Wikiversity:Community Review/Topic bans for User:JWSchmidt

Topic bans for User:JWSchmidt
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. This review is closed as no concensus. --mikeu talk 13:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While has in the past contributed greatly to the project, he has been consistently disruptive when it comes to certain topics in the project namespace related to custodianship, deletion, and policy in general.

His opinions on these topics are quite familiar to long term contributors, however it's fairly clear that the general consensus runs contrary to these opinions. While the differing opinions are welcome, his approach has become ever more disruptive and uncivil in making his point. A 6 month topic ban applied to subjects where he has a history of this behavior may help improve the atmosphere, allow for progress, and give him time to cool off and see how things go (one can only hope he will be pleasantly surprised if things go well). Such a ban could be enforced by a block until the discussion in question is over.


 * "consistently disruptive" <-- It is not disruptive when a member of a wiki community takes note of policy violations and abuses of power by admins. It is disruptive when abusive admins attempt to prevent their abuses from being discussed by the community. Describing the policy violations and abuses of admins is not uncivil, it is the duty of any honest wiki participant. How long do I have to respond to all the charges in the witch hunt on this page before you lower the ban hammer? Rather than ban anyone who speaks out about abuses of power, I think it would be easier to just ban all the policy violating admins and let the Wikiversity community get back to the task of creating a learning community. "give him time to cool off" <-- I am very cool. I'm not the one that goes on infantile tirades of banning people without reason or warning. "help improve the atmosphere" <-- Let's get rid of the abusive admins who have claimed the right to call people "troll" and tell them to fuck off while gaming the system and putting the label "uncivil" on wiki participants who point out abuses of power. --JWSchmidt 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * JW. I don't know what happened here while I was on my walkabout for nearly 2 years, but this tone is not you. I don't know Jtniell, Mu301, or Adambro like I do you and Cormac and the original core team. But I remember the harmony that existed before. If these abuses of power are substantial, then maybe I should bail from Wikiversity, myself. I don't see that they are substantial but appear to be trivial (please don't challenge me on this - simply bite the bullet • I know it has to hurt. If these guys are an evil cabal, Ghod will get 'em. Have FAITH in that) I wouldn't take things so personally. I don't like perceiving attacks flying back and forth. Gaw. I don't know what to say or do, here. Seeing this case against you and your counter-attack was a complete shock and surprise. I would like turn back time and fix all this. This has ruined Wikiversity, irreparably. I'm dismayed. All I can do it pretend it's not here - and luckily I'm good at pretending. CQ 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear ya CQ, and yeah, we definitely missed you when the place exploded last year. I miss the old days too, but to grow we need to bring new people into the fold as well, and I'm worried that the efforts being made to do so are being thwarted by JW's negativity, as it's a pretty classic case of poisoning the well. I'll catch you up on the gossip (Cormac and others) on your talk. --SB_Johnny talk 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeating the word abuse (or permutations of it) 7 times in one paragraph does not make it true, nor does it encourage a dialogue about the issues that concern you. Please provide examples, as has been done by others on this page, to back up the claims that you are making. --mikeu talk 18:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Please provide examples" <-- Where would you like to start? I suggest here where I started my discussion of the abusive admins who published a bunch of false charges against me and then used their witch hunt to justify conspiring off wiki to have my custodianship terminated. Keep reading to here where I discuss the sorry tag-team practice of two bureaucrats who encourage custodian candidates to not respond to questions during community discussions. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The admin abuses at Wikiversity have repeatedly been discussed and systematically ignored by the Ruling Party. "JW's negativity" <-- Why do you keep gaming the system by trying to label questions about abusive admins as "uncivil" and "negativity"? It is the gang of abusive admins who claimed the right to be abusers that has brought a cloud over Wikiversity. Questioning the abuses of that gang is a very positive thing and the way to get Wikiversity out from under the cloud and back to the task of making an exciting online learning community. "we need to bring new people into the fold" <-- We do not need new people who come to Wikiversity in order to join forces with a gang of fellow abusive admins. Under the Wikiversity Ruling Party you cannot even become a custodian simply by creating learning resources at Wikiversity, instead you can earn your tools by demonstrating that you like to delete the work of Wikiversity participants or impose bad blocks or conspire to ban other Wikiversity participants. --JWSchmidt 19:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

background (RFC discussions)
See:
 * Candidates for Custodianship/Mike.lifeguard (full custodian): a general hostility in tone, continuing an earlier pattern of Loaded questions, then becoming even more hostile when the candidate refused to answer questions of that nature. Some of his questions were moved to his "blog". Darklama attempted to rephrase the questions (without the loaded language) here.
 * When Wikiversity started, the community decided to have friendly and thoughtful custodians rather than abusive admins. It is Wikiversity policy that custodians answer questions about their actions. Some Wikiversity admins do not want to meet the obligations that are inherent in custodianship and so they refuse to discuss their policy violations and abuses of power. A gang of abusive admins has circled the wagons and they gang up on anyone who asks questions about abusive admins. This is an art form that was developed at Wikipedia and is not welcome in a scholarly learning community. I call upon the abusive admins to stop gaming the system by calling questions about their abuses "hostile" and "uncivil". Just respond to the questions about your abusive practices rather than delete the questions from community discussions. loaded questions <-- abusive admins seldom admit their abuses, so by definition they tend to view questions about their abuses as loaded questions. Claiming that someone is asking loaded questions when they ask questions about abusive admin actions is a way of gaming the system: it is an attempt to distract on-lookers from analysis of the abusive admin's behavior. Since a gang of abusive admins has tried to prevent discussion of this problem, most of what has been said about it is on my blog. --JWSchmidt 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeating the word abuse (or permutations of it) 13 times in one paragraph does not make it true, nor does it encourage a dialogue about the issues that concern you. Please provide examples, as has been done by others on this page, to back up the claims that you are making. --mikeu talk 18:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not actually policy that a candidate answer every question during their nomination discussion, particularly when the question is posed in the form of a personal attack. This is why Are you still beating your wife? is actually maintained as a redirect, because it's a common meme to refer to a questioner that might not be worth responding to. You've been alerted to this numerous times over the past few years, but you haven't made any noticeable effort to ask questions of others in a way that you might want them to be asked of yourself. Your response above is actually an illustration of this. --SB_Johnny talk 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Repeating the word abuse" <-- repeatedly denying the existence of your abuses does not mean that they are not abuses. "Please provide examples" <-- I have done so repeatedly (most recent), and each time you ignore the examples. "It's not actually policy" <-- It is interesting when admins ignoring policies that they do not like. "the question is posed in the form of a personal attack" <-- Please list all of these "personal attacks". "ask questions of others in a way that you might want them to be asked of yourself" <-- I'm not sure what you have in mind. Do you mean publishing a large number of false charges against someone and then trying to preventing them from responding to the charges? Or going ahead and using the false charges to "justify" having someone's custodianship terminated? We cannot all claim the "high ground" and just issue ultimatums like follow my commands or go fuck yourself. Since I lack the power to get away with what you can get away with all I can do is ask questions, and somehow asking questions about abuses sends abusive admins into a tizzy. "Are you still beating your wife?" <-- It is very informative when simple questions about an editor's wiki participation are falsely described as being the equivalent of asking, "Are you still beating your wife?". I've long advocated a policy page called Excuses where we can list all of the reasons abusive admins have for not responding to questions from the community. We can put at the top of that policy page: When confronted by a question that you do not want to answer, claim that the questions is like asking, "Are you still beating your wife?" Abusive admins will circle the wagons and rush to your defense and make it clear that you need not respond to questions. For the record, I've never asked about anyone and their wife. All my questions are reasonable questions that are asked with the hope of helping the Wikiversity community. I'm sickened by efforts of others to falsely depict my actions in any other light. If a Wikiversity admin is not willing to discuss their actions then they should do the honorable thing and give up their admin tools. --JWSchmidt 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidates for Custodianship/Jade Knight (full custodian): Similar hostility in tone, a large number of leading questions. Jade Knight chose to answer all of these questions fully, but this did not appear to have any effect on JWSchmidt's opinion, leading to the impression that he was not asking because he wanted answers, but merely to repeat accusations. Further complicating the matter was that despite explicit requests from Jade Knight and others to engage in constructive discussion during the probationary period, JWSchmidt refused to do so. See, again, his blog for a partial record of both the efforts made and his refusal.
 * It is sad that some abusive admins try to label the asking of relevant questions about a custodian candidate's actions as a form of "hostility". It seems clear that these abusers of power will never accept the common sense idea that custodians must answer questions about their actions when the community asks such questions. "leading to the impression that he was not asking because he wanted answers" <-- It is the responsibility of Wikiversity community members to ask questions and assess custodian candidates. For anyone in a position of authority at Wikiversity to try to subvert this process is outrageous and alarming. Of course I wanted "Jade Knight" to answer my questions and I explained how those answers allowed me to form my opinion about his candidacy. "engage in constructive discussion during the probationary period" <-- During that probationary period I was busy in the real world and almost all of my limited wiki editing time was devoted to other things besides mentoring "Jade Knight". I suspect that "Jade Knight" did not get adequate mentoring, but that was not my responsibility. During the first two years of the Wikiversity project we were careful to turn away custodian candidates who seemed to be interested in adminship as some kind of role playing game. Since the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 a systematic effort has been made to promote unsuitable admin candidates. I feel no shame for resisting those efforts and defending Wikiversity as a place for thoughtful scholars rather than people who get their kicks by deleting the contributions of wiki editors and banning anyone who questions the actions of abusive admins. I also urge the Wikiversity community to read my blog. It is sickening and mind-numbing to watch abusive admins engaged in their efforts to stack the custodial ranks with more abusers of power, but the only way to end the abuses is for the community to pay attention rather than look the other way. A serious problem is that many of the honest Wikiversity participants have now been banned, driven away by the abusers or otherwise cowed into silence. Having stacked the admin ranks with fellow abusers of power, the gang that has taken control of Wikiversity is now free to define consensus in any way they like. --JWSchmidt 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so to clarify: do you honestly believe that a "Ruling Party" has taken over Wikiversity and is following an agenda of "stacking the ranks" with people who want to abuse their power and violate policies? --SB_Johnny talk 20:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you object to my description of events and use of terms like "Ruling Party" then I'm willing to listen to suggestions for alternative ways to discuss the events at Wikiversity during the past year. However, I'm not likely to adopt as an alternative narrative one that involves false assertions that I am disrupting Wikiversity by participating in community discussions, by asking questions, by pointing out abusive admin actions and policy violations, by participating in learning projects, by trying to develop needed policies and by trying to keep Wikiversity free of mindless deletionism. I'm agnostic with respect to the question of who might want to "abuse their power and violate policies"...as a scientist I simply follow the evidence which seldom includes much information about motives, particularly when the important strategy sessions take place in secret, off wiki. --JWSchmidt 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're "agnostic" about it, why do you keep repeating the accusation? --SB_Johnny talk 22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past I've discussed admin abuses, incomprehensible admin actions and policy violations which are all documented in the edit history. I'll never accept these things as "business as usual" at Wikiversity. These are currently the most interesting phenomena to study at Wikiversity, so I continue my studies and I continue discussing these important matters at Wikiversity. I am agnostic with respect to the question of who might want to "abuse their power and violate policies". I might "take sides" on this question if we had all the evidence. I'm in favor of placing all off-wiki discussions (including phone calls) about Wikiversity in the public domain and initiating a "History of Wikiversity" learning project that would allow the Wikiversity community to examine all of the evidence that relates to motivations of Wikiversity participants. --JWSchmidt 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidates for Custodianship/Juan de Vojníkov (full custodian) More civil than the other RFC discussions, but largely using the discussion as a forum for discussing the status of User:Moulton, which the candidate had very little involvement in. He then waited until after the comment period had ended to voice opposition, and since has made various claims about the closure being part of a bad-faith conspiracy.
 * Discussion of "Juan de Vojníkov"'s position on banning Moulton was relevant to his candidacy for custodianship. A few abusive admins have claimed the right to impose bad blocks and bans upon Wikiversity participants and it was important to determine if "Juan de Vojníkov" favored giving admins the right to impose bad blocks and bans. I was waiting for Juan to answer all my questions before casting a vote. Two days before the discussion was closed, I asked, " If this community wants to make Moulton's behavior a bannable offense, then is the correct path towards that goal the development of policy (such as the proposed privacy policy, blocking policy and policy for bans)?" I was waiting for a reply to that question. The discussion was closed without giving me a chance to vote. An honest bureaucrat would have waited until the discussion was concluded before closing and would not insist on falsely claiming unanimous consensus. There are two Wikiversity bureaucrats who now routinely disrupt community discussions by telling admins that they do not have to respond to questions from the community. Their new strategy for getting unanimous support for abusive admin candidates is to ban me from asking questions in community discussions. --JWSchmidt 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidates for Custodianship/Adambro: perhaps the worst case of his inappropriate loaded questions, beginning with his very first comment. Throughout the discussion, JWSchmidt continued to make accusations: some with no evidence to back them up, some with rather deceptive link piping.
 * "his inappropriate loaded questions" <-- All of my questions were appropriate for making a decision about this custodian candidate. "accusations: some with no evidence to back them up" <-- list all of these "accusations". "some with rather deceptive link piping" <-- list everything you claim is "deceptive". The questions I asked could have been quickly and easily answered, but two Wikiversity bureaucrats continued their practice of disrupting community discussions by telling admin candidates that they need not answer questions. These two Wikiversity bureaucrats should be banned from participating, not people who ask questions during community discussions. --JWSchmidt 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC discussions)
Comment One of the things I really liked about the way Wikiversity was set up 3 years ago is that the community chose to use the mentorship model rather than the RfA model used on Wikipedia and (as far as I know) all of the other sister projects. If you've read through a few of the RfAs on Wikipedia, you'll see why they should be avoided: well-meaning candidates are subject to completely inappropriate abuse, particularly when it comes to "!voters" who make strong assertions about the candidate acting in bad faith, having evil intentions or agendas, and/or being blatant liars. Once in a while an admin candidate does pass a WP RfA and it turns out they really do fit one of those descriptions, but unreferenced personal attacks tend not to sway the vote.

