Wikiversity

Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions

< Wikiversity:Community Review
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Problematic actions

edit

Note: this community discussion has been censored, time and time again.

I was asked to open a review of problematic actions. This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page notifications of Custodians who are part of this community review: Abd, Adambro, Darklama, Ottava Rima, Cormaggio, Diego Grez. JWSchmidt is the subject of another community review.

Note: This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. This community review is not a "user conflict" review.
Note: This review is a work in progress.
Note: Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. Note: Sections of this review have been moved to a separate page:

Actions of custodians and other Wikimedia functionaries

edit

Note: some related discussion of other Wikimedia functionaries was moved to these page:

candidates

edit

Many valuable Wikiversity community members stopped participating in response to the disruption of Wikiversity by outside forces. Should everyone who resigned their Custodianship in protest automatically be given it back?

Return of lost Custodians
edit

Many valuable Wikiversity participants could be invited back.

Discussion:
Why have valued members of the Wikiversity community resigned their Custodianship and left the project? --JWSchmidt 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

false log entries

edit

Care needs to be taken about the accuracy of log entries. Does it make sense to call good faith edits "vandalism?" Does it make sense to revert good faith edits and treat them like vandalism? If an edit is not obvious vandalism, shouldn't it be viewed with an assumption of good faith?

Needed: Clear guidelines about what constitutes Vandalism.
Needed: An end to calling good faith edits "disruption" and "vandalism". See the proposal for making an official Wikiversity policy on vandalism.

Please discuss these examples:

Example of a falsified log entry. Discussion


Example of a falsified log entry used to "justify" censorship of Wikiversity. A few sysops tag-team revert war so as to censor Wikiversity, but that does not justify their censorship of good faith edits made by an IP editor.

No such threat was made.

Remark to Abd (via the Recent Changes "Twitter Wire"):
  • Abd, please explain how you inferred "IP threatens to revert war".
Where was any such threat? There was only a friendly edit summary saying that a 3-day IP block was excessive, unnecessary, and pointless, since it only takes three minutes to power-cycle the wireless router and pull down a virgin IP from a pool. Constructive contributions to Wikiversity community discussions should not be disrupted by censorship. --JWSchmidt 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I am engaging in is a congenial educational conversation (carried out primarily via the affordances of the Recent Changes "Twitter Wire"). Moulton 15:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Log entry: "Repeat disruptive editing of pages". The good faith edits made from that IP were not disruptive.

Log entry: "Repeat disruptive editing of pages". Request: Adambro, please list the disruptive edits.

Log entry: "Repeat disruptive editing of pages". Request: Adambro, please list the disruptive edits.

Log entry: "Repeat disruptive editing of pages". Request: Adambro, please list the disruptive edits.

Log entry: "([[User:Moulton)]]) :Request: Adambro, why is a link to a user page a reason for a block?

Log entry:block evasion by User:Moulton. Request: Adambro, what block were you referring to? (User:Moulton was not blocked on July 20) Please specify the disruptive edits.

Log entry: 01:18, 26 July 2010 Adambro protected Music and learning [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (disruption). Adambro, please list the disruptive edits.

Log entry: 01:17, 26 July 2010 Adambro deleted Music and learning ‎ (Beyond scope: content was: '431pxIn this learn by doing project, we will each explore our own ...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributi). Music and learning is not "beyond scope".

Log entry: 25 July 2010 Adambro deleted User:Beetlebaum ‎ (Beyond scope: content was: 'Be Happy]]I'm better known as User:JWSchmidt. I created this account so I coul...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contribution) User:Beetlebaum was a harmless user page.

Log entry: 13:06, 25 July 2010 Adambro blocked User:Beetlebaum with an expiry time of infinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: exacerbating problems by writing songs etc mocking other users) Adambro, provided no evidence to support his accusations. Adambro did not address the unblock request, he simply said "No". There was no abuse of accounts. After Adambro imposed this bad block without warning, Adambro incorrectly did not allow another Custodian to review the block nor did Adambro make any attempt to respond to the specifics of the unblock request.

Log entry: 02:52, 29 July 2020 Adambro protected Wikiversity:Community Review/Moulton's talk page (block evasion by banned user using multiple IPs). It has been claimed that User:Moulton was community banned, but no evidence of a ban has been provided.

the page deletion tool

edit

See the discussion of misuse of the delete tool.

the block tool

edit

Discussions of misguided and disruptive blocking practices:

See the proposal for an Official policy on blocking.

giving warnings
edit

At Wikiversity, community members are given warnings before blocks are imposed.

