but incomplete. My own position is that adhocracy obviously works to a certain level, can be highly efficient, and simply requires new structures or procedures that will kick in when it fails. --Abd 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, the fundamental requirement for Custodianship is that you be a trusted member of the Wikiversity community. I can't trust anyone who fails to explain their uncivil and duplicitous acts. Abd, please adopt the good practice of responding to questions and requests. Failure to do so disrupts Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 07:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Poll on topic ban for User:JWSchmidt
This poll is only to assess current support or opposition for the topic ban proposal as shown in. It is not a decision process, and is only advisory. Custodians, however, may use it to assess tentative support for an action (or against an action). Custodian actions may be reversed, as usual, they generally and properly represent a possible fit between the opinion of the custodian and the general consensus of the community. --Abd 18:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban

 * Abd 18:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC) as proposer.

Oppose ban
"a topic ban, covering all criticism of the WMF, WMF volunteers, Wikiversity custodian actions, and any controversial discussion of the history of the Moulton affair, his loss of custodial tools" <-- I will not bow before witch hunters and people who bring show trials into Wikiversity. Did we just skip the Evidence? Reasoning? Justice? It is my right and my responsibility to protect Wikiversity from WMF functionaries who abuse their power and positions of trust. I will always bear witness against injustice. My participation at Wikiversity has always been in support of the Wikiversity mission. Until someone comes forward with specific evidence showing how I have harmed Wikiversity and allows me to state my own defense of my actions I must oppose this ban on my editing. I believe bans are a barbaric tool of violence with no legitimate role in a scholarly learning community. Violence is a tool of incompetents. I urge the Wikiversity community to reject, once and for all, the sickening banhammer culture that was forced upon us in 2008. I will not submit to the the rule of brutality and ignorance. We must return Wikiversity to the peace and sanity that existed from 2006-2008. Please stop tormenting Wikiversity scholars and let us get back to our studies. --JWSchmidt 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Other comments on ban
See also Topic bans for JWSchmidt from 2009. Has anything really changed? -- dark lama  01:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that. That was closed as "no consensus," but there was, in fact, a general consensus that something had gone dreadfully wrong with JWS. The discussion wasn't focused on making a clear decision, this is classic wiki inefficiency. It is, indeed, true that the same issues were raised then. I conclude that it is time to act, and I'm only holding off from acting, in fact, to see if the community wants to restrain me or to guide me in some different direction. --Abd 02:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm concerned with bringing COI into the discussion, and the idea that the person that warns cannot block. I have a feeling the community is divided on what COI means and when if ever COI is an issue. I'm concerned that without some common community vision of what COI means and when if ever COI is an issue, that bringing COI into it, and as a related consequence the idea the person that warns cannot block, could be a source of conflict that might otherwise be avoided. I suggest just require that people warn before blocking, unless people right here right now are willing to and can come to a consensus on what COI means and when if ever COI is an issue. -- dark lama  02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any custodian can block in an emergency. We are not dealing with an ordinary situation here, we are dealing with long-term discontent and disruption. If one custodian warns, the warned user may argue with that custodian, and if the custodian then blocks, it creates a possible appearance of retaliatory block. I've seen a sysop lose his bit on Wikipedia because he blocked an editor for incivility in arguing with him.... and then didn't understand the problem later. After all, wasn't the editor being uncivil? He missed the point that it is not only important that sysops be impartial but that they also appear impartial. And, in fact, this sysop had become angry. If the community agrees with this proposed topic ban, nothing about it prevents any custodian from blocking without warning if it is considered necessary. But, if we follow this procedure, we are protecting the community, to this degree, against improper custodial action, by incorporating a degree of caution that is more than normal.

 * The described details of the topic ban are simply proposed. A closing custodian would decide on actual terms. If I find inadequate community response to determine that there should be no topic ban, I or any custodian can declare such a ban unilaterally. But it's dangerous, and far better if we can act with the guidance of the community. --Abd 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I or any custodian can declare such a ban unilaterally <-- Abd, what custodians can do is described in policy. This is a collaborative learning community where decisions are made by consensus. Abd, why are you trying to impose barbaric banning practices on this community of collaborating learners? --JWSchmidt 02:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The described details of the topic ban are simply proposed" <-- It becomes simple to propose a ban when no evidence of wrong-doing is provided. "Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law." --JWSchmidt 03:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What had gone dreadfully wrong with JWS is that he was subjected to the Bomis Boyz™ Bondage and Discipline treatment. He was unceremoniously bound and gagged and stuffed in the janitorial hall closet for a week.  It was an appalling revelation to me to see something so unseemly occur in a project that advertised itself as an authentic learning community under the aegis of a 501(c)3 educational foundation.  JWS came to call that the "Wikipedia Disease" but I have called it what it is — a B&D fetish inherited from the Bomis Boyz™ culture.  —Moulton 02:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton, that's way beyond my time. While we may ascribe some of JWS's reaction to those events, something far deeper has clearly been activated. It's not my job to psychologize JWS, though, nor to excuse him for present activity based on abuse he might have experienced two years ago. By the way, where was Wikiversity "advertised" as "an authentic learning community"? And even if it was -- which I rather doubt -- have you ever heard of "puffery," which is generally legal? And is it possible that a community with some structural dysfunction might still be, in some aspects, an "authentic learning community," and, please tell me, have you learned anything here? I apologize for any inconvenience you experience responding here; you know my email address and you are always welcome to respond directly to me, and I'll put it here if I think it has some value for the community. --Abd 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "something far deeper has clearly been activated" <-- Abd, I am made physically ill by the depths to which Wikiversity has sunk since a disruptive culture of scholar abuse and intimidation was imposed on Wikiversity in 2008. Abd, I am astonished that you wrote, "By the way, where was Wikiversity "advertised" as "an authentic learning community"?" Abd, please read, Approved Wikiversity project proposal and this where it says, "We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community." "We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public." The Wikimedia Foundation has a, Commitment to openness and diversity. This is our shared vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Abd, you wrote, "a community with some structural dysfunction might still be, in some aspects, an "authentic learning community" <-- Abd, if this is truly how you feel, then I challenge you to participate at Community Review/Problematic actions and help fix the dysfunction. Wikiversity studies of ethical practices in Wikimedia has been declared outside the scope of Wikiversity by Wikimedia functionaries who, rather than respect the Wikiversity community, conspire in secret to eliminate scholars from participation at Wikiversity and who act in defiance of Wikiversity community consensus. Since 2008, disruptive Wikimedia functionaries have routinely censored and deleted valuable Wikiversity learning resources while falsely asserting that those learning materials were "outside of scope", disrupting the Wikiversity community and violating our shared vision and commitment. For example, an interesting exploration of ethical action was deleted. Why are such valuable Wikiversity learning resources destroyed by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trusties? Why do other Wikimedia functionaries inflict similar disruption upon the Wikiversity community, terrorizing and intimidating Wikiversity's scholarly participants? The disruption of Wikiversity that has occurred since 2008 is corruption of the stated goals and methods of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is now being documented in all of its sickening details at Community Review/Problematic actions. Abd, please help set right what has gone so wrong. How does "We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public." become perverted into barbaric threats and intimidation made against the Wikiversity community, threats made in a bullying show of blatant disrespect for the consensus of the Wikiversity community? Abd, I will always defend Wikiversity against such unethical practices, won't you help me? --JWSchmidt 11:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I would like to think that this situation could be resolved by a topic ban of some description but JWSchmidt's comments in opposition above don't give me much confidence that he would respect any such measures. Adambro 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he will respect it or not. First of all, he's more likely to respect it if there is consensus behind it. That's difficult to show, because of low participation, typical wiki problem. However, if the ban is decided, he'll be informed of the terms. He then has a choice. He can comply with the ban, which will, presumably, allow him to raise the issue of the ban itself, but only in a confined and nondisruptive way (the simplest is by appeal to the closing administrator or other warning actor, which should be a custodian, I'd assume, but it could conceivably be a mentor acceptable to JWS who takes on ban administrator (with the consent of the closing custodian, I'd assume), and he is then allowed to continue to make positive contributions, and even to continue his criticism in his user or user talk space, or he can ignore or defy it, in which case he will be blocked, etc., but this time with unblock being very unlikely -- unless the placement of the topic ban itself was defective. The point is to set up and follow due process which provides for and covers as many of the possible objections as can be handled with reasonable efficiency. --Abd 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "low participation, typical wiki problem" <-- In the case of Wikiversity, many valuable community members have been harassed and blocked and driven away by abusive Wikipedians and Wikimedia functionaries. The problem is a few misguided individuals who have pushed upon Wikiversity the barbaric use of blocks and bans abusively imposed against honest and scholarly Wikiversity participants in violation of Wikimedia Foundation's mission and values and the Wikiversity mission. We need to find ways to bring back Wikiversity participants who were driven away, not invent new ways to alienate Wikiversity scholars. --JWSchmidt 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "if there is consensus behind it" <-- There can be no community consensus for barbaric acts that disrupt the mission of Wikiversity. I have defend Wikiversity against misguided Wikimedia functionaries who greatly disrupted the Wikiversity community. Abd, attempts to punish Wikiversity scholars for right actions in defense of Wikiversity is a travesty. --JWSchmidt 11:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith
A recent addition by JWSchmidt to his the community review of problematic actions provides a good example of a failure to assume good faith and raises some other issues relating to civility. I recently accidentally rolled back an edit by an IP. Very quickly I realised my mistake and reverted myself to reinstate the edit, explaining in my edit summary, "opps, self rv, clicked rollback accidently". Shortly afterwards, I also apologised to JWSchmidt, who I understand edits using that IP address, saying "I am sorry for accidentally reverting it and I quickly reinstated it when I realised. I sometimes edit using my iPod and due to the nature of its interface, it is easy to click on the wrong things by mistake".

Soon after this, JWSchmidt uploaded an image of a screenshot of the history of the page involved and added this to Community Review/Problematic actions. His caption lists Hypothesis #1 as "accident" and Hypothesis #2 as "Adambro is reverting edits without following the Rollback policy and without even reading and thinking about the edits that he reverts", below which he states "Evidence collection:How much time passes between the edit and the rollback?". I would question how the length of time between the edit being made by the IP and my rollback in anyway discredits my explanation of it being an accident.