In every recent RFC discussion, JWSchmidt has accused people of being "deletionists" and policy violators, of being coached not to answer his questions, and (frankly) of having harmful agendas. He hasn't given evidence of this, and in the Adambro case went so far as providing links that did not make this point, and worse piped the links in a deliberately misleading manner.

JWSchmidt's apparent belief that most if not all of the active custodians are part of a harmful cabal makes it seem very unlikely that he would support any new custodian, since they will be necessity have been mentored by one of the "cabalists". With that in mind, it's rather hard to see how any of these candidates could provide an answer that satisfies him, so the loaded questions he poses serve no purpose other than an attempt to embarrass, bait, or otherwise hurt the feelings of the candidates and create an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere. There's simply no justification for this. --SB_Johnny talk 11:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The thing that strikes me about the RfC discussions listed above is that the community has supported these candidates by a large margin. If the community felt that the questions should be answered, they would have said so, or voted to oppose. --mikeu talk 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SB_Johnny and Mu301 have a sorry history of publishing false charges against me and trying to use those false charges as a basis to force me to "just go fuck yourself and go away". "well-meaning candidates" <-- The Wikiversity community needs to examine what constitutes "well-meaning candidates". Since the hostile take-over of Wikiversity last year we have had a parade of policy violators and deletionists (people who delete the work of other Wikiversity participants without having a good reason) advanced for custodianship. It is my duty to question these candidates and their actions. My only motivation is to protect the Wikiversity project from abusive admins. "most if not all of the active custodians are part of a harmful cabal" <-- There are two active bureaucrats who have established a pattern of nominating and supporting policy violators and other questionable Wikiversity participants as custodian candidates. These two bureaucrats encourage custodians to not respond to questions during community discussions. These two bureaucrats have brought to Wikiversity the practices perfected at other wiki projects for imposing bad blocks and bans on wiki participants. Many honest Wikiversity participants have been banned and driven away by abusive administrative actions at Wikiversity. Having executed their hostile take-over of Wikiversity, the Ruling Party is now free to claim community consensus for the practice of stacking the ranks of custodians with policy violators and issuing bad blocks and bans. I continue to question the abusive practices of the Ruling Party and so they have started a new witch hunt in order to get rid of me and my inconvenient questions. "the loaded questions he poses serve no purpose other than an attempt to embarrass, bait, or otherwise hurt the feelings of the candidates and create an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere" <-- this is a false charge. Wikimedia projects have a sad history of giving admin tools to abusive editors, abusers of sock accounts, and assorted misguided souls who think it is "cool" to wield the mighty ban hammer for fun and profit. My careful evaluation of custodian candidates started when Salmon of Doubt was advanced as a candidate for custodianship. "Salmon of Doubt" came to Wikiversity and edited under a sock puppet account with the goal of getting another Wikiversity participant banned. The fact that someone in a position of authority would try to stack the ranks of Wikiversity custodians with such unacceptable candidates is strong motivation for me to ask questions about custodian candidates. All of the questions I ask in community discussions are part of my effort to improve Wikiversity as a learning community. I am sickened by the efforts of SB_Johnny and Mu301 to depict my good faith efforts to improve Wikiversity as an excuse for banning me. If they think that their mighty ban hammer is the way to build a scholarly learning community then I will have no choice but to keep asking questions and oppose the abuses of the Ruling Party. "it's rather hard to see how any of these candidates could provide an answer" <-- It is not hard. The candidate reads a question, clicks "edit" then types a reply to the question. Click "save". --JWSchmidt 21:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

proposal 1 for RFC discussions
JWSchmidt is banned from taking part in RFC discussions, outside of a simple one to two line comment with support, oppose, or neutral. Violation of this ban will result in a block lasting until the closure of the discussion.
 * It is astounding that anyone who has special position of responsibility in a wiki community would openly try to stifle community discussion of admin candidates. Second, I oppose the idea that voting is the way to achieve community consensus on anything. Community members should hold a rational discussion which includes admin candidates answering questions, as required by Wikiversity policy. Custodians who have a track record of ignoring and violating Wikiversity policy should be retired. Alternate proposal: anyone who disrupts community discussions by telling custodians not to answer questions should be banned. --JWSchmidt 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

background (Deletion discussions)
See:
 * recent discussion on WV:C
 * "Deletionism" was also a main theme of his contributions to the RFC discussions linked above.


