Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt

Cause for this review
On 6th September 2008, bureaucrat User:SB_Johnny requested a review of the recent behaviour of custodian User:JWSchmidt following a series of bizarre events. There are three major headings under which the behaviour of User:JWSchmidt may have fallen short of that to be expected of a custodian and an editor of Wikiversity, namely: (1) page disruption/edit wars, (2) policy manipulation and (3) damaging the community. The review has taken a longer-term view of behaviour of the user in question than was initially envisaged, particularly because a longer term view will enable a better prediction of the chances of improvement of behaviour in future.

There have already been attempts to resolve the case by more peaceful means, including numerous discussions on IRC and on-wiki between JWS and many of the most conciliatory custodians. User:JWSchmidt has also been quietly asked to resign his custodian/checkuser tools, but has declined. It is felt that lesser options than this review have already been exhausted.

Page for response by JWSchmidt

Purpose of this review
The purpose of this review is so that the Wikiversity community can make an informed decision about the behaviour of User:JWSchmidt, and any necessary actions. In discussions which have already stemmed from his initial behaviour, it has become clear that the community is not aware of the full extent of the issues involved, and thus are not aware of the depth and severity of the problem. User:JWSchmidt has also, on a number of occasions in these discussions, claimed that he does not view his behavior as problematic, and he has asked for evidence of any misdeeds. This review is aimed to provide this evidence both to User:JWSchmidt and to the community as a whole.

Without prejudicing the outcome of this review, the community also needs to be informed that User:JWSchmidt currently enjoys the following trusted functions: custodianship, checkuser status (which involves the ability to view private data about community members), mentor status (the ability to help create new custodians), IRC channel operator status (enables greater control of the IRC channel).

Page for response by JWSchmidt

Authors of this review
Regardless of who posts this review to Wikiversity, the following custodians and bureaucrats have jointly worked on this review and take collective responsibility for its content:


 * --Mu301 (bureacrat)
 * --SB_Johnny (bureaucrat)
 * --Cormaggio (bureaucrat)
 * --McCormack (custodian)

Procedure
Wikiversity has no policies as regards disciplinary measures in cases of this gravity, because a case of this gravity has not yet occurred. The Wikiversity community is therefore free to agree on its own rules of procedure, within reasonable moral bounds. The community should consider, however, that if Wikiversity does not conduct itself properly, then outside institutions may become involved.

It is felt that as this is the first case of its kind, and as the rules of fair play are in the process of formation, the community should be free to discuss procedural matters. A page for this purpose has been created here: /Procedure.

It is initially proposed that:


 * 1) Evidence is presented.
 * 2) A reasonable period of time is allowed for any parties or other members of the community to discuss the evidence and respond to it. Further evidence may be admitted at this stage.
 * 3) Outcomes and sanctions, if any, are proposed and agreed upon, together with means of enforcement. If possible, a voluntary solution should be sought; a solution should be imposed only as last resort.

Case 01: Albanian sea port history
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 02: The speedy deletion template
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 03: The main page
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 03)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''
 * What's really disturbing about this is that half an hour after he made this edit (pipelinking "students" to Student Union), he made this edit, which essentially morphed the student union content into an attack on McCormack. See my comment there (diff). It's pretty clear that his intent was to steer new users to an attack page, which I find frankly baffling. --SB_Johnny talk 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 04: Jon Awbrey user namespace abuse
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * I should say that while there can be legitimate disagreement about the correct course of action in this case, open hostility to other contributors is unacceptable. Since I don't consider myself a member of this community, I can certainly appreciate differing points of view on this issue, and indeed I attempted to have those views expressed at Meta - those attempts were pointedly rebuffed. The behaviour here is of concern, not his opinion (while I think he's wrong, that's not at issue). – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "consensus" on meta de facto over ride consensus (whatever that may be) here on Wikiversity? A quasi CV, and link to educational institutions and links to other user pages in the wikisphere seems completely appropriate for Wikiversity. Emesee 07:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Emesee here. The Jade Knight 08:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Emesee raises a valid side issue, but that's not really the central point here. The central point is the way Mike was treated. Even if Mike (or the folks on meta) did slightly screw up, none of us should ever be treated like this for our minor screw-ups. --McCormack 08:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. JWSchmidt gave an inappropriate response to an inappropriate action.  Neither were correct, and JWSchmidt's actions in this case seem clearly unwelcoming, but they were not entirely unjustified or unprovoked in this particular case.  For this reason, I consider this case less significant than most of the others.  The Jade Knight 09:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 07: The consensus deletion template
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 08: The student union
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 08)