I would suggest that this illustrates a violation of the principle of assuming good faith and of appropriate civil behaviour. He is strongly suggesting, both through the caption and its posting in the review of "problematic actions" that, rather than being an accident which I have fixed, explained and apologised for, I am instead violating the rollback policy and also lying about it being a accident. Adambro 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I was so concerned when I saw the response of JWS to Adambro's comment as linked above that I briefly considered immediately blocking JWS, but I decided to wait to see what response there is to the poll above. If the community wants the disruption we've seen in the last few days to continue, do nothing or continue to debate without resolution. We actually have the potential, in what is happening, to heal the wounds of 2008 and March 2010, but if the underlying issues are not addressed, it will be for nothing. One step at a time. The behavior of JWS is well outside of what I believe can be tolerated, but a block hasn't been proposed, only a topic ban intended to prevent continued disruption without actual "censorship," but setting up some order and reasonable procedures that won't require vast sprawling tomes of discussion to keep Wikiversity on track. --Abd 01:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * What's needed at this stage of the game, Abd, is a Truth and Reconciliation Process. Once an adversarial relationship becomes established, and once the parties systematically assume mutually antagonistic relationships, the time for AGF has long passed.  The withering body of evidence that JWS compiled would suffice to dispel any a priori assumption of good faith, even if fully half of his evidence were thrown out.  It occurs to me that what JWS is demonstrating is the process of presenting evidence to support an allegation of incompetence, corruption, or bad faith.  What annoys me (and John and Greg and PM) is that no such process attended our cases.  I would have appreciated an opportunity to examine the evidence against me, and present a defense.  But no evidence was presented.  Rather I was subjected to a Parliamentary Bill of Attainder.  I was frankly appalled to see such anachronistic maneuvers in use in a 21st Century Learning Community.  —Moulton 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, Moulton, you are currently unblocked, you should be able to use Caprice even if range blocks are in place. Signing your edits as Moulton is fine. While a Truth and Reconciliation process could be useful, participation should be voluntary, and much of what JWS has presented is an attempt to impeach those who aren't voluntarily participating, or not participating at all. There is no "withering body of evidence" being presented, as far as I've seen, there are certain arguments and judgments repeated over and over and over. I'm going to point out that allegations of "incompetence, corruption, or bad faith" will never heal the wounds of 2008 and March 2010. However, extending mutual understanding and attempts to work out new cooperative arrangements may. I'd say that Thekohser is on track to be unblocked here, I've been trying to set this up to be bulletproof, unless he blows it. What you have not generally respected is the need of the community to have, shall we say, peace and quiet. I've been blocked on Wikipedia and am currently under two different bans, and could raise a huge fuss about it, I could present reams of evidence and could show, I believe conclusively, that there was administrative abuse and recusal failure and, even further, utter ArbComm incompetence. But why? Would this add to the project? Indeed, what good would this do me? Go through all that work for what? Justice? So I should waste real hours of my real life to attempt to prove that I was abused and misunderstood? I'm actually grateful to ArbComm's stupidity for setting up the block and ban because it really encouraged me to move on to better work. Barry, you know that the wiki process, unadorned, is abusive, particularly when the scale becomes large and the community less coherent and cooperative. It needs, shall we say, some help. How about joining in an effort to help it, to develop ways to move beyond the adhocracy without losing its basic freedom and efficiency? (As is, particularly when the scale is large, it becomes highly inefficient, but that's a different story. Small-scale, outside of areas of controversy, it's pretty efficient but could become even better.)
 * A summary: yes, wikis involve anachronistic structure. The structure of Wikipedia was impossible at the beginning without the presence of an uber-administrator, i.e., Jimbo, to handle disputes. Gradually, the Jimbo function was replaced by ArbComm, but ArbComm itself has not yet developed process to make it anything other than erratic and unreliable. The arbitrators, some of them anyway, know this, but don't know how to fix it. You expected Rule of Law at Wikipedia, but rule of law doesn't apply there, it is not promised and is specifically denied. Without Rule of Law and with an executive or a deciding body not restrained by law, or even more a pile of independent administrators who each have practically unconstrained freedom of action with no efficient review process, you are going to see bills of attainder all over the place. It's just the way it is. There are, I believe, ways to move beyond this, but it will take work and it will take wide cooperation. You are not going to create this with your dramatic disruptions, more likely, you will delay it. Meanwhile, thanks for the thought-stimulating commentary. Keep it up. --Abd 02:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I suppose I could use the voice of Caprice, but consider that Caprice is a didactic character who represents an innocent, naive, and disempowered scapegoat who plays a specific role in a classical scapegoat drama. Wearing the costume of Caprice whilst discussing modern academic subjects of a collegiate nature seems inappropriate.  It would be as if Shari Lewis attended a serious colloquium and let Lamb Chop be her spokespuppet.  So I'd rather edit as an IP and sign my remarks with the voice of the character who most conveys the gravity of the remarks in question.  Keep in mind that Moulton is an inept schmeggegy scientist who is something of a self-parody.  —Barry Kort 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * If you want peace, work for justice. —Caprice 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I neither expected nor desired a rule-driven system (which amounts to a game at best and a social drama at worst). What I (naively) expected was a democratic learning community that subscribed to and adhered to scholarly ethics.  I was frankly appalled and chagrined to find that this site did not rise to that normative standard to which I had become accustomed in authentic learning communities.  —Moulton 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I have no illusions about reforming WikiCulture. That's beyond my pay grade.  But I might be able to stimulate some of my dialogue partners to join in thinking more clearly, more deeply, and more insightfully on these issues which have vexed and perplexed us lo these many years.  —Barry Kort 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "a good example of a failure to assume good faith...I would question how the length of time between the edit being made by the IP and my rollback in anyway discredits my explanation of it being an accident." Adambro, you appear to be assuming that I doubt H1. My interest is in H2. I made no attempt to falsify H1 and I offered no assumptions about your use of rollback to revert my edit which was not obvious vandalism. I simply stated your explanation for the rollback as H1. I'm interested in H2 because on multiple occasions I've watched you revert good faith edits in less time than I think would be required to read them and evaluated them as being either good faith edits or vandalism. "How much time passes between the edit and the rollback?" Adambro has made much use of the rollback tool during his enthusiastic enforcement of an absurdly bad lock. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". Why would any Custodian who assumes good faith be swayed by an obviously bogus reason for a lock (enough is enough) and relentless revert good faith edits? For H2, I said "reverting edits", not just the accidental edit. If I take into account additional data, I see multiple rapid rollbacks, a pattern that supports H2. All of the rollback examples that I've put into the community review are listed under this heading: "Are these rollback policy violations?" I call upon the community to examine the data. The short time required to revert my edit prompted examination of a useful hypothesis (H2) by means of looking for other rapid reverts. I leave it to others to form their own opinion about H1. I made no bad faith assumption. I made a hypothesis and tested it against the data. "He is strongly suggesting, both through the caption and its posting in the review of "problematic actions" that, rather than being an accident which I have fixed, explained and apologised for, I am instead violating the rollback policy and also lying about it being a accident." <-- As I've explained, I made no suggestion about the veracity of your claim that the rollback of my edit was accidental. I do believe that you have repeatedly violated the rollback policy that restricts use of rollback to obvious vandalism. Restricting rollback to obvious vandalism is good practice that protects Wikiversity community from confusions and arguments. Adambro, please respond to my request in the community review that you revert the disruptive and contradictory edit you made to the rollback policy, introducing the words "blatantly unproductive". That is not a good standard for the Wikiversity community to use, it is just a source of arguments and dispute and frustration on the part of Wikiversity community members who you revert without the courtesy of an edit summary. Adambro, please do the right thing and remove this source of community conflict from the rollback policy. --JWSchmidt 06:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "I briefly considered immediately blocking" <-- Abd, I urge you to adopt the good practice of only using the block tool to deal with obvious vandalism. All blocks of Wikiversity community members should be by community consensus. "the disruption we've seen in the last few days" <-- Abd, what disruption are you referring to? The misguided effort to prevent a scholarly expert in online learning communities from participating at Wikiversity? "a topic ban intended to prevent continued disruption" <-- Abd, your repeated calls for unjustified blocks and bans is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy <-- Blocks are for repeat vandals. Wikiversity is a community of scholarly learners where we discuss our ideas and reach decisions by consensus. I doubt if bans have a role to play in a collaborative learning community. If you are eager to bring an ugly and disruptive culture of blocks and bans to Wikiversity, first get community consensus for policies that authorize the abusive use of barbaric methods against Wikiversity community members. --JWSchmidt 07:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt, as usual, is only seeing Wikiversity and WV custodians through some very dark glasses. Have I adopted any improper block practice? Examples? However, the position that blocking is only to be used for "obvious vandalism" is an isolated one, not consensus on any wiki, and especially not here.
 * Disruption Massive and highly contentious discussion not directed toward cooperation and collaborative effort, but rather toward accusations of misconduct, assessing blame, and not in a focused, problem-solving process, but as a general shotgun impeachment of the entire custodial establishment, without ever clearly establishing a single example. JWS was encouraged to start a CR examining "problematic actions," and instead of starting a CR on a single problematic action or a single administrator's set of problematic actions, he raised what seems like every remembered incident of problem over the last two years, down to considering it a problem that his request for undeletion of some Moulton user pages wasn't immediately getting action. Even though it was attracting response and discussion. This is practically the entire apparent focus of this wiki becoming JWS in large blinking letters, filling up recent changes, multiplying content of no enduring value, taking up massive amounts of custodian time -- a scarce resource -- and generally getting many of us irritated, sometimes pushing some of us into excessive action out of sheer frustration. That's disruption, and to actually document it in detail would require weeks of work, it's that big.
 * Reversion of Moulton edits. JWS doesn't accept the principle that a blocked editor's edits can be reverted without specific examination. I'd actually prefer to see this done by bots, so that an editor can be topic banned instead of blocked. The bot isn't targeting the content, but rather the "ban," and such reversions are not custodial actions. Any user could do it, and any user could undo it. Instead of fixing it, which he could easily do if he disagrees with a revert, he is complaining about it. That is the classic kind of wiki-dysfunction that gets users blocked on all kinds of wikis. Wikis are designed to be easily fixed, and when someone would rather argue that something was wrong instead of fixing it, they become easily and clearly identified as disruptive.
 * Eager to bring an ugly and disruptive culture of blocks and bans to Wikiversity? Eh? Who have I blocked or banned that wasn't already blocked? Take a look at how I have used the block tool, please, and you will see that it has been used in an effort to bring users back, not to ban them. I've taken a blocked and effectively banned user, helped create a sock account, and blocked it, sure, but to allow Talk page access in spite of a global lock. I work with blocked editors to try to open a path of cooperative and respectful return, and I'm making policy suggestions that would facilitate that, make it almost routine. I've cooperated with Adambro in a few cases to block active sock IP for Moulton, but, at the same time, when the conditions allowed it, I've requested that Adambro stop blocking such IP. I'm working for consensus, and last time I noticed, Adambro is at least as much a part of this community as Moulton or JWS. A huge fuss was made here about the block of Thekohser by Jimbo. I predict, from present behavior, that Thekohser will be unblocked here in short order. That could have happened with Moulton if he'd wanted it. JWS, your friend does not want to be unblocked. Please understand that. He wants to continue the drama of being blocked and playing cat-and-mouse with custodians. He's been very open about that, which is one reason why I think you are more disruptive than he. He's very clear, he is openly and directly disruptive, and fully expects to be blocked. He does not generate reams of dramatic complaint as you do, he makes a few, brief, dramatic statements. You aren't open, you pretend that the sole etiology of this affair is "abusive custodians" or "outsiders." That approach will never fix Wikiversity, ever. It's impossible. If you win, you lose, guaranteed. --Abd 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeated calls for blocks and bans. Repeated? I requested custodial attention to JWS' behavior. That was closed because JWS was blocked by Adambro, then unblocked because the block was considered excessive, and Adambro the wrong custodian, because of recent prior interactions, and I agreed with that. In unblocking, Ottava suggested, among other things, this CR. I have now proposed a topic ban, not a block, per se. So, one incident of calling for a topic ban -- the only one I can recall, ever, in my entire history with WMF projects -- and in lieu of block, becomes "repeated calls for blocks and bans." The fact is that when I warned JWS, months back, that his behavior was heading for some kind of sanction, he already started screaming that I was threatening him and how abusive that was. The mode of operation has become entirely hysterical and reactive. And all the topic ban would do is to require him to stop it, while still allowing him means to legitimately protest, simply containing how he protests to channels that, in fact, could be more effective if there is a real problem.
 * And through all this, actions by custodians that could be considered helpful are entirely neglected and ignored. As an example, JWS asked for undeletion of some Moulton pages. He gave some rather ... iffy ... arguments, but, hey, AGF and all that. It was a reasonable request, and it's routine to allow users, on request, and absent strong reason not to, access to the text of deleted files. JWS argued that the pages had been improperly deleted, but that did not enter into my consideration. I now find a possibility of error, having reviewed more of the history, but we are talking about a possible procedural error two years ago.... Ottava originally proposed deletion of these pages, and has now redeleted them, so, to avoid wheel-warring (very embarrassing to wheel-war with one's mentor, especially!), I'm offering to provide JWS copies of the files so he can fulfill his purpose. If Moulton magically emerges from the current process unblocked, Moulton can restore them. I found the response to Moulton somewhat hysterical and unrealistic. He'd created the pages when unblocked, but the implications were in discussion that they were the creations of a blocked user. Even discussing the deletion of pages while the author is blocked is generally an invitation to sock. And then the socking becomes a reason for deleting the pages, that was actually stated (i.e., keep them, but if Moulton continues socking, delete them. Eh? Isn't that ... punishment?). There was no consensus for deletion. And what are we going to do, try to drag all those users back here and put them in stocks for making stupid decisions (as some of us might think now, even though we might have made the same decisions if in their shoes at that time....)? --Abd 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Have I adopted any improper block practice" <-- You have engaged in serious violation of the Wikiversity civility policy by joining in the all too frequently used abusive practice of calling for unjustified blocks and bans to be imposed on Wikiversity community members. Such disruptive practices must end if Wikiversity is to achieve its stated mission. --JWSchmidt 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeated calls for blocks and bans <-- Abd, I view your proposal here, for topic bans, as a call for a ban and I documented one of the times when you called for an unjustified block to be imposed on me. There are other times in our user talk page discussions when you suggested that I should be blocked for various frivolous reasons, often with you seeking to enforce Wikipedia's rules at Wikiversity. "he already started screaming that I was threatening him and how abusive that was" <-- Abd, please provide a link to the discussion. "The mode of operation has become entirely hysterical and reactive" <-- Abd, can you provide even a shred of evidence to support your claim, lest anyone think that your call for topic bans is entirely hysterical and reactive? If not, please retract your charges. "legitimately protest" <-- Abd, please list one "protest" that has not been legitimate. "He gave some rather ... iffy ... arguments ...absent strong reason" <-- Abd, I question  your characterization of my request that perfectly harmless learning resources be deleted as being "iffy". Can you explain what you mean? Abd, please start here if you cannot find any specific examples in the community review. --JWSchmidt 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thenub314's view
JWSchmidt is too personally involved in case of Moulton to see the issues clearly. I have personally been "outed" at another wiki, by which I mean someone found and started using my real name. (Based on a rather innocent comment I left at a talk page). Subsequently on wiki issues followed me half way across the globe into my physical reality at my "Brick and Mortar" institution. There is a certain level of personal protection afforded by sticking with our user names, and this too has a long and respected place in academia. JWSchmidt doesn't intend to disrupt the community, so I am not immediately in favor of a block. But he is in search of a holy grail of his vision of a scholarly environment he cannot achieve because there is a clear lack community support in this ideal. I recommend he stop advocating for Moulton and try to primarily stick to editing main space pages as he volunteered to do at some point (perhaps in a slightly different context). Forgive me for not chasing down the diff, but so many are referenced here. This would be of course after the current Community Reviews conclude. If he finds himself unable or unwilling to stop pursing his ideals against stopping the "banhammer"/"censorship" culture, then he should consider whether this is really the correct community for him. I say this not in any means spirited way, it is simply a philosophy I live by.