 * I'm not sure what is going on here. Is the idea that participating in a community discussion is grounds for banning someone from community discussions? (cue twilight zone theme) --JWSchmidt 00:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Deletion discussions)
Comment Funny thing is, I usually agree with JWSchmidt (I am to some degree what he might term an "anti-deletionist", as is Jtniell if I'm not mistaken), but he is either unable or unwilling to avoid ad hominem arguments (attacking those who support deletion of something, rather than making a specific case for why something should be preserved), and seems to believe that nominating or supporting a deletion is itself a violation of policy. --SB_Johnny talk 12:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the contributions of Wikiversity participants should only be deleted when those contribution are causing harm; for example, copyright violations can be deleted. It is up to the deletionist to explain the harm done by a file that is targeted for deletion, it is not the responsibility of others to construct arguments for keeping Wikiversity content that causes no harm. "attacking those who support deletion" <-- please list all of these "attacks". In the newspeak of the Ruling Party is participating in a community discussion and challenging deletionists defined as an "attack"? "rather than making a specific case for why something should be preserved" <-- I sometimes make a specific case for why something should be preserved, but that does not mean that I cannot also ask a deletionist what harm a file is doing...and challenge their claims. Deletion is a last resort behind other options such as editing pages to improve them. When deletionists make deletion their first course of action then they should be challenged. Of course, many deletionists reflexively want to delete the work of others rather than working to improve pages that need help. Their discussions of deletion decisions are peppered with comments about the benefits of doing what is easiest for deletionists rather than what is best for Wikiversity. "seems to believe that nominating or supporting a deletion is itself a violation of policy" <-- Eh? please quote something I have said that supports this claim. I object when efforts are made to delete harmless pages rather than edit them and improve them. I have in the past objected when deletionists from Wikipedia came to Wikiversity and made false claims about Wikiversity pages in an effort to get the pages deleted. I also object to trying to prevent the terms "deletionism" and "deletionist" from being used in community discussions. I have myself deleted many wiki pages and I do not freak out if someone calls me a deletionist, I just explain why I deleted the page. Does Wikiversity really need a list of Banned words with "deletionist" at the top of the list? If so, start a policy page for that and I'll add "fuck off" to the list. --JWSchmidt 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

proposal 1 for deletion discussions
JWSchmidt is banned from any deletion discussions outside of on his own talk page, or involving any particular file or resource to which he has made substantial contribution.
 * Wouldn't it be easier to just make it Wikiversity policy that admins can delete pages at any time without having to first try to improve the page and explain the harm that the page is doing? Oh, I forgot....swinging the mighty ban hammer is the preferred method of the Ruling Party for settling all disputes. --JWSchmidt 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

background (Policy creation, amendment, and discussions)
See:
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Respect_pseudonyms&action=history -- making changes to proposed policy page only after votes start, thus disrupting the process.
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ABans&diff=405672&oldid=405670 -- the "unwelcome words" section was a variation on his Censorship meme. See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikiversity:Censorship
 * further (long term) background at RCA and JWSchmidt's responses to the RCA page

more background. "SB Johnny" has a long history of falsely charging that I have manipulated the development of Wikiversity policy. This is one of the false charges that he and his gang previously published and tried to use to "justify" having my custodianship terminated. I have refuted his false charges (see this and this), but he has never retracted any of the many false charges he has made, even when I explicitly asked him to do so. Long before Respect pseudonyms was written I repeatedly called for the Privacy policy page to include a rule about using the real names of Wikiversity participants. The Ruling Party refused to do this (I've been told that some of the "leaders" of Wikiversity oppose any proposal I make just to spite me) and instead simply banned Moulton because he continued to use the real names of Wikiversity participants, a practice that was not against Wikiversity policy. The first thing on the talk page of Respect pseudonyms was a call for votes. I'm skeptical about the idea that any attempt to establish consensus in a wiki should start with voting. I objected to the rush to vote without allowing discussion of proposed additions to the policy. The Ruling Party has vastly disrupted Wikiversity by imposing bad blocks and bans outside of Wikiversity policy and refusing to help develop needed policies like Privacy policy. When I arrived at Respect pseudonyms I saw no posted request that the page not be edited. SBJ invented a rule about not making edits in order to prevent discussion of my suggested addition to the policy. I was doing normal wiki editing and helping to improve a proposed policy, but SBJ calls this disruption of the policy development process. "Wikiversity:Censorship meme" <-- What does this mean? I think that bans should not be handed out casually like lollipops. In particular, the imposition of bans should be based on policy and community discussion, not the whims of abusive admins who get itchy to use their ban hammer. When I made this edit I was trying to make sense of the idea that a Wikiversity participant can be banned, according to the Civility Policy, for the use of some words "a certain number of times". The civility policy still says: "Create and enforce a new rule — based on use of certain words — that will allow temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times." I'm still puzzled by what that means. Rather than help sort that out, it is proposed that I simply be banned from policy development. Is the mighty ban hammer the solution to everything? Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikiversity:Censorship <-- I previously predicted that mentioning censorship would become a banable offense at Wikiversity. It appears that we have reached that point. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Policy creation, amendment, and discussions)
Comment We desperately need to get our policies in order, through community discussion and consensus. JWSchmidt has a long track record (see links to the RCA page and response above) of claiming policies to be in force without consensus, and disrupting community discussions around policy when he doesn't like it. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but there is a problem when it prevents any discussion at all. --SB_Johnny talk 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've previously refuted your false claims about policy manipulation (see this and this). In particular, the Wikiversity community was called upon to develop policies for research at Wikiversity. I previously explained the process by which the needed policies were developed. It is truly offensive for SBJ to claim that process constitutes policy manipulation by me. I've spent years getting the Wikiversity project up and running and it is sickening to have Johnny-come-lately show up, derail needed policy development and then falsely accuse me of disrupting policy development. "disrupting community discussions around policy when he doesn't like it" <-- This is another false charge which I addressed above. "prevents any discussion at all" <-- Are you claiming that I have prevented discussion of Wikiversity policy? Please provide evidence to support this claim. --JWSchmidt 04:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

proposal 1 for policy creation, amendment, and discussions
JWSchmidt is banned from editing Wikiversity policy pages, but may join policy talk page discussions provided he does not engage in accusing other contributors of having bad motives.
 * As discussed above (see), "SB Johnny" has, over an extended period of time made false charges about me concerning "policy manipulation" and disruption of the Wikiversity policy development process. These false charges are truly offensive. I'd ask him to retract his false charges, but he has in the past repeatedly refused to do so. It is sickening and embarrassing to watch Wikiversity, which should be a fun and exciting learning community, repeatedly turned into to a forum for fantastic witch hunts like this page. If the Wikiversity community believes that the SBJ ban hammer is the solution to every problem then then step forward and give SBJ your support. alternate proposal. If you want Wikiversity to get back to its mission then please put an end to Wikiversity witch hunts. --JWSchmidt 05:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

proposal 2 for policy creation, amendment, and discussions
JWSchmidt is banned from editing Wikiversity policy pages, including the talk pages.
 * As discussed above (see), "SB Johnny" has, over an extended period of time made false charges about me concerning "policy manipulation" and disruption of the Wikiversity policy development process. These false charges are truly offensive. I'd ask him to retract his false charges, but he has in the past repeatedly refused to do so. It is sickening and embarrassing to watch Wikiversity, which should be a fun and exciting learning community, repeatedly turned into to a forum for fantastic witch hunts like this page. If the Wikiversity community believes that the SBJ ban hammer is the solution to every problem then then step forward and give SBJ your support. alternate proposal. If you want Wikiversity to get back to its mission then please put an end to Wikiversity witch hunts. --JWSchmidt 05:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

General discussion
I agree with CQ that JWS' tone is unlike him. I have at times also wondered if his account has been compromised. I initially thought removing tools from JWS was a mistake and done too hastily. However JWS has since convinced me that whoever removed the tools made the right decision.

I believe JWS wants Wikiversity to be free from problems he has encountered on other projects. I believe JWS wants Wikiversity to be a welcoming place where everyone is welcomed with open arms and treated like a friend. I believe JWS' tone though has sadly created an atmosphere where some people are not so welcome to participate. I believe JWS' tone has overshadowed any other problems that Wikiversity might have right now. I believe JWS' tone in contributions to RFC, deletion discussions and policy proposals over the pass year or two sends a message that if you come to Wikiversity from any sister project you aren't welcome to participate. That is not the kind of person I'd want to be in a position of responsibility. I believe a person in position of responsibility should most of the time be able to keep a cool head and be respectful towards people even people that he or she disagrees with. I no longer have faith in JWS' ability to keep calm and remain respectful when confronted with situations he does not like.

I believe JWS' tone has come to a point where Wikiversity community might need to decide whether Wikiversity would be better off without JWS, or if it would rather have a charged atmosphere where some people are welcome and some people aren't. I believe the latter goes against what most people are likely to want, even JWS. I think if Wikiversity is to welcome everyone, Wikiversity has to be welcoming to even "deletionists".

Maybe I have misunderstand JWS' ideology because to me his tone over the past year or two suggests his ideology might of changed. Maybe we need a Whose Welcome, Whose Not page to better understand JWS' ideology? I don't know what the solution is here, but I think topic bans are unreasonable. I have tried to follow several suggestions from Civility without much success, and have myself been accused of violating policy and accused of making up excuses. I must be blissfully ignorant, I cannot for the life of me see what I could possibly gain by treating JWS or anyone else with hostility. I cannot for the life of me understand the motivations that JWS seems to be associating with me or other people. I believe JWS assumes that I and other custodians know more then we do.