 * This edit really says it all for me. I just can't understand trying on the one hand to make this a prominent entry page, while on the other turning the page into a drama attack on an active contributor. Is this really the first thing "students" should see? I mean, really? I didn't learn about this until a bit after it happened, but the behavior here truly boggles the mind. --SB_Johnny talk 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 09: The "browse" page
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Introductory comments
There are 5 known cases of User:JWSchmidt declaring policy without consensus, and a 6th case of enforcing a policy as official when it had not been written. For perspective: there are only 3 policies on Wikiversity which have been validly officialised by consensus - most official policy has been made by unannounced unilateral declaration by User:JWSchmidt. Some official policy also exists as a Wikimedia Foundation requirement (local project consensus not admitted).

The cases of improper policy officialisation are all slightly different. In one case a clearly rejected policy was reintroduced; in another the consensus was too low for rejection/acceptance; in a third case the vote had been in favour of the policy, but the policy had not been officialised for an unknown reason (possibly voting was too low); in a fourth case the policy was never voted on at all but just written by User:JWSchmidt; in a fifth case a policy had been discussed in a small group, but never written down at all despite being enforced by User:JWSchmidt against other users (this particular case is not cited below).

In a final case, a custodian discovered what User:JWSchmidt had done within a few months and reverted, but not without considerable resistance from User:JWSchmidt. During this episode, User:JWSchmidt withheld the information that he had improperly officialised a number of further policies. The further cases slowly came to light over a year later.

In addition to these cases, there have also been problems with policy enforcement. User:JWSchmidt has tended to apply and enforce policy to suit his purposes, and has easily done this on a project where most users are inexperienced. A form of argument that has been used during debate is this: "it is true that policy says that X is not allowed; but X has two meanings and the policy only means one of these, and what I am doing is the other" (an example of this argument was where "X = advocacy").

Case 21: The "cite sources" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 22: The "verifiability" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''