I am sure he will counter me by saying that banning and censorship are not part of any university setting. I would respectfully have to disagree and I give an example. I am reminded of a homeless cross dresser Lucy who would frequent talks at one university I was involved with. She would ask questions she felt were relevant to the material. The fact was the questions were at best disruptive. Lecturers at first would kindly try to brush off the interruption, but she would insist on arguing her point, despite it was easily seen to be nonsense. After a short time the Campus police were involved with making sure she was not allowed onto campus, because she had become too disruptive to its academic proceedings. In every community there occasionally comes times when its members must for their own benefit exclude some people. It is always unfortunate. But it is necessary. Sometimes, as in Lucy's case, even though someone is attempting by all standards to take part in a learning community their efforts are ultimately disruptive to most other people and it is necessary for them to leave so productive research/learning can be done. Thenub314 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "too personally involved"
 * I have a different view. Moulton is a great Wikiversity participant, a scholarly expert in online learning communities. The misguided wielders of toy banhammers should abandon the barbaric practice of hammering on scholars and spend some time learning collaboratively with Moulton.

 * "sticking with our user names, and this too has a long and respected place in academia"
 * I've spent the past nearly 50 years in educational institutions from grade school to medical schools. I've never encountered anyone in academia hiding their identity under ridiculous screen names. From 2006 - 2008 Wikiversity participants used real names with no problem. Some invaders from Wikipedia arrived in 2008 and disrupted the Wikiversity project. One of their tricks was to pretend that it is a crime to use someone's name. Using the name of a colleague is not "outing". I've been trying for two years to stimulate action on a Wikiversity privacy policy. Until we have such a policy, I respect everyone's right to use the names of their colleagues. If people want to hide their identity, it is up to them to not link their real world identity to their screen name. Nobody at Wikiversity has ever been hurt by someone using their name.

 * "a holy grail of his vision of a scholarly environment he cannot achieve because there is a clear lack community support in this ideal"
 * I dispute your read of community sentiment. A few noisy bullies have gamed the system by pretending that it is bad to use their name. I'm not swayed by their theatrics and shoving.

 * "stop advocating for Moulton"
 * I advocate for everyone who is mistreated. I can't imagine why you would expect me to stop working for justice and civility at Wikiversity.

 * "he should consider whether this is really the correct community for him"
 * I spent years helping to create the Wikiversity proposal, getting it approved and growing the Wikiversity community. In 2008 there was an invasion of Wikiversity by a few rogue Wikipedians and their toy banhammers, but it is the barbarians, not I, who should leave.

 * "homeless cross dresser Lucy"
 * Lucy sounds somewhat analogous to the disruptive sockpuppets who came from Wikipedia to Wikiversity in 2008 and disrupted this project. Strangely, the wiki hitman who came here on a self-declared mission to get Moulton banned was made a Custodian. That such shameful things happened at Wikiversity is enough to make me physically ill. We all have to resist the bullies. If we do, then authentic scholars like Moulton will be able to get back to creating learning materials.
 * --JWSchmidt 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Google Knol is a much better site to deposit static learning materials. They cannot be vandalized or baleeted there. Wikiversity, on the other hand, is much better for crafting interactive learning processes with a variety of cooperating and competing scholars. I rather enjoy the opportunity to cooperate with competing scholars so that we might jointly craft more dramatic and engaging learning processes. Moulton 04:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * When I say JWSchmidt that your too personally involved, I mean just that. I am sure you feel Moulton is a upstanding scholar, and any actions against him are unjust, barbaric, etc.  But some scholars feel differently.  I am suggesting to you that you should seriously consider the possibility that do not have the capacity to accurately or dispassionately judge the situation because of your personal involvement with the Moulton.  You seem to feel there is no place in academia for protecting ones identity.  My personal experience differs.  To raise the conversation to a level above personal experience let me point out case of a bold group of young mathematicians who desired to recast the mathematics education and research.  The endeavored on to start a collaborative research/learning project to provide a foundation they felt was lacking.  Since they were young, and backlash from the established community of mathematics could easily threaten their otherwise brilliant careers they created a false persona, by the name of Nicolas Bourbaki.  It is difficult to underestimate the impact their work has had on the modern mathematics community.  Of course if I wanted to give examples of important discourses that also hid the identities of the academics I might also point out the Pythagoreans who attributed all results to Pythagoras, or if I remember correctly the entire episode around The Analyst involved several unsigned works.  That is why I say it has a long and respected tradition.
 * When you say no one has ever been hurt you go beyond the realm of things you can possibly realize. I am familiar with at least one user of Math Overflow, another collaborative learning project, who to quote a colleague "is destroying his changes of getting into a good mathematics graduate school" by continually picking arguments with top mathematicians.  He has done nothing but be argumentative and mathematically knowledgeable beyond his years but not quite mature enough to see the forest through the trees.  How can it be possibly said no one has ever been harmed?
 * I suppose we have to agree to disagree about our readings of what the community supports.
 * I suggested to you that stop advocating for Moulton because as an unbiased reader, reading through the conversations here and some of the related conversations in the other community reviews, Colloquium etc I feel you are being disruptive to the community. This is the feedback I have to give you about your edits. You will undoubtedly ask me to provide evidence, to which I can only say these community reviews and endlessly repeated arguments and replies get in the way of any actual content development, and drain everyones energy.  I has been a relatively difficult task even to read through the conversations above and determine what is going on.
 * There are many situations that might remind one of Lucy, my only point was that sometimes bans are necessary, in any situation. I was hoping it would be a wakeup call to the worst injustices in the world have not occurred here.  At the end of the day something needs to change with your actions here.  I hope you spend some serious time considering your actions and try to find a new way to be productive.  My feeling is that your best hope for doing this is to stick to developing materials in the mainspace and not arguing about what you think is wrong with the community.  Best of Luck! Thenub314 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "the capacity to accurately or dispassionately judge the situation" <-- Thenub314, I can't be dispassionate when I am made physically ill by the way in which Moulton has been harassed by a few Wikimedia functionaries. "personal involvement with the Moulton" <-- Moulton is a wonderful collaborative learner, a valued Wikiversity community member and expert in online learning communities. Why shouldn't I collaborate with Moulton so as to advance my learning goals? "no place in academia for protecting ones identity" <-- Thenub314, do you mean preventing identity theft or hiding one's identity? Do you know if "Nicolas Bourbaki" ever objected to a collaborator using "his" name? "it has a long and respected tradition" <-- And when Moulton or I try to create and use alternative personas at Wikiversity we are persecuted and harassed. "How can it be possibly said no one has ever been harmed?" <-- Because I'm a scientist and I'm still waiting for data. Thenub314, please provide an example of a Wikiversity community member who was harmed when a collaborator used their name. "these community reviews and endlessly repeated arguments and replies get in the way of any actual content development, and drain everyones energy" <-- Are you suggesting that Wikiversity community members can be relentlessly and viciously harassed by Wikipedians, blocked against community consensus, emergency desysoped when no emergency exists, bullied and threatened in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Mission and Values, have their learning projects subjected to repeated out-of-process deletion, be subjected to show trials and barbaric banning rituals, be subjected to the misguided whims of unresponsive, policy-violating, rude and bullying sysops and then when I object to the damage that has been done and try to help Wikiversity improve then I am being disruptive to the community? I'm sorry, but I think you are not correctly identifying the source of our problems. "sometimes bans are necessary, in any situation" <-- Any? Banning is a tool of the incompetent. Even the most misguided sock puppet from Wikipedia can come to Wikiversity and learn collaboratively. I'm sickened by the way that honest and innocent Wikiversity scholars have been targeted for banishment while their abusers strut around waving their banhammers and disrupting Wikiversity. "try to find a new way to be productive" <-- I'll gladly return to the old way that allowed Wikiversity to grow and thrive from 2006 - 2008. There are a few things standing in my way. "not arguing about what you think is wrong with the community" <-- Will you vote to ban me if I continue trying to improve Wikiversity?