JWS was one of the people who encouraged me to become a custodian, and if I thought it would make one bit of difference I'd resign right now. I don't think my or any other custodian's resignation would make a difference in what is going on. Changes are needed, but I think people resigning tools isn't what is needed, and would harm the project. If anyone feels Wikiversity is being harmed by the current custodians or believes that Wikiversity would benefit from custodians being removed, I encourage them to add all the custodians who should be removed and why to Community Review for review by the community. If the community no longer has faith in custodians, custodians should be removed. -- dark lama  01:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "JWS' tone is unlike him" <-- When Wikiversity started it was a place for learning. Last Summer Wikiversity became a place where deletionists claimed the right to call the contributions of wiki participants "garbage". Last Summer Wikiversity became a place for imposing bad blocks and bans. Do you seriously expect someone who has worked hard to make Wikiversity a reality to watch such changes at Wikiversity and merrily retain the same "tone"? I have no fear of bullies and I'm never going to quietly let thugs and bullies have their way at Wikiversity.


 * I seriously expected you to be capable of asking people what they mean by "garbage". I seriously expected you to be capable of not jumping to conclusions. I cannot understand how you jump to the conclusion that Wikiversity has been taken over by "thugs and bullies" by the simple use of the word "garbage". -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand how you jump to the conclusion that Wikiversity has been taken over by "thugs and bullies" by the simple use of the word "garbage" <-- I can't imagine why you think I ever did that. I mentioned the "garbage incident" because it is what made me sure that Wikiversity had become too accepting of deletionism. Only a few of the deletionists at Wikiversity have been thugs and bullies and after they could not get their target pages deleted they left Wikiversity. The thugs and bullies that I am most concerned about are the Wikiversity participants who publish false claims about other Wikiversity participants and who impose bad blocks and bad bans. --JWSchmidt 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I believe JWS wants Wikiversity to be free from problems he has encountered on other projects. I believe JWS wants Wikiversity to be a welcoming place where everyone is welcomed with open arms and treated like a friend." <-- I hope you see that those two desires are contradictory. Last Summer Wikiversity was invaded by people like "Salmon of Doubt" who came here while hiding under the cover of a sock account with the admitted purpose of disrupting this project. "Salmon of Doubt" was made a custodian while valuable Wikiversity participants were subjected to bad blocks, bad bans and witch hunts. I cannot witness such horrors and injustices and maintain the same "tone" as before these outrages. I'm devoted to the Wikiversity mission and I'm not willing to just quietly watch the Wikiversity community be subjected to such outrages. For speaking out and defending Wikiversity I have been subjected to gross incivility and abuse.


 * I don't understand what you consider to be contradictory. I consider phrases like "taken over by thugs and bullies" and "invaded by" to be contradictory to the ideals of welcoming people to Wikiversity and creating a problem free environment. -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those two sentences are contradictory because some of the problems at other wikis are caused by people who would also cause problems at Wikiversity. I suspect that one of our visitors from Wikipedia last Summer was an abusive admin who finally had his adminship terminated at Wikipedia. He came to Wikiversity and got blocked from editing here. Some people who come to Wikiversity are simply trouble. We should get started on an official list of words that cannot be spoken at Wikiversity. You can put "thug", "bully" and "invade" on the list, I'll add "troll" and "fuck off" and then you can have a merry time blocking everyone who uses the words on that list. --JWSchmidt 02:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "JWS' tone has overshadowed any other problems that Wikiversity might have right now" <-- Are you suggesting that my defense of Wikiversity is a larger problem than witch hunts, bad blocks, bad bans and making policy violators into custodians? Do I have that right?


 * No. I am saying that I believe that your tone is. Everyone has a right to defend Wikiversity. Do you disagree? I don't particularly agree with your opinion that there are witch hunts, bad blocks, bad bans, and that policy violators have been made into custodians. I also don't understand how you think repeatedly stating this opinion is defending Wikiversity. I also believe other people have a right to believe you aren't helping Wikiversity and a right to say so without being called "thugs" or "bullies" for doing so. I don't understand how stating opinions defends Wikiversity. I cannot understand how people can expect civil discussions to be maintained or for civility to be restored by calling people thugs or bullies when they state opinions. I guess you could say I don't see how Wikiversity benefits by having the right to call people thugs or bullies. I guess you could say I don't think you have a right to call people thugs or bullies for stating an opinion. I guess you could say that I believe I'm not the only one who has this opinion because Wikiversity has a policy called Civility and a policy called Assume Good Faith which I guess you could say I believe removes the right to call people "thugs" and "bullies". -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm listening. Provide me with a list that has two columns. In column one list the things I have "said" at Wikiversity that have the "wrong tone". In column two, provide an alternative way of saying the same thing as in column one, but re-written to have the "correct tone". other people have a right to believe you aren't helping Wikiversity and a right to say so without being called "thugs" or "bullies" for doing so <-- I've never called anyone a thug or a bully because they said that I am not helping Wikiversity. I invite people to come to my user talk page and tell me if they think that I am damaging Wikiversity. I've even begged some Wikiversity participants to talk to me and tell me how I have upset them. Some people prefer to just publish false accusations about me and then wave their mighty ban hammer in the air. Question: what does your reading of Wikiversity policy tell you about people who call Wikiversity participants "troll" or who tell a Wikiversity participant to "fuck off"? When "Salmon of doubt" arrived at Wikiversity I did assume good faith, even in the face of his stated purpose to disrupt the project. I've done MORE than a reasonable amount of assuming good faith. In the face of being called a troll and being told to fuck off I've remained civil. I'm prepared to defend my use of words like "thug" and "bully". I've been called all sorts of things at Wikiversity including "bully". When I'm bothered by such things I discuss them, I do not reach for the ban hammer. When words like "bully" accurately describe someone then they can be used in a civil way. I'd even defend the correct use of "troll" if I ever saw it correctly applied to an actual troll. I don't think there is any word that, when used, is automatically a violation of the civility policy. If words are used to accurately describe and draw attention to a problem that needs to be examined then that is not a violation of Civility, it is how a community functions to address problems. A popular way to game the system is to accuse people of being incivil when you do not want to respond to what they are saying. In my experience, the wielders of the mighty ban hammer win the right to be incivil and falsely accuse others of incivility. In a sense, it is an honor to be blocked by such abusive admins because it shows the world the true character of the abuser. Eventually the community becomes tired of the abuser and another abusive admin has their tools removed. --JWSchmidt 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "if you come to Wikiversity from any sister project you aren't welcome to participate" <-- This is false. If you come to Wikiversity from another project and admit that you only came here in order to disrupt this project then I will certainly object to your participation. If you come to Wikiversity and follow rules from other wikis while ignoring Wikiversity policy then I will certainly object to that. I've worked hard to foster constructive interactions between Wikiversity and other wikis. It is truly offensive to be subjected to misleading suggestions about me creating the impression that "if you come to Wikiversity from any sister project you aren't welcome to participate". That is a vile insinuation. I do not agree with your claim that asking questions of admin candidates, asking why the work of Wikiversity participants should be deleted and working to develop Wikiversity policy "sends a message that if you come to Wikiversity from any sister project you aren't welcome to participate". That kind of claim is illogical and does nothing to help Wikiversity.


 * I am not suggesting what you did, I am not making claims, I am stating what I believe, do you understand the differences? What other way is there for people to know what I believe so discussion can take place? I don't understand how criticizing people for there opinions helps foster construction interactions. I don't understand how calling my opinion a vile insinuation helps foster constructive interaction. Maybe what I believe is illogical, but you have done nothing to convince me that it is illogical.


 * Insinuation: an indirect (and usually malicious) implication.
 * Implication: something that is inferred (deduced or entailed or implied).
 * Implied: indicated by necessary connotation though not expressed directly


 * What is it you believe I am not directly expressing? -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining your position. Let me try out your system. If I ask a question such as "Did you violate Wikiversity policy?" then that is a banable offense because it is like asking, "Are you still beating your wife?" However, If I say, "I believe that you are still beating your wife," then that is fine, because I'm just letting you know what I believe. Do I have that right? "What is it you believe I am not directly expressing?" <-- Your statement implies that I have given you reason to believe what you believe. List the things I have said at Wikiversity suggesting that "if you come to Wikiversity from any sister project you aren't welcome to participate". --JWSchmidt 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "I no longer have faith in JWS' ability to keep calm and remain respectful" <-- How "respectful" do you expect me to be when other Wikiversity participants call me "troll" or tell me to "fuck off" or ban me with no warning, reason or discussion? There is an interesting double standard here. I've remained more calm and respectful, while under a shower of abuse, than the abusers have, but it is me who receives the blocks and bans....maybe telling JWSchmidt to fuck off is the true meaning of being welcoming to everyone.


