Wikiversity talk:Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt

I've only known JW a short while, but sincerely hope that my instinct that he will respond to this without feeling overly stressed / attacked / upset is accurate. This is far, far from a neutral 'review' in my book, and I don't think it's healthy really. I'm happy to discuss why I think that, and ideas for ways forward, after a moment of reflection. Privatemusings 23:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Jimbo Wales
Today, Jimbo Wales said, "One idea that I would like to propose is an explicit ban on "case studies" using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals."

I know it may somehow be stated that this is not a case study, and I have a question: is there any notable people here on Wikiversity involved with this case? I don't know, but I look at this and think based on Wales's idea that the person clearly named in the title of this page is notable. It is obvious that those that wrote this page actually feel otherwise. Hmmm.

If this page could be presented in hypothetic statements, it is not ready. I suggest recovery before someone gets hurt, and I feel what Jimbo Wales said above in his idea is a recovery step that all participants agree upon.

Sorry, I know you all probably hate me now for pointing this out. Dzonatas 00:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dzonatas. Good question, and one with some good answers. It is mainly a question of appropriate forums, appropriate authority, appropriate circumstances and appropriate means. The behaviour criticised by Jimbo is the poor habit of dressing up mainspace attack pages as "learning projects" and aiming them at people who have not done any serious wrong. What we have here is placed in an appropriate forum (subpage of the "request custodian action" page in the Wikiversity namespace); it is properly authorised by several bureaucrats and was indeed requested by JWS himself; and the need for and quality of the review is hopefully very much higher than those bogus "case studies". I hope this answer is satisfactory. --McCormack 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck out the word "bogus" as I must admit I haven't had time to read and analyse all of them. My adjective was too sweeping. --McCormack 06:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could not have a community discussion about an issue that some members of the community find problematic, we could not have a functional community. This is quite different from a "learning project" - even if we (as I do) hope to learn something from it. Cormaggio talk 08:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Behavior reviews are quite common at Wikipedia: reviewing proposals for adminship, reviewing blocks on users, reviewing the behavior of admins, etc. This is administrative in nature, and something Wales clearly supports.  The Jade Knight 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"" - Time changes
Time changes. Many of these complaints are on edits in the earlier history of wikiversity, in a time when policies, established practices and even participants were fewer.

It has often been said that policies in the English wikipedia (and many other projects) should be and are descriptive, not prescriptive. It can also be argue that John Schmidt was making some of these, edits in good faith as representing the community practices; and he was just taking the "bold" part of the "consensus flowchart":.

