User:Cormaggio/Block on JWSchmidt

Reflections by Cormaggio on the block on JWSchmidt. Discussion is very welcome on the talk page.

Some historical context
I have worked with John for over three years - firstly around getting Wikiversity set up as a distinct Wikimedia project, and subsequently working on its development. It was the two of us who were instrumental in getting the project off the ground - through a lot of discussion around what Wikiversity should be and do, as well as frustration with the overall process in getting it set up. Both myself and John have always shared deeply similar visions of Wikiversity - always arguing for an open and inclusive scholarly space, not limited to a repository of resources, but having a participative structure to facilitate peer learning. How Wikiversity facilitates learning has always been one of the central questions around its existence - it has been always been in confusion, for example when the board of trustees sent back for clarification an earlier proposal for Wikiversity, seeking clarification on its learning model. We (myself, others, but particularly John) spent almost a full year defining Wikiversity with that vision in mind, and allowing for a flexible structure that would include different models of learning, and different types of learners (of all ages and levels) - with the fundamental aim of figuring out how learning works in this wiki space, and how we could best facilitate learning processes of all kinds (for example, self-study, teaching, participative peer learning...), again, in the context of it taking place in a wiki. At the time of launching, the approved proposal was still (deliberately) quite vague in parts - there was no particular learning model explicitly approved - and so emphasised the experimental nature of developing Wikiversity as a space for learning, and as a learning project to figure out how to do so, which Jimmy Wales alluded to in his announcement of Wikiversity's launch at Wikimania 2005 in Harvard. (His "yay!" at the end was in response to my own "woo!" from the back of the room, which you unfortunately can't hear in the audio!)

Since launching, the people working on Wikiversity (many who have come and gone over the last two years) have been trying to figure out good structures and models for content and for learning. John has been very influential in proposing Learning by doing as Wikiversity's learning model, and inscribing it within the many projects/pages he's developed over the years. I'm very much in favour of this model in many ways - however, judging by the comments and questions I've seen on Colloquium and other pages, I don't think we've done enough to explain to newcomers how it works, how they can learn by doing in a wiki way, and whether there are other ways in which they could learn productively. (I've set up a discussion group and a reading group to clarify what we mean by evoking particular learning models, and figuring out how they can be variously used - though these groups have not been so active.) There has, however, been a lot of activity to document what kinds of resources Wikiversity is creating; to help people create particular types of resources; and to help people evaluate particular resources - this work has been spearheaded by McCormack, particularly at Being educational (originally called "Wikiversity:Learning resources"). John has been critical of McCormack's work, and wrote a critique on its talk page, which generated some further discussion (though John didn't respond directly on that page). If I could characterise the underlying theme of the discussion here in a sentence, it would be: "Wikiversity is a pluralistic and experimental space - but methods of facilitating, evaluating and promoting high-quality resources are sometimes in tension with including everything and anything within Wikiversity." John's perspective here strongly echoes his perspective on the deletion of resources, which he sees as the product of a culture of "deletionism".

Events leading to the block
John's perspective on deletionism, and his tension with McCormack, came to a head when McCormack expressed his frustration on the Colloquium. Subsequent activity by John led SB_Johnny to post a notice to custodians. I raised some general concerns on the Colloquium, and made a first attempt to deal with the problems in the Learning from conflict and incivility project. After some discussion on John's talk page, a lengthy review was posted, which was drafted/proofread by myself, McCormack, SB_Johnny, and Mu301 (Mikeu). After following John's responses on-wiki and on IRC, myself, Mike and Johnny decided to request John's custodial tools be removed, and for him to be blocked from editing Wikiversity (except, obviously, for his talk page) - both as temporary measures.

Some of this is related to Moulton's activity in Wikiversity, which has been problematic (see User:Cormaggio/Moulton's block), and has caused division and confusion within the community over what is appropriate and inappropriate in Wikiversity. John has been a strong friend and ally of Moulton since returning from a period of relative inactivity - and some of John's activity that I view as inappropriate was unquestionably influenced by his friendship with Moulton (eg. composing satirical songs about other editors). Overall, what troubled me most was the way he has characterised other people's motives (especially of those he has seen as 'deletionists') - which I think has been unfair, and sometimes uncivil, and about which quite a few people have expressed or indicated hurt, or anger.