No warning given when the account of a Wikiversity community member was blocked:

Adambro, don't you think a block warning should include the word "block"? Custodians must cite policy or provide a link to a community discussion establishing consensus when giving a warning. Custodians should provide evidence to support their accusations before initiating serious actions. If there were any problematical edits they could have been corrected by editing. A block was a misuse of Custodial tools. --JWSchmidt 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion of custodians who do not cite policy or community consensus when giving a warning and Custodians who do not explain what the warned Wikiversity community member did wrong:

block review
edit

Wikiversity sysops have developed two bad habits related to requests for review of blocks:
1) not responding to the points raised in an unblock request (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4)
and
2) rejecting an unblock request for a block that they imposed (example 1, example 2).

Unblock requests must be reviewed by an uninvolved, objective Custodian.

community consensus
edit

Custodian actions must be based on existing Wikiversity community consensus.

"I felt the block would facilitate discussion" <-- Custodians can only block obvious vandals without first leaving a warning on the user's talk page. One of the most abhorrent abuses of Custodial power is preventing Wikiversity community members from participating in discussions. It is not acceptable to block a Wikiversity participant and prevent them from participating in forums such as community reviews of the blocked participant. It is not good practice for a few Custodians to be making block decisions on an obscure page that is unknown to most Wikiversity community members. Such shady practices produce the appearance of there being a ruling Custodian Cabal. Past abuses of Custodial power taking taking place at Wikiversity:Request custodian action are a major subject for community discussion at this community review. Discuss first, before a block. The community decides on blocks by consensus. The Wikiversity community needs an official blocking policy to restrain rogue sysops. --JWSchmidt 14:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: There is a related problem of important wiki matters such as blocks being discussed in the #wikiversity-en chat channel rather than in an on-wiki community forum. See: Decisions made off-wiki.

block duration
edit

See User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10.

blocking talk page access
edit

Wikiversity community members should be allowed to use their talk page while blocked and use the email feature with fellow community members.

blacklist/whitelist
edit

The Wikiversity community needs to review how these lists are being used.

Discussion
Note, John, that if you visit any of the existing subpages in the w:User:Moulton or w:User_talk:Moulton namespaces on the English Wikipedia, you will find this error message upon trying to edit them (e.g. to update broken links).

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

"Usually used to prevent vandalism" eh? But those pages are not vandalism. They've never even been called vandalism, not even by my most misguided critics. So they are "Title Blacklisted" and locked for an unspecified reason. My theory is that the unarticulated reason for silencing my voice is that those exercising the power to lock down those pages took exception to my admittedly annoying practice of speaking the truth to power.

Traditionally, when it was dangerous for an adult to openly speak the truth to power, the truth was spoken through nursery rhymes and through iconic characters in puppet shows.

Moulton 10:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible remedy. Post a request for Custodial action and review/repair of the blacklist/whitelist. All changes to the blacklist/whitelist should be by community consensus. --JWSchmidt 10:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

welcoming new users

edit

This is an interesting, and thus far empty section. Reading through a lot of this I am left to wonder. Am I an outside wikibookian hitman against JWS? Am I a rouge wikipedian, just another person bringing the banhammer culture. I certainly have edited at those wiki's intensively at one point or another. At what point do I become a member of the community, how am I to be classified? Does my complaints against Moulton at requests for custodial action influence these answers? Does it matter that these after making these complaints I accidently may have broken policy (In all honesty I have not read all the policies here and I am editing on, shall we say "gut instinct"). Do I count as a new user? I have very few edits, but they span many years. And just to lighten things up a bit, have I finally understood the utility of Darklama's habit of asking many questions?

Because it seems much of the proclaimed problems centers around actions taken by outsiders versus community members.