--JWSchmidt 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will try to answer your questions in the order they were asked. I never meant to suggest you shouldn't collaborate with Moulton, please do continue. I suggested you stop advocating for him, instead continue your collaboration in a different forum. When/if he is unblocked then you can continue your collaboration here.  I certainly did not mean identity theft.  I did mean protecting oneself by hiding your own identity.
 * Your loss of objectivity is most clear when you cite your credentials as a scientist to support your position. It is not the point of view of any scientific discipline to claim a hypothesis is true provided there is an absence of data to the contrary.  But I will supply you with one data point, though maybe you'll feel its an outlier. But during my days at Wikipedia, I was stalked and clearly as a result of using my real name.  I have come to no physical harm, but as a result but I know have a fair bit of concern that my on wiki activities will lead to injury for myself or my family.  That I do qualify as harm.  But perhaps you don't qualify me as a community member, indeed one point that is very unclear to me reading through these community reviews is exactly when one crosses from being an outside member of wikipedia (or wikibooks, wikisource, etc., etc.) into being a wikiversity community member.  But we can discuss that idea at the other community review, it is a more appropriate topic of discussion there. ( I will bring it up under the appropriate section. )
 * I am not sure what you mean by asking me if Bourbaki objected to people using his name. He was fictitious.  In which sense does a fictitious character have collaborators?  I can say from my conversations with those that worked closely with the group, that the members of Bourbaki did not want to be associated with the name.  Which was wise, because as is pointed out in the wikipedia article, there was a certain amount of hostility against Bourbaki.
 * Don't misunderstand me, I never claimed you were the only problem. This community review was the one I started reading first.  This community review is primarily about your actions.  I spent a few days reading through the links above, and I came to the conclusion that I thought you were a problem.  I still need time to read, think, and form opinions about the other community review.  But I have yet to get through the first section.
 * Yes, any. Every community has some restrictions, some acts which are tolerable, and some which are not.  Banning maybe a poor tool for many reasons, but sometimes it is a tool that is necessary to use.  I suppose I am curious, if the choice were yours and yours alone, would you ban the Wikipedians that have been making your life here hell for the last two years?  What about Wales in particular?
 * As a final remark let me put the appropriate emphasis on my advise. Find a new way to be productive, don't just seek for things to be as they were in 2008. Your faced with a different community of people today as you were then.  I think you will find the harder you fight to bring it back, the further it will slip from you.
 * I can't say with certainty that I would never vote to ban you, but I find it unlikely. If this continues for a long time I might call for everyone to ignore you, and let you write alone without readers or feedback about how unhappy you are.  But even that is not very likely.  In the end I expect what will really happen is that you will drive me away (and perhaps others who read the community reviews.)  But let me emphasis that it would be you driving me away.  Not a "banhammer culture".  Not anything you your currently feel is barbaric or bullying.  Not rouge admins.  One scientist who was so upset he felt he had to keep repeating the same arguments about injustice over and over until I simply couldn't take reading anymore and decided it was time I find something more productive to do.  Even if your right, this is not the way to get the changes you seek. Thenub314 23:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I mentioned that I am a scientist and did so as a way to emphasize that I rely on observation and data. Witch hunts disgust me. In 2008 some game masters from Wikipedia came to Wikiversity and made all sorts of absurd claims about Moulton. We all have to be careful not to be gamed into rash actions. If Moulton is being prosecuted for crimes then I want to see evidence. "claim a hypothesis is true provided there is an absence of data to the contrary" There is the legal concept of presumption of innocence, and I demand evidence before I hang someone. "being a wikiversity community member" If you are here, clicking "edit" and learning then you are a member of the community. Some people do very little learning while here at Wikiversity and I wonder why they bother to come here and if they feel like a Wikiversity community member.
 * Hint: if you want to hide your identity read this. "I am not sure what you mean by asking me if Bourbaki objected to people using his name." What I mean is, those mathematicians who created the Bourbaki persona worked with other mathematicians and I suppose they never objected when a colleague used their real name. If you really want anonymity then you have to take some responsibility. A truly malicious person will identify you and you will never know it happened until you mysteriously own a house on the Riviera. Does it make sense to get mad at people who are honorable enough to address you as a colleague? If someone lets you know that your super secret security is not intact then you might thank them and learn from your security failure.
 * "I thought you were a problem" All I ask is that you be kind enough too give me a fair trial. "would you ban?" No, I think Wikiversity has a place for everyone. I'd just like Wikiversity to return to what it was 2 years ago when people used the "edit" button and discussed things rather than wave their banhammers. I've been advised to accept "colleagues" who are "not too abusive". I don't accept abuse at Wikiversity, I try to get abusers to wake up and learn how to collaborate. "What about Wales in particular?" <-- Two years ago he stopped responding to my questions. Maybe someday he will realize that there are consequences for not responding to good faith questions about your actions. Some people come to Wikiversity to learn collaboratively. Some people have other reasons for participating at Wikiversity. I've noticed this: the bigger the banhammer the less there is an interest in learning. Wikiversity participants should leave their banhammers at the door on the way in. Banhammers have no role in education besides disruption. I don't know why a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board claims the right to disrupt Wikiversity. It is an interesting puzzle.
 * "keep repeating the same arguments about injustice over and over" Thenub314, have you ever heard this, "|If it's not okay, it's not the end"? Just a few misguided people disrupted a fun and thriving community that existed at Wikiversity from 2006 to 2008. It should not be that hard for a few good-intentioned people to fix things up. "this is not the way to get the changes you seek" I'd be happy to hear your ideas for "the way". --JWSchmidt 09:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit insulted to think that I haven't heard of "if its not okay, its not the end". Assuming I had not been familiar with it before, it was a) mentioned elsewhere in this review, which I have read; and b) even if I hadn't read it in that section you already mentioned this youtube link in a reply to me, and it is contained in there.  Out of respect for you I made sure to watch all 6+ minutes of the youtube clip the first time you posted it in a reply to me.  It doesn't need to be repeated.  Please assume that I listening to you and I am trying to take part in this conversation.  I remark that you must have misunderstood me at one point because, law is not science and we your claims I was referring to were not innocence of of any individual but whether or not people exist that have been harmed by using their real name.  You may not understand my strong desire to have not to have my real name to appear in print on wiki, but I do believe it should be my right.  I do think it should be policy that we refer to each other by our chosen user name, or at least respected as a matter of culture.  Thanks for the information on hiding my IP address on IRC, while this may seem a bit strange I am not particularly concerned about people knowing my IP address.  It may seem a bit contradictory to you, but I don't feel they are.  They represent different levels of information.  I assure you by insisting there is no need to frown upon "outing" your wielding a tool equally as powerful as a banhammer and just as exclusive, but much more silent.  But I recognize it is a bit different, in the sense I would be choosing to exclude myself from a project that in every other way I believe in.  Let me ask, where is the harm in requiring people not to "out"?   Thanks for the link to your blog, you might be surprised to know I have been aware and semi-following it for sometime now.  I came across it when it was mentioned in some archived conversations from a couple of years ago at wikibooks. Thenub314 10:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "You may not understand my strong desire to have not to have my real name to appear in print on wiki, but I do believe it should be my right" In 2008 I made this edit and then I spent a month trying to get the Wikiversity community to make that an official policy. I think you and I should start a learning project where we explore this question: "Why does Wikiversity still not have a privacy policy?" I want a privacy policy that both protects anonymous editors and protects people from abuse by anonymous wiki editors. You might be interested in this. I don't think using someone's name is "outing". --JWSchmidt 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

darklama's questions

 * 1) JWS, how do you plan to respond when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?
 * 2) JWS, what do you plan to do when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?
 * 3) JWS, what do you plan to do when people act contrary to your wishes because they feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?

-- dark lama  13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "no further need to discuss issues" <-- Darklama, have you ever heard this, "|If it's not okay, it's not the end"? I assume that your vague question refers to Wikimedia functionaries who fail to respond to the concerns of Wikiversity community members. When people in positions of trust and responsibility fail to answer for their questionable action, they can no longer be trusted. In the case of people from outside of the Wikiversity community, I think that Wikiversity community needs to be protected by a Wikiversity policy on blocking and one on page deletion. User:Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and useful Wikiversity learning resources have been subjected to out-of-process page deletion (one famous example). These odious abuses of power must be avoided in the future since they are contrary to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and values and the Wikiversity mission. In the specific case of Wikiversity functionaries, the basic requirement for Custodianship is that a Custodian must be a trusted member of the community. Currently I have been asked to help review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. The community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. However, User:Jtneill has suggested that more specific reviews might need to be split off from the current review. Custodians who are no longer trusted and who have disrupted Wikiversity by policy violations and abuse of IRC channel operator tools may become the subject of individual community reviews.

 * "people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you" <-- Darklama, for now I will continue to document the failure of Custodians to respond to the concerns of Wikiversity community members. As discussed above Custodians who are no longer trusted and who have disrupted Wikiversity by policy violations and abuse of IRC channel operator tools may become the subject of individual community reviews.