Wikiversitians interested in such matters have had plenty of time to review the matters.This has indeed taken place to some of the edits. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hillgentleman. It would be nice to assume good faith. The incident which points in a different direction is the case when JWS tried to prevent SB_Johnny from de-officialising the incorrectly officialised policy, and the kind of arguments JWS deployed on that occasion against the recognition of consensus (case 21). --McCormack 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The emotional Erkan
I find this a very very sad moment for Wikiversity - this is not a point which I thought Wikiversity would reach one day. "What outcome does everyone want here?" (copy+paste) Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erkan, I'm also very sad, and I'm hurting for Wikiversity. My ideal outcome here would be that we can learn from our experiences, and endeavour to make Wikiversity stronger as a result. I hope John will continue to play a central role in that process. Cormaggio talk 08:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:JWSchmidt moved from project page
When you requested a review of three issues I responded. "numerous discussions on IRC and on-wiki" <-- I think it is important to describe these "discussions". Everyone should read them. We can start with Dude! in which you said "I'm not going to try to have a discussion with you". Please explain how such non-discussion-discussions could possibly resolve anything. Is it fair for you to go before the community and claim that "lesser options than this review have already been exhausted" when I've begged you and others repeatedly to tell me what was bothering you and you repeatedly refused tell me? How does your repeated refusal to tell me what was bothering you constitute "attempts to resolve the case"? --JWSchmidt 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted asking you to cool it as you were posting on 2 pages (several posts here, and one particularly sarcastic post here), when you were taking a very snide approach to several of your fellow contributors. You responded with a sarcastic comment on my talk, and then started in with the whole "pony meme" thing. Given the way you had just treated other people who were being critical of how you were approaching this, why on earth would I assume you would engage in constructive dialog with me (especially since you had already thrown two barbs)? You've been "throwing your weight around" very inappropriately lately, and if you want to use this confrontational style, you should not also be holding tools (it's the difference between holding a pair of pruners while talking, and holding a pair of pruners while yelling). --SB_Johnny talk 08:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * SB_Johnny: Yes, both you and KC are experts at gaming the system by not answering questions asked of you by other editors...its a great way to throw your weight around. When you play that game, I'll point it out. Its your choice. Its your game. Of course, you could just try talking to other people. --JWSchmidt 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That reply is a good example, actually. 'Nuff said. --SB_Johnny talk 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Johnny,  There seems to be much misunderstanding in these discussions.  Which was the first comment that you found sarcastic?  Hillgentleman|Talk 10:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've forked
Since McCormack won't let me edit his page, I've moved to this page. --JWSchmidt 08:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not insinuate that this is "my" page; you were continually posting your talk page comments in inappropriate places, so I kindly made some subpage links for you, hyperlinked from exactly the introductory sections you wished to comment on. These were edits designed to help you express yourself fairly without disrupting the page. I wish you would see that I was trying to help. --McCormack 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier if all the the discussion is on one page, and reserve the talk page for discussion of the discussion? --SB_Johnny talk 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe JWSchmidt's comments should be included on this page. That said, I do not think they belong where they were placed, above all the case studies, but after: let the "evidence" be presented, and then let JWSchmidt prepare counter evidence (either section-by-section, in the appropriate place, or down at the bottom in one go, or a combination of the two).  The Jade Knight 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jade Knight. Yes - I came to a similar conclusion as you. I reckoned that rather than putting his comments down that page under evidence or at the bottom, it would be fairer to add a more prominent link within the pertinent section - did you see my subpage links for JWS? I think I was trying to be even more accommodating to his needs by letting him have a couple of links right up near the top of the page. --McCormack 08:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A side note here: I do believe very strongly in fair procedure, and will try hard to ensure that this is permitted. --McCormack 09:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he should at least also get a link under every case study to respond; unless, of course, he is welcome to respond to specific case studies here (which would be better). The Jade Knight 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the "discussion" sections are supposed to be for just that purpose. I think (using my vaunted ESP powers) that McCormack didn't want subheadings and signed comments in the preamble sections. Both sides are sensible though: comments on the preamble are essentially comments about the page itself (and so should be on the talk page), but there are points and claims made in the preamble that may need responding to (and thus should be on the content page). As long as it's somewhere easy to find, all's fine IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. So he's welcome to post under the case studies, but for the headers he should post on the sub-pages or talk pages?  That sounds reasonable to me.  The Jade Knight 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McCormack: I did not post talk page comments. Your repeated reversion of my edits shows your attempt to own the page. Fine, its all yours. --JWSchmidt 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JWS. When one edits a wiki, one can normally see which sections are for discussion/comment and which are not by the way previous users have edited a page. If people are signing their names, it's a discussion section. One doesn't normally add signed comments in sections of project pages where people are not signing, because that's part of the main text. However if a project page has a special section marked out for discussion, one can add signed comments there. You seemed to wish to put a signed comment in a main content section where other users were not signing and which was not marked out for discussion. This makes it a talk page comment. However I tried to create a prominent place for you where you could nevertheless have a project page at your disposal, but you declined to use it. --McCormack 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McCormack: you created a device for poisoning the well in your page. I tried to correct the problem and you reverted me. You own the page. Have fun. --JWSchmidt 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JWS. I do not think that correcting your misplaced edits is sufficient evidence of page ownership. Many editors have constructively edited your review page without the need for intervention by custodians; there has only been one editor who has caused trouble. I have endeavoured to modify the page to give you plenty of opportunity to express your views with decorum. --McCormack 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw men
I know this page seems exhaustive, but I've seen no explicit discussion of JWSchmidt's use of straw men. Would this be an appropriate forum to discuss them? The Jade Knight 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please just get it all out in the open so we can discuss it and move on :-). --SB_Johnny talk 08:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not really interested in digging up all examples, but I've already pointed out 4 examples of him using straw men in this very section. The Jade Knight 09:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there can't possibly be many more ;-). I meant to say that if something's bothering you and you want to add a section about it, you should of course do that. --SB_Johnny talk 10:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it bothers me, but making those sections look like a lot of work. The Jade Knight 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can start by describing what bothers you here in the talk page. Don't let the section structure put you off, if there are things that are bothering you.  It can always be copied to a section later.  --mikeu talk 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the comments by Jade Knight and KillerChihuahua into case 41. I believe this reflects their wishes. --McCormack 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I am worried by the tone of this thread:

If this project page is to be a review of John Schmidt's contributions, why are his errors scrutinised in such details but none of his positive contributions? A one-sided picture would often skew the perspectives and the weights of the matters.Hillgentleman|Talk 10:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. What you linked to was not a thread, but a single (minor) edit.  I'll assume you were referring to the thread, however, and not the edit.
 * 2. It may be perfectly appropriate to make a section on JWSchmidt's "good deeds".  That said, a lot of good does not excuse a lot of bad in a custodian at Wikiversity.  The reason his usage of straw men is particularly troubling to me is because using straw men is a rhetorically effective but dishonest way of arguing.  It is, in the world of logical discourse, tantamount to lying.  The Jade Knight 10:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused
There is something else bugging me about this, and I don't know if SB Johnny has considered what I'm about to say. There are these two pages Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Loud and Combative and Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies/Controversy or disruption that have questionable content in the history. I moved/forked the pages, but I'm not really the author of the content of those. I know the subject of this review is also not the author of the content of those pages, either. Given the questionable nature of that content in comparison to the weight of the recent block action and "dressed up" nature (as stated earlier on this page), I'm confused to why SB Johnny granted sysop bits to the author of that content but then asked to take away the bits of the subject of this review. Something just doesn't add up about that, and that kind of alienated me, and I think it needs to be pointed out before we move on. Parody can be quite intimidating at times, but I still feel that the subject of this review did not cross the line to purposely antagonize someone as so directly stated in the "dressed up" nature of the two case studies. I know someone is going respond to this about the weight of case enumeration on this review, so I'll just ask if it has been noted the amount of "learning resources," that the subject of this review, has created and the amount of "learning resources," that the author of those two "dressed up case studies" who has received sysop bits, has created? Dzonatas 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The main difference in my eyes is that one individual has publicly apologized and changed tack, ie, there is a clear indication that such activities will no longer be created. Moreover, the author of those two pages has requested deletion of them so that the offending material will no longer exist at Wikiversity.  If JWSchmidt had apologized, entirely changed his way of approaching Wikiversity, and deleted his controversial "learning" projects, this review would never have happened.  That said, I do think it was a little premature to give Salmon of Doubt those "bits" so quickly; I would have given him at least a few more weeks to prove himself.  The Jade Knight 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (after e/c) Looks to me like he created some content, was accused of contributing in bad faith, and then redacted when he felt his contributions weren't being taken seriously (or perhaps taken the wrong way), and then they were re-added by someone else with accusatory additions. He requested deletion, but thus far no-one has obliged, and he of course won't because he's an involved party. I personally won't delete because it's too much work to parse out where that content came from and what it's for. He should be given the courtesey of not participating in a project where he feels his contributions are being dismissed and mocked though, don't you think? Bring it up on requests for deletion for discussion there if you want to resolve it. --SB_Johnny talk 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Dzonatas 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)