We've practically treated this as policy. This can easily be reverted. Emesee 07:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 23: The "reliable sources" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 24: The "rollback" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 25: The "custodianship" policy
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 36: Attempts to impose a learning model "policy"
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 05: Alienation of User:Adambro
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 06: Treatment of other users who vote to delete any material
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 31: Sockpuppet User:Trout of Doubt
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 32: User:Mike.lifeguard's bot account
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * Indeed this case is why my bot has not run any tasks here since the date of unblock. I have stated to User:SB Johnny (for whom I have run bot tasks on numerous occasions) that I will not run a bot here without a strong consensus (such that User:JWSchmidt cannot get away with similar hostility). Again, I can understand disagreement over the issue here (and actually I am partly to blame), but the behaviour is unacceptable - open hostility towards any contributor for any reason should not be tolerated. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 01:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 33: Inappropriate use of the Wikiversity IRC channel
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 33)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''
 * I've seen this over and over again on the channel lately. JWSchmidt (and usually Moulton as a debate team member) essentially squelching anyone who voices concerns by demanding that they can't possibly understand until they acknowledge that Wikipedia is hopelessly corrupt, and that almost any tactic is fair game until that corruption is rooted out. Most times, the member(s) of the "opposing debate team" end up giving up and leaving the channel, which is almost always followed by backslapping and jibes ("the gig is up!", "I want a pony!", etc.). Voices of reason are in most cases drowned out. --SB_Johnny talk 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This happened to me as well, with even direct questions that didn't "play along" with the planned script and staged routine to self-promote their own goals being semi-ignored, even when multiple users pressed back. It's all a play acting or trolling experiment, and anything that runs squarely counter to it is sidestepped. Rootology 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 34: Partnership with User:Moulton
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Case 40: Alienation of users from other projects / from editing
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion and response (case 40)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * 1)  I have spent much time trying to "deal with" (ie, respond to) JWSchmidt that should have been spent more productively (such as working on categorization).  The Jade Knight 10:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I've gotten very little done lately for similar reasons (though more often just looking at my watchlist, and being too disappointed to go try to do some work here). After taking myself off the Ethics project, I was hoping to start doing less confrontational projects on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and social practices (I got a small start with Assuming good faith, but given the state of affairs on our public discussion boards, I think most Wikipedians in particular would not want to participate here, so there's not much hope of populating those projects with people who can help build the content and give perspectives. --SB_Johnny  talk 10:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) My observations line up exactly with this, from what I have seen. The IRC channel is particularly overloaded. For example, without getting to my specifics, my look at it last night was an extended session of Schmidt and Moulton discussing (beyond the usual topic of why English Wikipedia wronged him) a variety of other users, and at least one who left Wikipedia for privacy concerns. Rootology 13:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Evidence: Part 4 (community-requested cases)
''This section has been created as at least two members of the community have requested to be able to add further cases to this list. The original authors of this review do not necessarily endorse statements made in these cases unless they specifically state otherwise. If you would like a case box added here, please put a request on the talk page, together with an explanation. ''

Case 41: Straw-man arguments and other fallacious discussion tactics
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100% {|width=100% style="background-color:#eeeeff;"

Discussion (case 41)
''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please be concrete with your evidence and neutral in tone. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * this edit contains two straw men: JWSchmidt is clearly misconstruing my statements to make them reflect poorly on me, and in doing so is not being honest to my arguments; in particular he is implicating me of mocking free speech and engaging in book-burning here, without any evidence whatsoever that I would even support such action, trying to rhetorically engage in character-assassination thereby. He doesn't have to engage in name-calling, here; I don't think accusing someone of book burning and mocking free speech (when they have said nothing which could reasonably be construed as doing so) is much better than accusing them of trolling.  The Jade Knight 11:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * this edit contains another straw man, misrepresenting both what I had said and the context in which it was said, implicating that I would suggest that 'since [someone's writing] is "less than ideal" they should stop subjecting us to their garbage'. The goal here was again to make (by use of loaded rhetoric) me or my suggestions look ludicrous, cruel, or otherwise bad.  It's important to remember that he is not quoting me, but assigning an entire statement to me only a small part of which I said, which part was taken out of context.  The Jade Knight 11:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * this edit contains another straw man; in this case JWSchmidt is accusing Cormaggio of wanting to restrict free spech. The Jade Knight 11:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I ran into the same thing: JWS has been asking questions with a false dilemna, or excluded middle, as well as false presumptions: "How long has it been since you've stopped beating your wife" type - and is interrogating people on en.wp with the same technique. "Why did KillerChihuahua make a bad block? Why did MastCell put the wrong reason? Why did Yamla endorse the bad block?" and it is hurtful and causing problems - but I'm not sure how to document it in this format. Its why I left the irc room, after a very short visit - JWS made spurious accusations, then twisted things around so that he accused me of lying in such a way that there was no answer I could give which would not either take a paragraph of refuting his false presumptions, or give an answer which made no sense. KillerChihuahua 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * }
 * }

Statement by User:JWSchmidt
Please transclude or post your material here.

Statements by other users
''This space is for formal statements by any other users who wish to make a formal statement. Less formal statements can be made on the talk pages, and will also be read. To make a formal statement, please create a subsection with ===Statement by User:....=== and sign your statement at the end. Statements may be discussed by other users.''

Further sections
In order to ensure fair procedure, further sections may be added on this page as and when necessary and/or desired - for example, to discuss decisions and sanctions, if any and if necessary.