 * I expect you to be able to remain respectful even if you feel that others are not. How else is Wikiversity to retain a civil atmosphere where people can foster construction interactions? Two wrongs don't make a right. -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "How else is Wikiversity to retain a civil atmosphere where people can foster construction interactions?" <-- Oh! Oh! I know this one. Wait. Just a minute. Hmm...this is tougher than I thought. Duh...maybe we could not let abusive admins get away with calling people "troll" and saying "fuck off". Na. That would never work. He who holds the mighty ban hammer can say and do anything. So, to remain properly respectful I must say, "Yes, Sir! With all due respect, I'm fucking off here, Sir!" Do I have that right? This is fun; let's try another one. "Thanks for imposing that bad ban on me, I really respect you for your ability to be an abusive admin and get away with anything!" I think I'm getting the hang of this. We should turn this into a learning resource at How to respectfully take abuse from Wikiversity admins. --JWSchmidt 04:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikiversity has to be welcoming to even 'deletionists'" <-- Why not write that into Wikiversity policy. "Wikiversity welcomes administrators who delete Wikiversity pages without first trying to improve the pages and without explaining how the page harms Wikiversity." We can put that on the Main Page....it will send a very welcoming message to Wikiversity participants and should greatly increase participation here.


 * I suggested you write such a policy yourself, since I believe you disagree that everyone should be welcome. Do you not want to write a policy on who is and who isn't welcome? I think such a policy is unneeded because I think Civility and Assume Good Faith already obligate people to be welcoming to everyone even "deletionists". -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that you need to get your plan coordinated with SBJ and Jimbo. SBJ wants to prevent me from helping to develop policy and you want me to write a policy that welcomes Moulton back to Wikiversity. In honor of Moulton, I think we should give the new policy page a name like Welcome back Moulton! --JWSchmidt 04:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "JWS' ideology" <-- I support the Wikiversity project and its mission. I've written extensively and openly about Wikiversity (example) so I'm puzzled as to why anyone would try to insinuate that I have some kind of mysterious changing ideology. A group of abusive admins took over Wikiversity last Summer and started making bad blocks and bans and running witch hunts and driving valuable participants away from the project while at the same time welcoming people like "Salmon of Doubt". That was a major change for Wikiversity. It is not me that changed. All I've done is express my revulsion at the "new Wikiversity". I hope we can get back to the task of making Wikiversity a place for fun learning projects rather than a celebration of the power of the mighty ban hammer.