 * "what do you plan to do when people act contrary to your wishes because they feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?" <-- By "people" I assume you are asking about Custodians who misuse their position of trust and responsibility. I will continue to document their abuses of power. As discussed above Custodians who are no longer trusted and who have disrupted Wikiversity by policy violations and abuse of IRC channel operator tools may become the subject of individual community reviews. --JWSchmidt 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The assumptions you have leaped to are incorrect. Do your answers depend on what role a participant has? -- dark lama  15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "The assumptions you have leaped to are incorrect" <-- Darklama, I would have to do less leaping if you would ask a precise question about my participation at Wikiversity. This page is supposed to be a place where people can review my behavior. You introduced vague and hypothetical questions about my possible future actions. I answered as best I could. "Do your answers depend on what role a participant has?" <-- Yes. --JWSchmidt 16:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Please explain why your answer depends on a participant's role. -- dark lama  19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Mainly because there are only a few Wikimedia functionaries who have misused their positions of trust and responsibility. Most people come to Wikiversity to learn and would never disrupt Wikiversity by bullying and misusing their Custodial or IRC channel operator tools. --JWSchmidt 08:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Does that mean that your answer depends on the person, and not on the participant's role? -- dark lama  11:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "your answer depends on the person" <-- My answer differentiated between two groups of people, Wikimedia functionaries and the vast majority of people who come to Wikiversity as learners. "Wikimedia functionary" and "learner" are roles, not persons. I also distinguish between the majority of functionaries and the few who have misused their positions of trust and responsibility: Darklama, do you object that I make such a distinction? --JWSchmidt 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Does your response mean that you believe people in the role of "learners" can never do any harm and can never misuse any of the wiki tools available to them? Please explain how you came to decide that there was a need to distinguish "the majority of functionaries" from "the few who have misused their position of trust and responsibility". Please explain how you decide who are "the majority of functionaries" and who are "the few who have misused their position of trust and responsibility".
 * You asked me if I object, which suggests that you can see a possible reason for objecting. Please explain why you believe people might object to a distinction. I am still in the process of trying to understand and learn what your POV is. I do not understand the distinctions you make, the reasons behind the distinctions, nor where the distinctions lie. Hence the questions. I believe your answers benefit all learners. I consider myself a learner too. I'm keeping an open mind, and I haven't learned enough yet to say anything one way or another about the distinctions you make. -- dark lama  13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Does your response mean that you believe people in the role of "learners" can never do any harm and can never misuse any of the wiki tools available to them?" <-- No. "Please explain how you came to decide that there was a need to distinguish "the majority of functionaries" from "the few who have misused their position of trust and responsibility"." <-- In 2005 I realized that it would be fun to have a wiki where people could learn collaboratively. I helped create the Wikiversity project. Then some misguided functionaries misused their positions of trust and responsibility and vastly damaged Wikiversity. "Please explain how you decide who are "the majority of functionaries" and who are the few who have misused their position of trust and responsibility"." <-- Almost always it is a matter of seeing functionaries use their special tools in a way that harms Wikiversity, often by going against community consensus or existing policy. "Please explain why you believe people might object to a distinction." <-- I wondered if you objected because after I made the distinction you asked a follow up question ("Does that mean that your answer depends on the person, and not on the participant's role?") that made no sense to me. I was trying to understand you. I had explained that I was interested in the behavior of functionaries who misuse their positions (special tools) and damage Wikiversity. I did not understand how that could possibly imply: "your answer depends on the person", since my answer said it depends on misuse of tools. Since you seemed unwilling to take my reply at face value, and suggested something else that I did not understand, it occurred to me that you were not satisfied with or "objected to" the distinction I had made. I don't see a possible reason for objecting, I just wondered if you did. "I do not understand the distinctions you make, the reasons behind the distinctions, nor where the distinctions lie" <-- Are you saying you can't make a distinction between the few Wikimedia functionaries who have misused their positions of trust and responsibility and those who have not? --JWSchmidt 14:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You said, "Almost always it is a matter of seeing functionaries use their special tools in a way that harms Wikiversity". "Almost always" suggests that there may be other matter that are important to you. Please explain what other matter are important to you. What do you mean by "it" in "it is a matter"? You answered "yes" before when I asked if your decision depends on the role of a participant, but went on to use "Most people" in an explanation which isn't a role. I'm saying I cannot tell what your POV is because you write one thing and than use language that suggests either you believe something other what you write, you are holding back, or aren't being entirely forthcoming in your answers. Do you believe an honest discussion is possible under any 3 of those conditions?
 * Please explain how you came to the decision that some functionaries are misguided. Please explain how you came to the decision that some functionaries are going against community consensus. Please explain what community consensus you believe some functionaries are going against. Please explain how you came to decide what pages are policies. Please explain how you came to the decision that some functionaries are going against policies. Please explain what policies you believe some functionaries are going against policy. Please explain how you determined some functionaries' awareness of the community consensus and policies that you believe were gone against. Please explain how you determined that what you believe and what some functionaries believe are one and the same. -- dark lama  15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Please explain what other matter are important to you" <-- It is possible to harm Wikiversity in many ways. I said "almost always" to convey the fact that there are more ways to harm Wikiversity than I was mentioning in a short sentence. Of course, I am concerned with all sources of harm to Wikiversity. What do you mean by "it" <-- What distinguishes functionaries who misused their positions of trust and responsibility. "Do you believe an honest discussion is possible under any 3 of those conditions?" <-- No. If you can't understand something I say then feel free to ask for clarification. For example, you could ask, "Do you believe something other what you write," and I would reply, "No." You could ask, "Are you holding back?," and I would say, "What does that mean?" You could ask, "Are you being entirely forthcoming in your answers," and I would say, "Yes." "Please explain how you came to the decision that some functionaries are misguided." <-- I watched them do vast damage to Wikiversity and they failed to respond to questions and justify their actions. "Please explain how you came to the decision that some functionaries are going against community consensus." <-- I observed things like these actions where no attempt was made to respect Wikiversity community consensus. "Please explain what community consensus you believe some functionaries are going against." <-- I'm talking about Wikiversity community consensus. "Please explain how you came to decide what pages are policies." <-- The page says something like "this is a policy". "Please explain how you came to the decision that some functionaries are going against policies." <-- I watched them take actions that go against policies. "Please explain what policies you believe some functionaries are going against policy." <-- That is a subject of another community review, still in progress. "Please explain how you determined some functionaries' awareness of the community consensus and policies that you believe were gone against." <-- Can you give an example? "Please explain how you determined that what you believe and what some functionaries believe are one and the same" <-- Can you give an example of when I have done that? --JWSchmidt 16:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, I can appreciate the difficulty of mentioning all the ways that Wikiversity could be harmed. Please define what "sources of harm to Wikiversity" means to you. Do you mean the only people that you believe to have failed to respect community consensus are from outside of Wikiversity? Jimbo Wales, one of the people mentioned in the link, said he believed he was doing what was in the best interest of the community. Please explain your observations and how you came to decide that certain actions demonstrated going against community consensus. Please explain what Wikiversity community consensus you believe some functionaries are going against. Are you aware some of the pages that you refer to as policy did not contain "this is a policy" at the time that the actions you are concerned about took place?

If you believe there is Wikiversity community consensus for Y and that Z is a policy. How did you determine that some functionaries are aware of the Wikiversity community consensus for Y? How did you determine that some functionaries are aware that Z is a policy? How did you determine that some functionaries agree that Y has Wikiversity community consensus? How did you determine that some functionaries agree that Z is a policy? I cannot give an example of when you have done that because I think you haven't. I think what you have written though conveys the idea that you have determined that some functionaries agree that Y has Wikiversity community consensus and Z is a policy, and have intentionally "gone against" Wikiversity community consensus and Wikiversity policies. If you have determined that some functionaries agree that Y has Wikiversity community consensus and Z is policy, I want you to explain how you came to determine the truth of that for each functionaries, each Wikiversity community consensus, and for each policy. If you haven't determined the truth of that, I ask you to assume good faith again. -- dark lama  17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "sources of harm to Wikiversity <-- Anything that harms the Wikiversity community and progress towards the Wikiversity project's mission. "Do you mean the only people that you believe to have failed to respect community consensus are from outside of Wikiversity?" <-- No. "Please explain your observations and how you came to decide that certain actions demonstrated going against community consensus." <-- Each case is unique. Please specify the "certain actions". "Please explain what Wikiversity community consensus you believe some functionaries are going against." <-- I'm only aware of one community consensus. Do you know of others? "Are you aware some of the pages that you refer to as policy did not contain "this is a policy" at the time that the actions you are concerned about took place?" <-- What pages and actions are you talking about? "How did you determine that some functionaries are aware of the Wikiversity community consensus for Y?" <-- Please provide a specific example for who you mean by "some functionaries" and exactly what "Y" is. "How did you determine that some functionaries are aware that Z is a policy?" <-- Please provide a specific example for who you mean by "some functionaries" and exactly what policy "Z" is. "How did you determine that some functionaries agree that Y has Wikiversity community consensus?" Please provide a specific example for who you mean by "some functionaries" and exactly what "Y" is. "How did you determine that some functionaries agree that Z is a policy?" Please provide a specific example for who you mean by "some functionaries" and exactly what policy "Z" is. "If you have determined that some functionaries agree that Y has Wikiversity community consensus and Z is policy, I want you to explain how you came to determine the truth of that for each functionaries, each Wikiversity community consensus, and for each policy." <-- Please provide a specific example for who you mean by "some functionaries" and exactly what policy "Z" is. "If you haven't determined the truth of that, I ask you to assume good faith again." <-- What does "that" refer to in "the truth of that"? --JWSchmidt 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Please define "harms the Wikiversity community". Please list at Problematic actions everyone that you believe has failed to respect Wikiversity community consensus. "certain actions" can apply to every problematic action that you have brought up. However my questions are meant to be general. Any time you find an action to be a problem how do you decide that the action has gone against Wikiversity community consensus? What do you mean by "Wikiversity community consensus", since you are "only aware of one community consensus"? "Some functionaries" is your word choice not mine. I think "some functionaries" might mean any person or any person in a role that you disagree with. I have yet to understand how you differentiate "some" from "many". I think I have already pointed out some actions that you have considered to be against policy that happened at a time before the page you refer to was policy at Problematic actions. "Y" is any Wikiversity community consensus that you believe "some functionaries" acted against. I am not aware of you having stated what Wikiversity community consensus you believe "some functionaries" have acted against, so I cannot give any examples. "Z" could be any policy that you have mentioned in Problematic actions, but again my question are meant to be general. Any time you think a policy has been gone against how do you determine that? I am not aware of you having stated exactly how any person or person in a role acted against policy so I cannot give a specific example.
 * "That" in "the truth of that" refers to any assumptions that you appear to have made, like that a person or persons in a role is aware of the Z policy and has gone against the Z policy. -- dark lama  19:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Please define "harms the Wikiversity community"." <-- Disrupts progress towards the Wikiversity project's mission. "certain actions" applies to every |problematic action that you have brought up <-- Not in the context where you used it. "What do you mean by "Wikiversity community consensus"" <-- See Consensus. User:Darklama, if you can formulate a coherent question about my participation at Wikiversity, I'll be happy to answer it. --JWSchmidt 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My questions were intended to be about your current and future participation at Wikiversity, rather than past participations. I think that has gotten off track a bit. I'll try again. Why do you consider these questions to be hypothetical:

Do you not know how you'd respond or what you'd do? Is there no general way in which you'd respond or do things? How do you generally plan to respond when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you? What do you generally plan to do when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you? What do you generally plan to do when people act contrary to your wishes because they feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you? -- dark lama  12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Why do you consider these questions to be hypothetical" <-- Hypothetical questions can be framed as "what if?" questions. For example, your question, "JWS, how do you plan to respond when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?" can be parsed as, "JWS, what will you do if people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?" "Do you not know how you'd respond or what you'd do?" I answered your questions previously. "Is there no general way in which you'd respond or do things?" <-- My previous answers to your questions were general descriptions because you asked no specific question. Darklama, If you don't understand the answers that I already gave to your questions then please let me know. --JWSchmidt 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I would of wrote "what if", if I meant "what if", or I would have corrected myself if I had accidentally left it out. I'm not looking for hypothetical answers. You haven't answered my questions yet. You responded with assumptions. When I told you were wrong about the assumptions, you asked for a specific example and the discussion began to move away from the questions I wanted answers to. How are [ my questions not specific]? I'm not asking for answers related to a specific example or past situation. I don't understand how my questions are not specific. I can only guess that you are still making assumptions that I do not share. Questions don't need to involve a specific example or a past situation in order to be specific. Maybe you should explain what specifically you don't understand about [ my questions]. -- dark lama  16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * 1) JWS, how do you plan to respond when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?
 * 2) JWS, what do you plan to do when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?
 * 3) JWS, what do you plan to do when people act contrary to your wishes because they feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern to you?