The block
I have been extremely bothered by the block on John from the very beginning. It's something that I had never even imagined would be necessary (and whether it was, indeed, "necessary" is in dispute) - particularly towards John, who has been so influential to me, and others. What the block attempted to do was to force John to take a step back from his previous editing, and reflect on what had been raised as problematic by various Wikiversity editors. It was a block without a timespan, since the idea was to focus on the behaviour flagged in the review and previous discussions - and the purpose was to develop guidelines that would mitigate against the type of activity that was seen to be problematic. With this in mind, for the duration of the block, I have had a discussion with John on his talk page about the block, and events leading up to it - and SB_Johnny has done likewise (see here and here - both lengthy discussions!).

But the block itself was also problematic - mainly for being done by a sub-group of individuals (myself, Mike and Johnny - specifically bureaucrats), taking apparently unilateral action, ie not with the explicit support of the community. (This group had been working closely together since the 'drama' around Moulton's participation had escalated to the point where he was blocked by Jimmy Wales - another 'unilateral' action, though one which arguably had more support, or at least partial sympathy, within the community.) In terms of community opinion on John's block (as distinct from John's activity), I observed mixed reactions - mainly opposition or silence on-wiki (see initial reaction and subsequent Community Review), and a mixture of support and opposition on IRC. At least three people left Wikiversity or went on wikibreak around that time - Erkan, McCormack, and Dark Mage. I think it's fair to say that the block itself caused substantial community damage. And even though various people have brought John's activity into question, I think it was fair for Johnny to conclude, after some time had elapsed, that the block was itself "causing disruption". (However, this is not to say that I feel the block was unjustified - which I still think it was, based purely on the rationale of it being a tool - albeit a blunt and imperfect one - for forced reflection.)

I have also been very bothered about some of the things John has said, and some of the ways he has comported himself, during the blocking period. I have perceived him to have been quite hostile towards me in our discussion, or at least not listening in good faith to what I actually had to say (despite his denials of this). John adopted what I took to be a pretty sneering tone to both myself and Johnny - perhaps on the basis of feeling aggrieved, possibly even patronised (I don't fully know). But I do feel he actually treated the discussion as a "standoff" (his words, directed at our joint activity), a case of attack, defence, and/or counter-attack. This particularly disappointed me, since I never wanted to attack John (in fact, I have been holding back - biting my lip - a huge amount); instead, I wanted to show him how he has made other people feel. I have probably failed in this regard, so far. After such lengthy discussion, I am still left unsure whether John realises the extent of which he has hurt other people, or whether he recognises the extent or nature of his own role in conflicts. But I'm also not sure if the review confused more than it clarified, or did more harm than good - and whether it set John off on 'defence mode' rather than mutual understanding, which was the genuine intention.

But underpinning this whole episode is the fact that Wikiversity has always been a very diverse space, and as yet largely undefined - which is the reason I've included so much "historical" context in this reflection. Efforts to define Wikiversity are bound up with often very strong viewpoints about what Wikiversity should be - and these are not always mutually compatible (though, I would argue that in some of the cases around which there has been conflict, there has not always been a complete incompatibility). And Wikiversity has developed so far on the basis of often tacit, unspoken understandings, that are not necessarily shared by all participants - so that, when ideas come into conflict, there is not always a clear means of resolving the issue. (Discussion is obviously central to a wiki - but there's nothing inherent in 'discussion' that guarantees shared understanding or consensus.)

So, the main thing that is troubling me - apart, obviously from having had such a trenchant and stressful conflict with a long-standing colleague - is whether 'unilateral' or 'bold' administrative action of this kind is ever justified; and if not, what can be done to mitigate community damage when policies are not in place to help the community to prevent this damage. Also: is it realistic to "force" someone to reflect (and is a block the best way of doing so)? And also, of course: what kinds of policies do we need in order to help us navigate the recent kinds of conflicts, and related ones, if and when they occur? Answers on a postcard to... the talk page. :-) I would really appreciate any comments, questions, and/or criticisms you have about anything I have written about here - or, indeed, what you feel I may have left out. Thanks for reading. Cormaggio talk 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)