 * Again I am stating what I believe. What is it you think I am not directly expressing? I believe either I never understood your ideology to begin with, or your ideology has changed because your tone has changed. I find your ideology mysterious because I think I use to understand your ideology and now I think I don't understand your ideology. Most of the same people who were custodians last summer are still custodians now. How has Wikiversity been taken over? I haven't changed any, and I think custodians who were custodians last summer haven't changed either. I believe what has changed is your perception of people. Do you disagree with my belief that what has changed is your perception of people? I also believe at the same time your perception of people changed, people's perception of you also changed. -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "How has Wikiversity been taken over?" <-- A group of abusive admins started imposing bad blocks and bad bans. "I believe what has changed is your perception of people" <-- There is some truth to this. Before last summer I did not think that Wikiversity admins would adopt the practices of other wikis and start imposing bad blocks and bad bans. Now I know better. "people's perception of you also changed" <-- It appears that SBJ hoped that I would just fuck off. Maybe he knows better now. --JWSchmidt 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't think my or any other custodian's resignation would make a difference" <-- When Wikiversity started one idea floating around was that there should be a bias towards having custodians who are mostly interested in collaborative learning rather playing with their tools. I think that the Wikiversity community should carefully explore the possibility that Wikiversity might move back in that direction. --JWSchmidt 06:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Wikiversity never moved away from that direction. -- dark lama  09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Darklama's original comment ("I don't know what the solution is here, but I think topic bans are unreasonable."), I can't say I'm completely sold on them either, but the alternatives (a complete ban, a wikipedia-style approach of escalating blocks, or just letting him continue his destructive behavior) are worse. We've been in this rut since the "Somali girls incident", and it's time to move on. --SB_Johnny talk 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The world is waiting to know: are bans the solution to everything or not? --JWSchmidt 05:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical question for you, JW: If you were Jimbo, wielding surpreme authority from on high, what would you do with Wikiversity?  Who would you unsysop?  Who would you ban?  What policies would you enact?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for JWSchmidt
While I certainly believe that some of JWSchmidt's comments and edits have been "hostile" or "disruptive", I am not certain that censoring him, in this regard, would be a good idea. I am worried that he would violate this prohibition, and then would get himself banned from the project and consider himself a martyr of the "Junta" (his word). I really, really would like for there to be a way for JWSchmidt and the rest of the community to come to terms and understand eachother. However, given JWSchmidt's claims that there's a conspiracy (i.e., "Ruling Party", "Junta", etc.), I'm also uncertain as to how it is possible to get JWSchmidt to understand that the rest of us don't "have it in for him", especially when he feels like the Review of JWSchmidt and this Topic Ban are examples of his worst fears. I really don't know what to do here; I agree with many of the concerns which have been voiced here about him, but I strongly dislike the proposal, even though I can't think of a better alternative. JWSchmidt, if you're willing to play "What If" for just a moment: If all these concerns (about you being disruptive) were true (it seems evident that you feel they are not), what do you think should be done? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "wielding surpreme authority from on high" <-- I never got the memo about God taking up wiki editing, so I'm not sure how to respond to this thought question. If the question is in some way about Jimbo, I have to confess that I'm a hopeless fan boy of Jimbo and I'm dazzled by the amazing wiki world he has helped to bring into existence. I've never seen Jimbo walk on water, so I still feel I have the right question his decisions...something I've done twice in the seven years since I've known of his existence. "Who would you unsysop?" <-- I admit that I was horrified when "Salmon of Doubt" became a custodian. I did not shed a tear when that experiment did not work out. "Who would you ban?" <-- I assume this is asking about bans on editing. I'm not sure that the concept of a ban makes sense at a website where everyone is welcome to edit. "What policies would you enact?" <-- The Wikiversity community was tasked by the Wikimedia Foundation with creating policies for research at Wikiversity. I took that request from the Foundation seriously and worked with others to develop research policies. A good start was made on that task until it was derailed by one "leader" of the Wikiversity community. I would like to see that task completed. When Moulton started using the name of an abusive Wikipedia administrator (someone who had openly published their own name) I thought it would be a good Idea to include a rule about using the real names of wiki editors in Privacy policy and make that an official Wikiversity policy. That suggestion was ignored by the Ruling Party and they just went ahead and banned Moulton, even though he had not violated any Wikiversity policy. That kind of leadership by ban hammer makes Wikiversity look ridiculous and I doubt if Wikiversity will ever be able to recover from that kind of foolishness and gain the respect of academic scholars. In my view, that is the single most damaging fiasco in the short history of Wikiversity. It is a symptom of Wikipedia Disease and I'm skeptical that Wikiversity can ever be cured of that disease. There are just too many abusive admins who enjoy bashing scholars over the head...maybe they once had to stay ofter school for detention and now view the mighty ban hammer as a cool way to get revenge. Such infantile behavior is no way to build a learning community and makes me embarrassed to even mention to fellow teachers that I'm involved with the Wikiversity project. The abusive blocks and bans at Wikiversity are absurd and handed out like candy. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved by policy development because the abusive admins who took control of Wikiversity last Summer will never abandon their self-proclaimed right to make bad blocks and bans. The battle has been lost and wannabe abusers now know that Wikiversity is the place to come to participate in the role playing game of Wielders of the Mighty Ban Hammer. Under the current regime, blocks and bans are the favored end point of discussions at Wikiversity. When Jimbo suggested a modification to the Wikiversity research policy I went to work on that and for my efforts in developing Wikiversity policy I've been called a "policy manipulator" and had my custodianship terminated. Wikiversity needs policies to prevent the Ruling Party from imposing bad blocks, bad bans, holding show trials and witch hunts and performing emergency de-sysops on trumped-up charges without community discussion. Wikiversity is now in a death spiral where the policy violators promote more policy violators as custodians and drive away from Wikiversity anyone who objects. We need to get the research and other policies finalized in a form that provides maximum flexibility for scholarly activities (rather than maximum flexibility for abusive admins)...today an academic came to #wikiversity, looked at Wikiversity as a possible place for doing a collaborative project and went off to use Goggle Knol instead. Under current ban-happy conditions it is hard to see why anyone with an interest in research would put effort into a project at Wikiversity. I doubt that Wikiversity will ever get these needed policies because the Ruling Party intends to continue practicing their abuses of power. some of JWSchmidt's comments and edits have been "hostile" or "disruptive" <-- Please list them so that we can discuss your concerns. I'm sure that abusive admins find it "disruptive" when I discuss their policy violations and when I try to prevent them from doing things like giving custodianship to policy violators. It is absurd that thwarting abusive admins in this way is grounds for banning me. censoring him <-- Careful, an attempt is under way to make mention of censorship a banable offense. a way for JWSchmidt and the rest of the community to come to terms and understand eachother <-- Are you saying that you have lost confidence in show trials and witch hunts during which false charges are fabricated and treated as Truth? Careful, you are flirting with heresy if you question one of the favored scams of the Ruling Party. JWSchmidt's claims that there's a conspiracy <-- Rather than come to my user page and explain what got their panties in a bunch, the Ruling Party explicitly refused to tell me and instead went off wiki to invent false claims about me which they published and used to "justify" removing my custodianship. Some day the truth might come out. I've proposed that all off-wiki discussions of Wikiversity by the Ruling Party be made public so that the Wikiversity community can see how the Ruling Party conspires off wiki. The Ruling Party conspired off wiki to make up a lie about me "facilitating Moulton's agenda" when the reality of what I did was respond to Jimbo's suggestion that Wikiversity policy be modified. The Ruling Party has published a large number of false accusations about me and used them to try to justify blocking, banning and desysoping me. The show trial of this page contains additional false accusations. In all cases, when I point out their false charges and ask them to produce evidence to support their false charges there is only silence. Their skill at running show trials is impressive and their show trials provide some of the best learning resources at Wikiversity. get JWSchmidt to understand that the rest of us don't "have it in for him" <-- I'm grateful that the honest participants of Wikiversity managed to get be out from under two absurdly bad blocks that were imposed on me by the Ruling Party. There is only one Wikiversity participant who seems to have "had it in for me" and he apparently left the project after not being able to get rid of me by publishing a boat load of false and absurdly fabricated charges against me. I've managed to out-live abusive admins at several wikis. In my reading of history, people eventually dump dictators and in my experience, abusive admins eventually get rooted out by disgusted wiki participants. It is an honor to help get rid of the abusers even if it means being the recipient of some bad blocks and bans along the way. what If <-- If someone had an honest complaint about a question I asked during a discussion of a custodian candidate then I'd like them to come to my user talk page and say something like, "Your question did not help Wikiversity because X, and I think you should have done Y." Then we could discuss the matter. If I ever did somehow managed to "manipulate policy" then I'd expect the person who discovered the "manipulation" to go to the Colloquium and inform the community that something icky had been inserted in to policy and that some cleanup was needed. The community would then pitch in and fix the problem. If it were really a TERRIBLE THING to use the word "deletionism" then I would trust the Wikiversity Community to create a policy page called Censorship where "deletionism" would be listed along with a description of the punishment for using the word. I have a reasonably large vocabulary, so there are dozens of other words I can use besides "deletionism"...most alternatives are less useful words for the purposes I use "deletionism", but I could make do. I'd add to the censored word list "troll" and "fuck off". I'm not sure that some abusive admins could function without those words. I do not really understand all of the accusations that have been made in this current show trial, so I might have missed this chance to say what should be done if I am guilty of those charges. --JWSchmidt 02:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me engage in a little active listening here:
 * If you had the power and authority, you would currently desysop 0 Custodians at Wikiversity.
 * You would ban 0 users at Wikiversity.
 * You would enact the following policies:
 * A privacy policy. (What would this policy look like?)
 * A policy preventing bad blocks, bad bans (What would this policy look like?; in other words, how would differentiate between a "bad" block or ban, and "good" one?)
 * A policy preventing "holding show trials and witch hunts". How would you define a "show trial", and how would you define a "witch hunt"?  (Please give me definitions, not examples.)
 * A policy preventing emergency de-sysops without community discussion. Would I be correct in assuming that this policy would prevent both a) emergency desysops of any sort, and b) desysops without community discussion?
 * And nothing else?
 * Would you do nothing else with Wikiversity, other than these things?
 * A few more responses: What you've done which might be considered "disruptive" or "hostile" was hashed over quite thoroughly at your Review (and elsewhere, I'm sure); while I'm sure you'd be happy to go over all that again here, I'm not interested.  If I'm "flirting with heresy", JW, I should mention that I've never been terribly fond of orthodoxy.  But I am a big fan of respect and consensus and justice.
 * I get the impression, JW, that you are very hurt by the actions certain users at Wikiversity did to you. In (at least some of) their minds, it was necessary.  To you, it was hurtful, cruel, and unjust.  You also feel that when you complained about these hurtful and unjust things, they tried to unjustly shut you up.  Is this why you've been acting the way you have?  (Let me qualify that question:)  Recently, it seems to me that you've been acting extremely defensive, a bit belligerent, and perhaps a bit paranoid.  I do believe that you feel that your actions have been completed justified, given what has happened here on Wikiversity.  Would you agree that you have acted somewhat defensively and belligerent to certain individuals on Wikiversity?
 * Would it be enough, JWS, if those you feel have "wronged" you, were to issue a simple apology (on-wiki) for having hurt you? Would that be enough for you to forgive them, and stop harping on the "Ruling Party", etc.?  What is it that you want?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One more question for you JWSchmidt: If someone were to be continuously disrespectful on Wikiversity, what should be done about it?  We'll assume that, in this context, being continuously disrespectful includes: using "vulgar" language, name-calling, edit warring, and outright dishonesty.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 01:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you had the power and authority" I'm doing my best to respond to your hypotheticals. It hurts my brain when I try to imagine the idea of someone having the "the power and authority" to desysop someone. It makes sense for there to be a way to desysop under emergency conditions. Real emergencies. For example, at Wikipedia some admin accounts were hacked. I'm in favor of the Wikiversity community being able to discuss custodians and remove someone's custodianship if they have abused the tools, for example, by imposing bad blocks. "ban 0 users" I don't think bans are enforceable...they are just a strange ritual that a few wiki tribes enact between the days that are devoted to rain dances and reading goat entrails. "privacy policy" <-- Privacy policy looks okay to me. If the community decided to make a rule designed to prevent use of the real world names of Wikiversity participants then it would make sense to include that rule in the privacy policy. I think that is a matter that the community should decide since Moulton was blocked and then banned for using the real world names of some people, even though doing so was not against Wikiversity policy. "A policy preventing bad blocks, bad bans" <-- If the community decides that it wants to have ritualistic bannings then I think the grounds for imposing bans need to be specified in detail in official written Wikiversity policy in advance by the community, not made up on the spot by ban-happy admins. If bans are imposed there has to be a community discussion and a person being targeted for a ban needs to have the chance to defend themself. The person calling for a ban would have to show that a policy had been violated, a policy that specifies how violating the policy forms the basis for a ban. Blocks are a tool for dealing with vandals or repeated violators of policies. If a block is appealed, the custodian who imposed the block should not rule on the appeal. For non-vandalism blocks there should be a warning before a block is imposed, explaining the policy that was violated. differentiate between a "bad" block or ban, and "good" one <-- Wikiversity has a serious problem because it is in the grip of a gang of abusive admins who apply a double standard. Blocks and bans have been handed out by the most incivil policy violators at Wikiversity. These abusive admins have gotten away with the grossest abuses while inventing trumped up charges to "justify" their bad blocks and bans. Admins who are involved in content disputes should not impose blocks on wiki participants who they are having a content dispute with. How would you define a "show trial" <-- the first show trial was a misuse of Request custodian action and then there have been multiple circuses at Community Review. Typical abuses of these show trials are that false accusations are made, the accused is not given a chance for defense, the show trials are pushed to completion in the dead of night before the community can participate, there are no rules to be followed or rules are made and then not followed. "Would you do nothing else with Wikiversity" <-- You seem to be imagining that I have played your hypothetical imagination game. All I've done is discuss some critical issues at Wikiversity. There are other policy matters that should be cleaned up. For example, it is absurd that we do not have an official deletion policy. "Would you agree that you have acted somewhat defensively and belligerent to certain individuals on Wikiversity?" <-- A few abusive admins started imposing bad blocks and bans last Summer and threatening additional abusive admin actions. I'm devoted to the Wikiversity project and I'll always defend this project against abusive admins. I object when false charges are made against people. I object when double standards are imposed. This is not rocket science. I'm sure that I upset abusive admins when I point out their abuses. There are a handful of folks at Wikiversity who cannot stand to hear me discuss their peccadillos so they resort to accusing me of being insane, a whiner, disgruntled, defensive, hostile, belligerent, paranoid, a troll and telling me to either limit myself to editing my little science projects or leave the project or fuck off. I'm holding up a mirror to the abusive admins who took over Wikiversity last Summer and trying to prevent them from doing more damage to the project. "issue a simple apology" <-- such as, "we apologize for manufacturing a bunch of false accusations against you and pretending that those false accusations justified blocking, banning and desysoping you and we apologize for spending a year refusing to retract the false accusations." Is that what you mean by "a simple apology"? What about the other Wikiversity participants who have been blocked and banned and made so disgusted that they could not work on the project? What about all the damage that has been done to Wikiversity by these abusive admins? Will a simple apology fix that? Will the abusers continue their abusive ways 5 minutes after apologizing? For me, actions speak louder than words. For example, the bad ban on Moulton should be lifted. If the community does not want to hear Moulton using the real names of abusive admins from Wikipedia then there are two options. 