 * I have it on good authority that "how he plans" is by writing English words with a red pencil on 5 inch by 6 inch pieces of thin white paper; that what he plans to do at the exact moment when people feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern with him is to eat one ounce of strawberry jam with a stainless steel soup spoon; that what he plans to do at the exact moment when people act contrary to his wishes because they feel there is no further need to discuss issues of concern is for him to form a wry smile on this face for three and a half seconds. Specific enough for you? (Interesting game you two have of who can waste more of the other's time.) WAS 4.250 20:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes you get the idea, and that wouldn't be so bad if that were true WAS :P -- dark lama  22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "How are my questions not specific?" <-- In all three of your questions you did not specify which "people" nor did you specify which "issues of concern" I should consider in my response. --JWSchmidt 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I did specify what "issues of concern" you should consider in your response, that would be any that concern you. Which people is anyone and everyone, I'd of specified which or who if I had anyone or any group of people specific in mind. Does which issue matter? Does which person or people effect your answers? -- dark lama  22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Does which issue matter?" <--Yes. "Does which person or people effect your answers?" <-- I answered that question 3 days ago. --JWSchmidt 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Fine than. Please explain how "difference roles" effect your answer. Please explain why "different roles" effect your answer. Please explain how "what the issue is" effect your answer. Please explain why "what the issue is" effects your answer. -- dark lama  00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 * why "different roles" effect your answer, "what the issue is" <-- Example: if you disrupt a community discussion by editing and breaking a large number of links, then I ask you to fix the damage that you did. If you ignore my request, then I must clean up after you. When you misuse your Custodial or channel operator tools and don't adequately explain your actions then I describe your actions at the community review on problematic actions. Wikimedia functionaries have a special obligation to act responsibly when exercising their special powers and they should always be able to provide good reasons for their actions. If someone who is not a Wikimedia functionary fails to respond to my questions then I would probably just move along. Interestingly, that almost never happens. --JWSchmidt 02:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Block proposal
JWSchmidt has made and to some degree continues to make useful contributions to Wikiversity. Unfortunately, those useful contributions are overshadowed by sustained pattern of behaviour which is disruptive to the project. Many extensive discussions have been had about how to deal with this problem (e.g. ) and it has been recognised by a variety of custodians as illustrated by his block log. Despite that, his problematic behaviour, principally failing to comply with the civility policy, has continued.

I don't want to get into too much detail, I think some of the discussions I've linked to do illustrate the problem and it would take too long, but I will just highlight one recent instance where Wikiversity is being disrupted by JWSchmidt as an example. As an example of how he is disrupting policy development, he seems to be attacking Darklama's changes to the draft Blocking policy on the basis that Darklama is not entitled to be involved in the development of the policy because JWSchmidt claims Darklama has abused the block function despite the policy development occurring because there is no policy on how blocks should be used (see and ). These attacks and flawed logic are characteristic of much of JWSchmidt comments and are disruptive to Wikiversity.

In an attempt to deal with this ongoing problem, topic bans have been proposed, both in August 2009 and more recently as part of this review. Mu301 closed the 2009 review with the comment that "The community has expressed strong concern and dismay about the recent actions of JWSchmidt as described below, however there is no general agreement on what action to take." The reaction by JWSchmidt to the recent topic ban proposals strongly suggests he would not be prepared to respect such measures.

With regret, I therefore conclude that the only way in which the ongoing problem with JWSchmidt's behaviour can be dealt with is by an indefinite block with him unblocked only when (and if) the community can agree to do so and measures for dealing with his behaviour have been found.