1) Make it Wikiversity policy that we cannot use real names. 2) Prevent the abusive admins from Wikipedia from coming to Wikiversity to harass Moulton. "using "vulgar" language, name-calling, edit warring, and outright dishonesty" <-- the closest I have seen at Wikiversity to that kind of behavior have been the antics of several Wikipedians who came to visit, such as User:Centaur of attention. Personally, I have a weakness: I'm a bit fascinated by people who come to Wikiversity in order to abuse Wikiversity participants. Also, I believe that Moulton was quite happy to have a chance to study his tormentors from Wikipedia at Wikiversity. One option is to turn such situations into a teachable moment. --JWSchmidt 04:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will say, JWSchmidt, I'm fairly disappointed that you chose to not answer most of my (quite specific) questions, and instead chose to use this as an opportunity to continue your work on the soap box, when I'm simply trying to better understand what it is you think and expect here at Wikiversity. Now, there's a chance I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you also would like a sort of "witch hunt" here at Wikiversity, ousting the "Cabal" (I believe you used that word; if not, just replace it with "Junta"), and undoing all that they have done which you disagree with.  It seems to me that you're simply not interested in a reconciliation that might require any significant compromise on your part: you're interested in getting your way (which you see the supreme moral superiority of).  This makes me really sad, JWSchmidt.  But every way of a man is right in his own eyes, I suppose.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another question for you: Do you believe there is a single custodian here at Wikiversity who is not part of the "Ruling Junta" that you find so objectionable?  Is there a single custodian you trust here?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "you chose to not answer most of my (quite specific) questions" <-- I tried to answered all of you questions. If you do not like my answers then say specifically what you still want to know. As I mentioned above, I was not sure how to respond to some of your questions. Your questions suggest that you enjoy fantasizing about having god-like powers, but such fantasies disorient me. I'm much better at answering questions about reality. "the soap box" <-- Under the Ruling Party's system of show trials, it is important that replies from the accused be labeled correctly. Thanks for stepping up and doing your part to be civil and assume good faith by labeling my responses as soap boxing. We done learned good from Wikipedia how to run a show trial. "what it is you think and expect here at Wikiversity" <-- I expect this to be a fun learning environment where we can fulfill the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation-approved Wikiversity project proposal. I object when people try to turn this into a role playing game where they run around like inarticulate 16 year-old abusive Wikipedia admins waving the mighty ban hammer. you also would like a sort of "witch hunt" <-- I find the contents of your imagination to be sickening. It is very strange that members of the Ruling Party are so unimaginative that they give lectures about civility between bouts of publishing false accusations against wiki participants, calling people "troll" and telling people to fuck off. Similarly, I complain about witch hunts and show trials and you have to go out of your way to share your personal fantasy about me "liking" a witch hunt. "Cabal" (I believe you used that word <-- I've used "cabal" in the context of the "ID Cabal" at Wikipedia. It was members and defenders of the "ID Cabal" at Wikipedia that came over and disrupted Wikiversity last Summer. significant compromise on your part <-- I'm interested in hearing your idea of compromise. Maybe you expect me to only defend part of the Wikiversity project proposal, abandoning the part that your buddy tried to write out of Wikiversity. Maybe you expect me to compromise and remain silent 50% of the time when false accusations are made against Wikiversity participants. Maybe you expect me to compromise and accept 50% of the bad blocks and bans that are imposed at Wikiversity. Maybe you expect me to compromise and vote "support" for 50% of all ban-happy and policy-violating custodian candidates who come up for community discussion. Maybe you want me to compromise and allow 50% of all petty self-proclaimed bureaucrats of history to play their little I'm Master of This School role playing games. Maybe you expect me to compromise and allow deletionists to delete without challenge 50% of the Wikiversity pages they crave to delete, but which I feel should be kept. Maybe you expect me to compromise and allow custodians to not respond to 50% of questions that are asked about their actions. Maybe you want me to remain silent about 50% of the abuses that are made of emergency de-sysoping. "you're interested in getting your way" <-- I've worked for years to get the Wikiversity project approved and established as a place for collaborative learning. Of course I'm interested in keeping Wikiversity from turning into a circus for playing games like Wielder of the Might Ban Hammer, Let's lie our way to page deletion and bad blocks and I'm Bureaucrat of History. I'm not trying to get my way, I'm trying to defend the Wikiversity project from infantile interlopers who have done serious damage to this project. I find it interesting that my defense of Wikiversity brings you so much sadness. "Ruling Junta" <-- I use the term "ruling party" to refer to those who brought to Wikiversity the ghastly practices of show trials, bad blocks and bans and those who defend abusive admin behavior with methods such as censorship of community discussions. It is a small but ill-defined group; ill-defined since mere mortals in the Wikiversity community have not seen all the threats made and party orders issued off wiki and there is always the chance for new party members to join the fun or get disgusted and walk away from the party. "Is there a single custodian you trust here?" <-- You use the word "trust" as if you mean "trust unconditionally". There are custodians who I trust unconditionally. There are other custodians that I trust 99% of the time, but I'm certainly going to speak out when they violate Wikiversity policy, publish false accusations about Wikiversity participants, impose bad blocks and bad bans, try to delete the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants without first trying to improve the content or if they try to censor Wikiversity so as to prevent the actions of admins from being discussed. --JWSchmidt 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, let me apologize if you find the term "soapbox" offensive; I should perhaps have said that you chose to use this opportunity to "express your greivances". Moving along, here are questions you chose not to answer:
 * How would you differentiate between a "bad" block or ban, and "good" one?
 * What would a policy forbidding bad blocks or bans look like?
 * How would you define a "show trial", and how would you define a "witch hunt"? (I specifically asked for definitions, and not examples. You gave me examples, but no definitions.)  I wonder why you chose to ignore my simple request?
 * Would I be correct in assuming that your preferred policy preventing emergency desysops would prevent both a) emergency desysops of any sort, and b) desysops without community discussion? (yes/no)
 * Would you do nothing else with Wikiversity, other than these things? (yes/no)
 * Is this why you've been acting the way you have? (yes/no)
 * Would you agree that you have acted somewhat defensively and belligerent to certain individuals on Wikiversity? (yes/no)
 * Would it be enough, JWS, if those you feel have "wronged" you, were to issue a simple apology (on-wiki) for having hurt you? Would that be enough for you to forgive them, and stop "voicing greivances against" the "Ruling Party", etc.?  (yes/no)
 * If someone were to be continuously disrespectful on Wikiversity, what should be done about it?
 * Do you agree with my summary that if you were to have your druthers here at Wikiversity, you would leave every single current Custodian at Wikiversity with full Custodial tools, and that you would ban no one? (I had not expressly asked this question previously, but I thought it was obvious I wanted an answer; this time I ask specifically).
 * That's specifically what I still want to know; in other words, what I wanted to know the first time I asked these specific questions. And I'll add one more:  You say that you trust some Custodians 100% undconditionally.  Would you be willing to name one or more Custodians you trust to talk with you about appropriate and inappropriate behavior at Wikiversity, and whose recommendations on that front you'd be willing to follow unconditionally here at Wikiversity?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 19:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "here are questions you chose not to answer" <-- I respond to your questions as well as I can, even when I do not understand them. How would you differentiate between a "bad" block or ban, and "good" one? <-- I previously gave my views on blocks and bans. Here is another attempt to guess an answer that will satisfy you. The last time I read through the official Wikiversity policies I found one policy that mentions bans. I think the intention of that one mention was to make it possible to prevent an editor from endlessly using profanity. I suppose it would be a "good" ban if the Wikiversity community decided that there was no solution short of a ban for dealing with some vandal who was making a career out of endlessly creating new accounts and using profanity. A ban might be "good" if it would provide custodians with some extra flexibility in dealing with such a problem. As I said previously, I'm skeptical about the value of bans. An example of a bad ban would be something like this: "Gee, Wikipedia bans people for doing X, there is no rule against X at Wikiversity, we have resisted calls for making a policy about X Wikiversity, but let's just go ahead and impose a ban for X at Wikiversity." I would define such ad hoc bans as bad bans. If the Wikiversity community wants to adopt the banning ritual then the reasons for bans should be put into policy. Wikiversity editors should be warned that they are violating a Wikiversity policy before calls are made for a ban. It is my view that calling for a ban without first explaining which Wikiversity policy was violated is itself a violation of existing Wikiversity policy. What would a policy forbidding bad blocks or bans look like? <-- I previously wrote extensively in response to this question. It is hard for me to imagine what more you want me to say, so I have to ask you to explain what you find inadequate about my previous reply to this question. How would you define a "show trial", and how would you define a "witch hunt"? (I specifically asked for definitions, and not examples. You gave me examples, but no definitions.) <-- Sorry. I wonder why you chose to ignore my simple request? <-- I did not suspect that you would demand formal definitions, the examples that I gave seem clear enough. I wonder why you are demanding definitions. A show trial is the misuse of a forum such as Request custodian action or Community Review. The misuse and abuses of show trials take these kinds of forms: someone is pre-judged to be guilty and the forum is used to formally announce the guilt of the accused, false accusations are made against the accused, the accused is not given a chance for defense, the show trials are quickly pushed to completion before the community can participate, there are no rules to be followed or rules are made and then not followed, there is little or no discussion of evidence and rebuttals, just an accusation of guilt followed by punishment, sometimes a punishment that is derived from some other wiki community, not Wikiversity (I'm still a student of the art of running a fake trial, I particularly expect historians to keep providing Wikiversity with more examples). A witch trial is another name for show trial; using multiple names is intended to get people thinking about a broader range of historical examples of rigged trials. Would I be correct in assuming that your preferred policy preventing emergency desysops would prevent both a) emergency desysops of any sort, and b) desysops without community discussion? (yes/no) <-- I cannot give a yes/no answer to this question because it assumes that I have a preferred policy preventing emergency desysops. I previously explained the type of condition under which an emergency desysop is needed. My point is that Wikiversity "leaders" have performed emergency desysops when there was no emergency, which is an abuse of power. There is no point in composing complex hypothetical questions and demanding a yes/no answer...unless that is intended to add to the show trial atmosphere of this page. Would you do nothing else with Wikiversity, other than these things? (yes/no) <-- This question makes very little sense to me. I've already answered it as well as I can. I discussed the major issues that are on my mind, but there are thousands of other concerns I have about the future of Wikiversity. You seem to imagine that I could make a finite list of things that I might do "with Wikiversity". Five minutes from now I could think of something new to do "with Wikiversity". You seem to be fishing for some specific answer, so it might be easier if you just said what is on your mind rather than expecting me to guess. Is this why you've been acting the way you have? (yes/no) <-- I already answered your question as best I could. If you demand a simple one word answer then you can take "no" as the answer. Your attempt to construct a model that might explain my participation at Wikiversity is shallow and misguided. I've already provided you with a more sensible model which I will restate: I support the Wikiversity project and I do all that I can to defend the project from people who want to ignore the Foundation-approved goals of Wikiversity and impose inappropriate and abusive practices from other wikis on Wikiversity. Would you agree that you have acted somewhat defensively and belligerent to certain individuals on Wikiversity? (yes/no) <-- Again, I don't think this questions warrants a simple yes/no answer. First, I do not really understand it. "you have acted defensively to certain individuals" <-- I don't think this is an English sentence. "you have acted belligerent to certain individuals" <-- I don't think this is an English sentence. I previously tried to guess the meaning of your question and I replied to the best of my ability. You either have to construct an actual English sentence or explain to me what you think this question means and why my previous answer was not adequate. Would it be enough, JWS, if those you feel have "wronged" you, were to issue a simple apology (on-wiki) for having hurt you? Would that be enough for you to forgive them, and stop "voicing greivances against" the "Ruling Party", etc.? (yes/no) <-- I don't know what you mean by a "simple apology for having hurt you". I'd like you to explain what you think that means. I'm not going to make blanket statements or give yes/no replies about hypothetical apologies. In my experience, abusive admins never apologize...they either grow up and stop abusing people or eventually they have their tools taken away by a disgusted community. I already answered this question to say that this is not a matter of me being hurt, it is a matter of damage that has been done to Wikiversity and the fact that I see no indication that more of the same kind of harm will not be done in future. Rather than talk about an apology I think we should talk about ways of fixing damage that has been done already and finding ways to prevent more damage in the future. If someone were to be continuously disrespectful on Wikiversity, what should be done about it? <-- I already responded to this by discussing the best example I could think of from Wikiversity history. It now occurs to me that you might be the kind of person who thinks it is disrespectful to not agree with with abusive people who say things like, "Do what I demand or fuck off and leave the project." Maybe you think it is disrespectful to not respond to an abusive admin who says, "You are a troll," by saying, "Thank you for enlightening me, I now realize that all of my good faith efforts were nothing but trolling!" Maybe you think it is disrespectful for anyone to disagree with the bureaucrat of history. Please give some examples of exactly what you mean by disrespect. Do you agree with my summary that if you were to have your druthers here at Wikiversity, you would leave every single current Custodian at Wikiversity with full Custodial tools, and that you would ban no one? <-- I don't think bans make much sense. I've edited many wikis during the past seven years and even helped try to enforce a ban against a Wikipedian who harassed me at my work place. I don't think bans are very useful. I've never seen anything at Wikiversity that seemed like it would be helped by a ban. Some Wikiversity admins have imposed bad blocks and tried to claim the right to impose bans, even if the banned individual broke no policy. I think imposing such a ban is a serious violation of existing policy. If I had my "druthers" then these are matters that the Wikiversity community should discuss. The current Ruling Party drives away true scholars and attracts new abusers and makes Wikiversity some kind of sickly puppet of abusive admins from other wikis. "whose recommendations on that front you'd be willing to follow unconditionally here at Wikiversity" <-- I've already suggested a similar exercise above on this page. I'm always willing to listen to honest criticism and discuss suggestions for alternatives to my ideas and approaches. I'm reluctant to mention any custodian who I trust because one particularly petty and abusive admin at Wikiversity has assured me that he likes to disrupt and sabotage anything that I involve myself with at Wikiversity. I'm willing to stand up to such abusive admins, but I cannot in good conscious risk making other Wikiversity participants who I value the target of the kind of abuse I have been subjected to. --JWSchmidt 03:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

SB_Johnny: After having thought the matter over, I oppose these bans. I agree that there's a problem, and I agree that they would be justified, but I feel that they would not be just. I simply don't think this is the right way to do this. I have some ideas (which JWSchmidt might himself appreciate, in some strange way, given his comments above) as to a better way, but I'm tired and might postpone posting them for now. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * JK, I brought this to CR because despite all of this I genuinely want to JWS around. Giving him a six month hiatus from these topics would allow the community to get some things done without being afraid of bad treatment from him, and perhaps give him the opportunity to see that the community will do just fine without such fervent gatekeeping. He's lost faith in us.
 * The alternatives are a change of heart on his part (which I hope for, but am not hopeful about), or a more "comprehensive" ban. He's made it quite clear both on this page -- and on some user talk pages since this review started -- that he isn't interested in making peace and moving on, and has demonstrated that disinterest.
 * JWSchmidt, IMO, is unable to keep a cool head when it comes to deletion and policy, and due to his distrust of any custodians who might mentor is also mistrustful of anyone who might be mentored. I really think it would be good for him (and for the rest of us) if he just stayed out of those discussions for 6 months and let things evolve without his input. I think he'd be pleased with what the community did, and perhaps he'd be less the overprotective father than he acts like now. --SB_Johnny talk 00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are probably right on several points. Would he respect the bans, though?  Would this result in anything (ultimately) but a total block?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that a "total block" is the direction things seem to be heading toward, I'd rather hit the brakes part way and try the bans. Perhaps he'd be willing to do it voluntarily? --SB_Johnny talk 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could always ask nicely. Let me know how that works out for you, eh?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 04:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "he isn't interested in making peace and moving on" <-- Maybe some day you'll explain what qualifies you to make such an authoritative statement about my personal interests. Of course, you need never have an actual discussion with me when you hold the mighty ban hammer...just proclaim your vision to be true and swing your mighty hammer. That will teach me the "real" meaning of participation in this learning community. --JWSchmidt 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been an active member on Wikiversity for a year now, and while, granted, I have not had much interaction with custodians, the interaction I have had has been nothing but positive, especially with The Jade Knight. Every member of the "Ruling Party" has been nothing but positive to me and I never had any reason to doubt that they were happy to see new editors working on our site, no matter where they come from. Now, as a candidate for custodianship, I would appreciate being spared the interrogations by JWSchmidt that other candidates had to deal with. I was shocked to read the archived community discussions from past custodian candidates. I welcome, in fact I love, community discussion; but nothing anyone says seems to satisfy JW. JW's beliefs seem to have crossed the line from a healthy community watchdog policy to almost sadistic attacks on other community members. Technical Wikiversity policy debates aside, I'd agree that JW should be banned from certain areas of discussion until he can "have something constructive to say or choose to say nothing at all". Constructive criticism or no criticism is how Wikiversity is supposed to work, right? Trinity507 05:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "interaction with custodians, the interaction I have had has been nothing but positive" <-- That was my experience until about a year ago. Then a custodian called me "troll" and said he would never talk to me again. Of course, SB_Johnny sided with the custodian who called me a troll....."troll" is also one of SB_Johnny's terms to apply to other wiki participants. SB_Johnny and a group of other custodians then conspired off wiki to publish a bunch of false accusations against me. When I became aware that SB_Johnny was going after me, I asked him to talk to me. His reply? "...I'm not going to try to have a discussion with you..." Rather than talk to me, he published false accusations about me, imposed a bad block on me and banned me with no reason or warning from the #wikiversity chat channel. SB_Johnny invited me to "just go fuck yourself and go away". "almost sadistic attacks" <-- I'd be interested to hear what you think represents a sadistic attack by me. "have something constructive to say" <-- For the past year I have been defending myself against custodians who call me "troll", "insane", "whiner" and tell me to "go fuck yourself". I've been subjected to endless false accusations and abuse, including having to watch lies being told about my contributions to Wikiversity and those of my collaborators, lies spouted in an attempt to have those contributions deleted from Wikiversity. I've watched policy violators made into custodians and when I objected I was censored and called disruptive. I've spent years working to get the Wikiversity project approved and running. I'm devoted to the Wikiversity project and all these troubles started when I defended Wikiversity and was called "troll" for my trouble. It would make some people happy if I would just go fuck myself and go away but I'm not going to walk away. Defending those who are targeted for abused by the "Ruling Party" is the most constructive thing I can do right now at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that a Custodian called you a "whiner". I'm fairly certain this isn't true.  For one, I've never seen anyone use the noun "whiner" to describe you.  I believe a Wikiversity user (who was not a custodian) described your complaints as "whining", but never used the epithet "whiner". However it may be that said user should probably have said "expressing discontent about" instead of "whining", that does not change the fact that the word "whiner" was not uttered.  Seeing as you're such an extreme stickler for the facts, I figured you'd be interested.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

block
User:JWSchmidt has been blocked for two weeks per WV:AGF and WV:CIVIL. --mikeu talk 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I think it's clear he violated CIVIL, and probably AGF, I'm not sure that such a long block is necessary; I think 3 days or a week would have been plenty long for him to "cool off", if he's going to. We really do need to codify what sort of action should be taken when people violate policy, however.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The length of time that this has been going on was a factor. Let's see if a dialogue on his talk page can lead to a productive discussion of the issues.  --mikeu talk 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A two week block sounds like a good idea to me. I really hope that the JW that you can find on his user page comes back after that, because I love so many of the ideas he proposes for the site! And I also agree with codifying policy: this shouldn't have gone on as long as it did. I think we also need to be a little clearer about what the policy for this sort of thing really is in the community. When does it cross the line from a healthy discussion of opposing viewpoints into offensive, personal and unproductive? Trinity507 05:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)