Please indicate in the sections below whether you support or oppose with my proposal that JWSchmidt is blocked indefinitely. If you disagree, please suggest how the problem might be dealt with as an alternative to blocking. I would ask that anything beyond a brief comment is made in the comments section in the interests of trying to keep things manageable. Adambro 22:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As per my above comments. Adambro 22:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Unfortunate but necessary at this point. It has been a long time since JWS has been able to edit without a problem. He is unwilling or unable to drop past matters and has edited in a manner unbecoming and problematic. Ottava Rima (talk)  22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) People need to be able to facilitate collaborative interactions in a calm and collected way both when things are looking good and when things are looking bad for Wikiversity to function. 2 years is too long. -- dark  lama  22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, JWS has shown no willingness to correct errors, the very trait he so voluminously pastes on others. I cannot recall an example when any of his many errors has been pointed out, and he has then acknowledged it and apologized or corrected the error. He just comes up with more arguments or restatements of the error, and we have gone past the point where I should provide piles of diffs. Because a block is a reversible action, particularly if there is a neutral closer who does the block, I now favor a block pending resolution. Talk page access should be maintained, and even certain other kinds of contributions should be allowed, I'll cover that if he is blocked. The closer should not be Ottava or Adambro, for sure, I'm uncertain about Darklama. If there is no consensus here, which is the present state, clear precedent is that a custodian who has not !voted, or who is not otherwise known to be likely to be biased, may close based on arguments and evidence, but this should then be reversible by any custodian considering the community welfare, possibly based on new evidence, such as an agreement from JWS, or the acceptance of a mentor, as another example. I still prefer a topic ban instead of a block, with blocking only for violation of the topic ban, it is procedurally far superior. --Abd 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Withdraw support for blocking. When it appears that two of three of the custodians who favor blocking are harassing JWS (or allowing the appearance of harassment, which is what would cause a negative effect on JWS), I cannot support blocking. A neutral administrator could warn JWS, prohibiting specific behavior, without any consensus here, and could block if JWS ignores the warning. The behavior warned against should be such as would warrant blocking if repeated after warning. This is a kind of informal "topic ban" and does not establish a "community ban," something to be enforced by others. JWS should have every opportunity and support to return to useful editing, including useful criticism, and harassment makes that impossible. It must stop. --Abd 01:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This unjustified call for a block is one example of many that is a violation of the civility policy. Adambro provided no evidence to support his claim that I violated the civility policy. I must oppose this call for a block since it is Adambro who has violated policy, not I. The disruptive habit of calling for unjustified blocks is a matter currently under community review. My additional comments were moved to another section. --JWSchmidt 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Leighblackall 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Opposed to blocking people, especially JWSchmidt. Its obvious that JWSchmidt is not disrupting "the project" (if the implication being that Wikiversity is one homogeneous project). JWS is engaging in an effort to stop what he sees as a disruption. While many may disagree with his actions, some even his issues, blocking dissent is not the solution. There is enough evidence all over the WMF projects that blocks and deletions simply breed more dissent, and certainly disrupt the sense of community we want to rely on here. Work through your problems, and if it can't be worked through, suspend the projects where the issues are, at the point where you can agree, and walk away for a time. I urge you all to move on, and suggest you separate and focus on smaller projects for a time. I'd welcome all the support you can give promoting RCC Canberra, and assisting any University of Canberra staff you see coming online. Lets focus on building a community of practice, tolerant of all our differences - not undoing it.. again.
 * 3) Privatemusings 06:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) hear hear, leigh.
 * 4) The challenge I think is one of dialogue - or alternatively, as Leigh suggests, getting on with our own work and letting others get on with theirs. Assume good faith, operate in good faith and and let there be room for a diversity of robust viewpoints. A suggested alternative to the proposed indef ban of JWSchmidt is to ask the community for help with specific problems being experienced. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I proposed a topic ban for JWSchmidt, because there is obvious disruption, but not a block, and started a poll to assess support for that. The topic ban was designed to allow, under controlled conditions, continuation of legitimate criticism of Wikiversity custodial actions, in a manner less likely to be disruptive. However, the three custodians who have at this point supported the block proposal did not support the topic ban, nor did anyone else. A topic ban is a form of warning. Under circumstances of possible custodial abuse, editors will ignore warnings, particularly from involved custodians, it is to be expected (though not exactly proper). Before he is blocked, JWS should be warned by the community, through a neutral closing custodian, and should have disregarded the warning, and even then it should start with a short block, issued by a neutral custodian, not the effective "ban" that this process proposes. If the warning is clear and proper, and if it has a "ban supervisor," which would be established as part of the community warning process, similar to a mentor, who should be acceptable to both JWS and the community (or at least no community consensus against the mentor), I expect that JWS would cooperate with it, and we would all benefit (his criticism would become more useful and effective). In fact, I fully expect that certain other "problem" editors would cooperate with a process like this. We can pioneer it. This is the paradox: Wikipedia's failure to set up true dispute resolution process has resulted in continued, long-term disruption there, and it spilled over here, thus attracting intervention from the same forces that failed to solve the problems on Wikipedia. Wikiversity, a far smaller project, became a battleground, yet, because of our unique qualities, we have the opportunity to develop solutions that would be difficult to develop on Wikipedia. --Abd 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC) originally listed as an oppose. Position changed, pending possible change in JWS activity. --Abd 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Due to present harassment, being the block of Beetlebaum and the out-of-process deletion of Dramaturgy, I am removing my support for a block, it is not fair to block a user when the user is being harassed by involved custodians, unless there is some emergency condition; we can expect such a user to respond intemperately. If a block is necessary under these conditions, it should be short and due to specific and clear cause. --Abd 01:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * "I don't want to get into too much detail" <-- Adambro provided no evidence to support his claim that I violated the civility policy. I remind Adambro that making an unjustified call for a block is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. I just saw this page section; I'll have more to say soon (my additional comments were moved to a point further down the page). --JWSchmidt 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 * JWSchmidt poured his heart and soul into getting Wikiversity going, and made a good faith effort to help it grow and thrive in it's early days. For some time now, I've had the impression that he's had difficulties "seeing his baby grow up", and I think that's why he's been so adamant about trying to keep WV on a particular course. I think part of the problem is that WV, unlike an actual baby, has evolved quickly... parents of children have a good 12 years to get to see their child's individuality before the child begins to assert their rights. Wikiversity was also only a foster child: WV is the daughter of the WMF, not JWS. This is a heartbreaking issue, and a hard time for WV, but you guys really need to move on. WV will only thrive if you take care of it! --SB_Johnny talk 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 * As a third way, might I propose a procedure similar to this be applied. It appears that the only way to adequately resolve this issue is to submit this to the community fully and unconditionally, to allow for determination of JWS's status in this community. Geoff Plourde 03:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Detailed reply from JWSchmidt "I don't want to get into too much detail" <-- Adambro provided no evidence to support his claim that I violated the civility policy. I remind Adambro that making an unjustified call for a block is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. "an indefinite block" <-- Even if I had violated the civility policy, which I have not, Wikiversity policy specifically prescribes "temporary blocks". It is clear from his past actions that Adambro tried to game the system and falsely accuse me of violating the civility policy so that he can impose an infinite-duration block. The bad block of infinite duration that Adambro previously imposed was a violation of Wikiversity policy and the event that caused Ottava Rima to ask me to start the current community reviews (the one on this page and the one about  problematic actions that have deflected Wikiversity from its mission). In starting the community review of problematic actions, I have been documenting how a few rogue sysops and a few other Wikimedia functionaries have failed to follow Wikiversity policy and procedures and have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity community. Adambro has a conflict of interest in proposing to block me now, while I am currently documenting his past violations of policy and his misuse of channel operator tools in the Wikiversity community chat channel. Adambro charged that I have a, "sustained pattern of behaviour which is disruptive to the project," however, that is not the case. Since 2008, I have opposed the disruption of Wikiversity by others. By documenting and discussing the misguided and harmful actions of Wikimedia functionaries I have done nothing incivil and I have only defended the Wikiversity community and supported the Wikiversity Mission. A few a few rogue sysops have gamed the system and accused me of policy violations and disruption, but they are the ones who have violated Wikiversity policy by calling for unjustified blocks and bans and not following existing policy that prescribes how the block tool can be used. Adambro claimed that, "there is no policy on how blocks should be used", but that is not true. There are four existing Wikiversity policies that explain exactly how the block tool can be used, starting with Custodianship and including Civility. Adambro is one of the rogue sysops who have violated Wikiversity policy by using the block tool in ways that are not prescribed by Wikiversity policy. The Wikiversity community needs an explicit policy on blocking that will protect Wikiversity from further misuse of the block tool. I properly made the point that anyone who has misused the block tool in the past should not be allowed to alter the proposed blocking policy. Adambro is being disingenuous by claiming that my common sense point of order is "disrupting policy development". I am protecting the Wikiversity policy development process from being disrupted. "These attacks and flawed logic are characteristic of much of JWSchmidt comments and are disruptive to Wikiversity." <-- I made no "attacks". There is no "flawed logic" being used by me to protect Wikiversity from those who have in the past violated Wikiversity policy and deflected the Wikiversity community from its Mission. "The reaction by JWSchmidt to the recent topic ban proposals strongly suggests he would not be prepared to respect such measures" <-- I have no obligation to respect blocks and bans that are imposed in violation of Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 06:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to write as many words as anyone feels necessary to explain why I feel this is an aggressive and inappropriate approach by Adambro - but you could just save time and read leigh's comment above :-) Privatemusings 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to share (as some have done already): a block won't help in this situation - be it that a block can always be circumvented or even if it may be successfull one day in the future: it still leaves an unhappy John (and others), it won't quiet down John (who has shown that WV is dear to him - keep in mind: I'm not sure how John feels, I am not John). Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 09:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A few people have suggested that people need to move on or need to do other things for awhile. What do you think of black listing all pages in the Wikiversity and Wikiversity talk namespaces, with the except of Colloquium for a time? Just trying to think of some way that the Wikiversity community's wishes could be enforced. -- dark lama  13:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The misuse of blacklists is a topic for community review. I was asked to open a review of problematic actions. That community review is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. Several specific proposals for how to improve Wikiversity have come out of the review so far. The community needs to participate in the community review and correct the problems that are deflecting Wikiversity from its Mission. This is not the time for those who have disrupted the Wikiversity community to misuse the blacklist as a way to disrupt needed community discussions. --JWSchmidt 14:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 * What you were asked to do doesn't matter when the Wikiversity community is now asking for something else to be done instead. I can understand that keeping up with what the Wikiversity community is currently asking can be difficult. If the Wikiversity community isn't interested in taking the chance to address concerns, it won't do so. If the Wikiversity community isn't interesting in participating in community reviews, it won't do so. If the Wikiversity community isn't interested in specific proposals for how to improve Wikiversity, than it isn't going to happen either. You have a few choices:
 * Accept the Wikiversity community isn't interested and move on.
 * Collaborate with anyone willing to work on improving Wikiversity, even if you feel those people have no interest in improving Wikiversity.
 * Violate the Wikiversity community's rights to decide what is and isn't a problem by making unilateral decisions without its permission, and continue to get angry whenever people ignore your unilateral decisions.
 * -- dark lama  14:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "If the Wikiversity community isn't interested in taking the chance to address concerns, it won't do so." <-- Darklama, please explain how the Wikiversity community can fail to be interested in fixing existing problems that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. Darklama, on this page you made an unjustified call for a block, which is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Darklama, please explain how your violations of Wikiversity policy, misuse of IRC channel operator tools in the Wikiversity community chat channel, failure to answer questions about your actions and a complete alteration of the proposed blocking policy by someone who has misused the block tool support the Wikiversity project. "making unilateral decisions without its permission, and continue to get angry whenever people ignore your unilateral decisions" <-- Darklama, please list the "unilateral decisions" that you are talking about. --JWSchmidt 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple. The Wikiversity community may not agree with you that there is a problem. I haven't violated any policy, I haven't misused IRC channel operator tools, and I haven't misused the block tool. Blocks and irc channel bans support the Wikiversity mission when constructive communication and interaction breaks down to the point that people are prevented from learning and facilitating other people's learning and nothing more can be done to bring about constructive communication and interaction again. Your unilateral decisions have already been listed many many times, and I'm not going to repeat it again, because doing so has already prevented things from moving forward for the last 2 years. -- dark lama  16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I haven't violated any policy, I haven't misused IRC channel operator tools, and I haven't misused the block tool." <-- Reading Wikiversity policy and examining your actions in light of policy contradicts your claims. Darklama, your actions are the subject of community review. Darklama, does "Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else" mean that you kicked me from #wikiversity-en and told me that I was banned, and you did so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Who imposed the ban that you were enforcing? When was it imposed? Please state the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it. If you do not know the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it, then why did you enforce it? If you did not know the duration of the ban, then why did you enforce it? Darklama, how did your call for an unjustified block against my editing, made on this page, support the Wikiversity project? Darklama, how did this bad block support the Wikiversity project? I reject your claim that bad blocks and bad bans are tools for helping Wikiversity. Bad blocks and bad bans disrupt Wikiversity. "when constructive communication and interaction breaks down" <-- Darklama, please list examples of such "break downs" so that we can discuss them. "Your unilateral decisions have already been listed many many times, and I'm not going to repeat it again, because doing so has already prevented things from moving forward for the last 2 years." <-- Since you failed to list any "unilateral decisions" I am forced to guess what you are referring to. Darklama, are you referring to some of my ordinary wiki edits as "unilateral decisions"? --JWSchmidt 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are viewing things through tended tinted glasses which clearly prevent you from understanding my POV. I made it clear I do not consider my blocks and bans to be bad, yet clearly you are still viewing my opinions of how blocks and bans support the Wikiversity mission as though I'm suggestions how bad blocks and bans support the Wikiversity mission. I reject your interpretation of my comments. Your clearly biased interpretation of my last response is as good as an example as any response you've made over the last two years of how constructive communication and interaction breaks down. There really isn't any point in discussing anything with you as long as you respond to twisted interpretations of comments, and as along as you keep asking the same questions. Nothing new is learned or gained by going over old ground again and again. -- dark lama  17:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Going over old ground repeatedly gets in the way of moving forward and doing useful work. -- dark lama  17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Your clearly biased interpretation" <-- Darklama, please suggest an alternative interpretation so that we can discuss it. "how constructive communication and interaction breaks down" <-- The main problem is a few misguided sysops who violate Wikiversity policy and disrupt the Wikiversity community chat channel and who fail to explain their disruptive actions. "Nothing new is learned or gained by going over old ground again and again." <-- A good start towards something new would be if you replied to questions about your actions. Darklama, does "Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else" mean that you kicked me from #wikiversity-en and told me that I was banned, and you did so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Who imposed the ban that you were enforcing? When was it imposed? Please state the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it. If you do not know the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it, then why did you enforce it? If you did not know the duration of the ban, then why did you enforce it? Darklama, how did your call for an unjustified block against my editing, made on this page, support the Wikiversity project? Darklama, how did this bad block support the Wikiversity project? --JWSchmidt 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot help a blind person see. You have proven that you cannot assume good faith and are indeed viewing my comments through tented tinted glasses when you cannot see an alternative interpretation of what I said on your own. There is no point in my telling you how to interpret my comments because you'll either disagree, demand proof, or continue to interpret any attempt at telling you through tended tinted glasses as well. I have already responded to your questions elsewhere. You have been using every discussion as an opportunity to ask the same questions, and to make the same remarks despite anything anyone says, responding each time is unreasonable and must stop. Even in research people must decide that enough research has been done and the time has come to draw conclusions. You'll draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine. -- dark lama  18:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "You have proven that you cannot assume good faith" <-- Darklama, please list the steps in that "proof". "you cannot see an alternative interpretation of what I said on your own" <-- Darklama, please explain how you know what I can and cannot "see". "There is no point in my telling you how to interpret my comments" <-- There is a very good reason for you to explain your position: we are trying to have a collaborative learning community here at Wikiversity. When a few sysops fail to communicate, the entire collaborative effort breaks down. "I have already responded to your questions elsewhere" <-- Darklama, please provide a link to those replies. For example, Darklama, where did you reply to this question: How did your call for an unjustified block against my editing, made on this page, support the Wikiversity project? --JWSchmidt 19:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced. How can we possibly doubt the knowledge of someone who knows all about "tended glasses [sic]"? WAS 4.250 20:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point of this! The above shows how and why Wikiversity is largely paralyzed when it comes to dealing with extended conflict. Above, with, I proposed a solution that would theoretically satisfy the legitimate purposes of all those who !voted to support a block, but none of them supported it. A topic ban can be negotiated and can be flexible, enough to allow the allowable and prohibit disruption. A "ban adminstrator" or mentor can be chosen who is acceptable to both the "banned" user and the community. There was comment on the proposal, and it seems that those who did not support it and who have supported, instead, a block, are burned out and don't trust that anything could work. But a sensible and flexible topic ban, that preserves the dignity of JWS, has not ever been tried, and the labor of supervising it would not be a burden on those who are burned out. If a ban requires mentor approval for otherwise-violating edits, and no mentor has been chosen and accepted, the ban allows nothing of a violation, and it could even disallow all editing outside of the purpose of finding a mentor, with an immediate block for violation. Even when blocked, a "ban supervisor" would allow gradual return to constructive editing, and even continued criticism, within limits designed to reduce disruption.

It is clear to me that the existing custodians do not know how to resolve the standing dispute. That's why innovative approaches are necessary. If we look for them, they will show up. But if we stick within the "exclude disruption by blocking" mentality, we will never get there. The point is to develop safe channels for cooperation, so that criticism has a place and yet the community is protected from disruption. I've seen these solutions proposed and rejected on Wikipedia, because there are elements in the community that want to punish, not merely to protect, and to put a somewhat positive construction on this, perhaps they are angry because of years of frustration. But there is also a negative construction. Maybe the frustration was from being confronted by arguments they could not really answer. We need to find a way to tease it out, to separate and discriminate and distinguish. It can be done if we want to. If we don't want to, it won't happen. --Abd 18:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "the legitimate purposes" <-- Abd, what "legitimate purposes" are you talking about? "A topic ban can be negotiated" <-- Abd, I suggest that you write a policy for how to negotiate topic bans. "The point is to develop safe channels for cooperation" <-- There is an invention called the "edit" button. There are a few sysops who should learn how to use the "edit" button and collaborate with Wikiversity community members, rather than try to "solve problems" by misusing the block tool. "being confronted by arguments they could not really answer" <-- That might explain the failure of a few people to respond to questions. --JWSchmidt 07:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Attacks
I am recently of the opinion that JWSchmidt is (perhaps not intentionally) attacking other users. I find this edit rather troubling. In it he essentially denies that Adambro is a custodian because he did not through the proper process at the time.

When I went to read the archive, I found the evidence JWSchmidt did not. Namely that Adambro was indeed mentored by Jtneil. There is a clear nomination/acceptance/mentors comment. JWSchmidt also complains that he was never listed as a probationary custodian, which may be true I did not check. I agree there may be an oversight, but I see nowhere in the policy any comment that candidates must be listed on that page. But it would be a concern if the process wasn't advertised to the community, but there clearly was a site ntoice about the matter. I see nothing that would invalidate the community consensus that elected Adambro. Why do I call this an unintentional attack? Because it has the effect of eroding the confidence of new comers in Adambro, thus tainting future community reviews of his actions. I am just glad I decided to read the history and not take the comment at face value.

I also find it notable that JWSchmidt was the only person to object, and at that time he had no reason to fault the process of Adambro's mentorship. He does not complain about the failure of Adambro to appear on the probationary custodian list. So that leaves me with the question of how to interpret his recent diff. In the end it is my opinion it is intentionally meant to cast doubt on the community consensus that elected Adambro, and using any potential perceived breach in policy as a reason to strip Adambro of his tools. In effect, wikilawyering to try to get his way when he failed to get it last year.

In that very same Custodianship case JWSchmidt accuses two 'crats of stacking the custodial pool for their own purposes. More recently he denies Darklama the right (or "discretion") to begin discussion about making Abd a full custodian. But that is a fair topic of conversation, anyone should be allowed to discuss these things. Custodian or no. I could make a longer list, but maybe it is better to keep it short.

I implore those people how voted not to block above to craft a plan of action for JWSchimdt that will help him edit productively again. I made my suggestions to him to no avail. He will not listen to an uninvolved objective party. He certainly will not listen to the "Custodians of the Apocalypse" (as they are refereed to off wiki), but these are mostly the people who have tried to approach him and work with him in this community review. Perhaps our best bet is he will listen to those people who speak up for him.

I understand the resistance to blocking. I myself am fairly resistant to blocking, as I said to JWSchmidt above I am more likely to quit than call for his block. But it is in appropriate to allow him to continually harass editors over a period of years? He will eventually beat up on everyone he doesn't like enough so that only the people who agree with him remain. It is my opinion this whole mess is already keeping away contributors, and is likely to do so for as long as it is allowed to go on. Thenub314 12:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC) PS Before anyone expounds upon the transgressions of the people he is harassing, let me note this is the wrong community review. Seeing someone corrupt does not give you the right to attack them in this way.
 * "attacking other users" <-- Thenub314, please explain what you mean by "attack". "it has the effect of eroding the confidence of new comers in Adambro" <-- Thenub314, are you seriously claiming that a factual comment about someone ("Adambro was never listed at Probationary custodians.") is an "attack? "I found the evidence JWSchmidt did not" <-- Thenub314, please list that "evidence". I never said that there was no mentor. I said, "I see no evidence that Adambro was mentored as a probationary custodian." "at that time he had no reason to fault the process of Adambro's mentorship" <-- Wrong. I had the same reasons to fault the process then as I do now. "He does not complain about the failure of Adambro to appear on the probationary custodian list." <-- Thenub314, I was in the middle of a process of asking questions and discussing the answers, then the discussion was disrupted by Adambro's failure to respond to my questions. "wikilawyering to try to get his way" <-- Thenub314, please define "wikilawyering". Adambro has displayed a damaging disregard for Wikiversity policy which naturally raises the question: Was Adambro ever mentored as a probationary custodian? Why shouldn't the Wikiversity community examine this question? Thenub314, why do you dismiss a very relevant question as "wikilawyering"? "In that very same Custodianship case JWSchmidt accuses two 'crats of stacking the custodial pool for their own purposes." <-- Thenub314, can you explain why entirely inappropriate people like User:Salmon of Doubt were made custodians, why community discussions of custodial candidates were censored and why candidates were allowed to not answer questions? "anyone should be allowed to discuss these things" <-- Policy says that mentors start community discussion of probationary custodians. If User:Darklama wanted to hold a discussion about a probationary custodian, he should have picked a case where there was a probationary custodian to discuss. When User:Darklama ignored policy and started that discussion, the probationary custodianship had already been terminated. "a plan of action for JWSchimdt that will help him edit productively again" <-- Thenub314, you seem to be insinuating that I do not edit constructively. Thenub314, please list one edit of mine that is not constructive so that we can discuss your theory that a "plan of action for JWSchimdt" is needed. "I made my suggestions to him to no avail." <-- Thenub314, what suggestions are you talking about? "Custodians of the Apocalypse" (as they are refereed to off wiki) <-- Thenub314, who are the "Custodians of the Apocalypse" and who uses that term to describe them? "harass editors over a period of years" <-- Thenub314, please explain what you mean by "harass editors". If you are referring to me discussing policy violations and acts that disrupt Wikiversity then isn't the real problem those policy violations and acts that disrupt Wikiversity, not me discussing them? "beat up on everyone he doesn't like" <-- Thenub314, you seem to be making the wild claim that I have in the past or will in the future "beat up on" people. Thenub314, how is me discussing policy violations and acts that disrupt Wikiversity a way to "beat up on" people? Is it not the case that the phrase "beat up on people" is better applied to people who impose bad blocks and who misuse IRC channel operator tools? --JWSchmidt 14:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My reply:
 * "please explain what you mean by 'attack'.
 * I have tried, it is the part following phrase "Why do I call this an unintentional attack? Because..."
 * "are you seriously claiming that [...] is an 'attack?'"
 * The factual statement in and of itself is just a statement, I am more conserned with the package as a whole. These facts are used to try to paint Adambro as something other than an "actual" custodian.  That characterization of him is the attack.
 * "please list that 'evidence'".
 * I trust that Jtniel did his job as a mentor. Whether his advice came to Adambro as emails, IRC chats, skype calls, etc. is not really my concern.  There are lots of ways in which the two might have interacted that wouldn't leave on wiki evidence.  No matter what interaction took place, Jtneil gave his full support as mentor. What sort of evidence are you looking for? Are you claiming Jtneil failed to live up to his obligations as a mentor?
 * Wrong. I had the same reasons to fault the process then as I do now.
 * I am sorry I made a typo. I meant to say "you found no reason", not that "you had no reason".  Meaning you made no note of precedural issues in your objection to Adambro's custodianship.
 * Please define "wikilawyering".
 * I trust your ability to look it up. But one definition might be "Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes".
 * "why do you dismiss a very relevant question as 'wikilawyering'?
 * Because that is what it is, looking for a utterly minor error such as Adambro not appearing on a list of probationary custodian does not in any way invalidate the process that made him a custodian. If your really unhappy with him as a custodian there are a lot better and more productive questions to ask than "did he appear on the probationary custodian list".
 * "Can you explain why entirely inappropriate people like User:Salmon of Doubt were made custodians..."
 * I could repeat the explanations various people have given me, but I suspect you've heard them all before and don't find them very satisfactory.
 * "...why community discussions of custodial candidates were censored..."

 * I haven't read this blog post yet, perhaps I will get back to you after I do.
 * "...why candidates were allowed to not answer questions?
 * Yes, because the questions were seen as unreasonable, as commented on in the vote Custodianship we are discussing.

 * "Policy says that mentors start community discussion of probationary custodians."
 * I don't see this particular requirement in that policy.
 * "you seem to be insinuating that I do not edit constructively."
 * Indeed, I even said so directly in the section named after me. When I said you were being disruptive, I did in fact also mean you were not being constructive, forgive me for not clarifying that sooner. You can see my recommendations there.

 * "what suggestions are you talking about?"
 * Again see the section named after me above. I was the part where I said "I recommend he stop advocating for Moulton and try to primarily stick to editing main space pages ...".  I again reiterated this to you in IRC and gave gave you diffs to some recent conflict involving me at wikibooks to show you that this is advise I myself live by.
 * "who are the 'Custodians of the Apocalypse' and who uses that term to describe them?"
 * The term gets used frequently in conversations at #en-wikiversity-projects, where you, Moulton, and I are frequently. If you don't know who they are perhaps you should ask there.
 * "please explain what you mean by 'harass editors'."
 * Sure thing. Repeated referring to people as "rouge sysops", in the case of Adambro that attempting to cast doubt on their legitimacy where no doubt really exists, etc.  But mostly demanding answers to a endless stream of questions, where every answer they in good faith try to give leads only to more questions.  It is completely impossible to finish a thread except by at some point deciding to leave some questions unanswered.  But if that happens you complain that this is some type of problematic action.
 * "how is ... a way to 'beat up on' people?"
 * Endlessly accusing people of misconduct and demanding they answer your questions takes up the hours they spend volunteering replying instead of doing something more productive, this is what I mean by "beating up on people". I say "something more productive" because I have never seen any evidence an answer that you don't like is good enough, you just turn the answer into yet more questions.
 * Is it not the case that the phrase "beat up on people" is better applied to people who impose bad blocks and who misuse IRC channel operator tools?
 * No. Thus far it is just your opinion that there are bad blocks or misues of channel operator tools.  Forgive this reply if there are a few typos it took me long enough to answer the questions, and I did not have the proper energy to proof read. Thenub314 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "facts are used to try to paint Adambro" <-- Thenub314, if someone was put into a position of trust and responsibility without the requirements for that position being fulfilled then what should be done? Are you saying that I cannot question if Adambro was properly installed as a Custodian? "What sort of evidence are you looking for? Are you claiming Jtneil failed to live up to his obligations as a mentor?" <-- Thenub314, I made this factual statement: "I see no evidence that Adambro was mentored as a probationary custodian". I'm interested in any evidence of any kind that Adambro was mentored by Jtneill. I've made no judgment about Jtneill's performance as a mentor. "you made no note of precedural issues in your objection to Adambro's custodianship" <-- I gave up trying to discuss the custodian candidacy of Adambro since it was clear that he was being put into the custodian position no matter what. I frequently ask candidates how they were mentored, I just never got to that point in that particular discussion. Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes <-- Thenub314, if you are insinuation that I ever used a rule contrary to its "principles" then please link to my edit where I did that. "looking for a utterly minor error" <-- Thenub314, the first step in starting the mentoring process is to list the probationary custodian at Probationary custodians. You might feel that failing to take this step is an "utterly minor error", but I don't agree with you about that. "there are a lot better and more productive questions to ask" <-- I agree, but it is strange that Adambro fails to respond to many questions. That failure simply prompts more questions. "I could repeat the explanations various people have given me, but I suspect you've heard them all before" <-- How are you sure? There is a constant stream of new "explanations" made in forums such as #wikiversity-en where I am not allowed to participate. Thenub314, please feel free to share the latest "explanations" with me. "the questions were seen as unreasonable" <-- Were they? In what sense were the questions unreasonable? "I don't see this particular requirement in that policy." <-- "If your mentor evaluates you fit for permanent custodianship, a request for comments will be submitted at Candidates for Custodianship for a period of five days." "you were not being constructive" <-- Thenub314, if I understand you, you are saying that "advocating for Moulton" is not constructive. What I "advocate for" is the Wikiversity Mission. Harassing a Wikiversity scholar, subjecting him to bad blocks and bans, treating his good faith edits like vandalism are all highly disruptive of the Wikiversity Mission. I object to all such disruptions of the Wikiversity community. "perhaps you should ask there" <-- Thenub314, you introduced the term "Custodians of the Apocalypse" into a Wikiversity discussion. I'd like you to explain the meaning of the term, for you, and why you used it at Wikiversity. referring to people as "rouge sysops" <-- The idea that some people are rogue sysops is a matter for community review. The community review is documenting problematical actions that have not followed Wikiversity policy and procedures and that have done great harm to the Wikiversity project. Discussing such problems is not harassment, it is how a sick community identifies problems and corrects them. "every answer they in good faith try to give leads only to more questions" <-- I don't think that is true. There are many good reasons for follow-up questions. Evasive answers often lead to more questions. Incomplete answers often lead to more questions. Answers that reveal previously unseen secrets often lead to new questions. Answers that reveal confusion or illogical claims often lead to more questions. "doing something more productive"  <-- Thenub314, if someone abuses a position of trust and responsibility and in so doing disrupts the Wikiversity community then what is more important than explaining why they abused their position of trust? Thenub314, why is holding people responsible for their actions "beating up on people"? "it is just your opinion that there are bad blocks or misues of channel operator tools" <-- Thenub314, are you claiming that all the evidence at the community review is just "opinion"? --JWSchmidt 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)