Let me further directly ask the question, are the custodians community members or are they to be thought of as wikipedians here to bring banhammer down upon us? If the answer is a mixed, which are which? Thenub314 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, once you click the "edit" button you are a member of the Wikiversity community. In 2008 a Wikipedian created a sock puppet account at Wikiversity and declared his intention to get User:Moulton banned from participation at Wikiversity. Even such an openly destructive editor was welcomed and engaged in collaborative learning activities. I think it is best if everyone speak their mind openly so that discussion can deal with any conflicts. Speaking for myself, complaints are always welcome: let me know what is on your mind. I've known Moulton for almost two years and I believe he is also quite open to honest criticism, as long as he is free to respond to it, and not subjected to show trials. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you are interested in developing learning resources and collaborative learning you are an "insider" at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the majority of my questions, not really. Let me explain why I am asking the last question. Above, in the section on outside intervention, you have point to edits by Adambro with the text "outside". The implication seems to be that your classifying Adambro as an outsider. Which the image seems to confirm. This seems to be at conflict with the statement "once you click the 'edit' button your a member of the Wikiversity community". Just so I understand things properly, is Adambro an outsider? Thenub314 10:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone comes to Wikiversity and acts as an outsider, say, by acting on a decision that was made outside of Wikiversity and only discussed at Wikipedia, then that is an outside intervention into Wikiversity affairs. For convenience, I sometimes refer to people who act in that way as "outsiders". In the specific case you mentioned, Adambro acted so as to support the outside intervention rather than support the previously established Wikiversity consensus. --JWSchmidt 12:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, many of the edits I make our "outside" edits in this sense. Most of the edits I make end up being discussed with my office mate, just as he discusses many of his Freedom of Information Act requests with me. If I feel like I undo someone's edit to a math article because I feel it is absolute nonsense and my office mate happens to agree is that an outside decision because it was discussed off wiki? What about the existence of meta, one of whose primary goals is to coordinate efforts. If people aren't expected to react on their home wiki about conversations they had there I don't know what the point of it is. Ironically the decision that brings me here to wikiversity was was made outside wikiversity, and discussed only at wikipedia. Care to guess what the decision was? (.... and peaking is no fair). Thenub314 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If I feel like I undo someone's edit to a math article because I feel it is absolute nonsense and my office mate happens to agree is that an outside decision because it was discussed off wiki?" Your example has nothing to do with what we have been discussing. If you edit so as to improve Wikiversity, say, fix a math error, then you are not going against community consensus and damaging Wikiversity. Such editing is exactly what everyone is invited to do. We were discussing people who make decisions about deleting pages and blocking Wikiversity community members, making those decisions at Wikipedia, and then imposing them upon the Wikiversity community, against Wikiversity community consensus. "If people aren't expected to react on their home wiki about conversations they had there I don't know what the point of it is." I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If someone at the meta-wiki makes a decision about Wikiversity, then they should come and discuss the matter with the the Wikiversity community. "Care to guess what the decision was?" Not really. If you are here to learn and develop Wikiversity learning resources I don't care how you came to be here. --JWSchmidt 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not only discussing page deletions and bloking. If I understand correctly we are also discussing removing content from pages that one finds inappropriate. If I have read correctly thus far Mike.lifegaurd's edits were not to delete or block people, but to remove some content from a users page. His actions are listed as outside intervention because he discussed them at another wiki. Many of my decisions are discussed on another wiki or by email. Why aren't my actions those of an outsider? Thenub314 06:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In September 2008 there was removal of User:Jon Awbrey user page content by User:Mike.lifeguard who cited the authority of another wiki. The reason seems to be found in this discussion. However, I doubt if the rules at the meta-wiki for global blacklisting were intended to be used to prevent a Wikiversity participant from posting their credentials and learning interests on their user talk page. So this example is about removing harmless links from a Wikiversity user page. Rather than accept the fact that Wikiversity encourages community members to share information about their learning interests, User:Mike.lifeguard imposed an external decision that should only have applied to disruptive edits, not the harmless user talk page content that he repeatedly removed. Many Wikiversity community members become upset when harmless user pages get censored by misguided Wikimedia functionaries who don't discuss their actions with the Wikiversity community. "Why aren't my actions those of an outsider?" If you edit so as to improve Wikiversity, say, fix a math error, then you are not going against community consensus and damaging Wikiversity. Such editing is exactly what everyone is invited to do. --JWSchmidt 09:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

failure to respond to questions and requests

edit

When Wikimedia functionaries fail to respond to questions and requests from the community, it creates a lack of trust and appearance of a Cabal that is beyond accountability to the community. Examples:

8 September 2008 User:Mike.lifeguard fails to discuss his deletion of user page content with the Wikiversity community
User:Mike.lifeguard deleted a large amount of content from the user page of User:Jon Awbrey. Wikiversity participants are free to describe their learning interests on their user pages. It is common practice for scholars to describe their background and interests and doing so facilitates scholarly collaborations such as those that are welcome at Wikiversity. This major edit was deceptively marked by User:Mike.lifeguard as being a minor edit. Another editor returned the user page content and advised User:Mike.lifeguard to discuss his concerns at the Wikiversity:Colloquium so that there could be a full community discussion. Rather than participate in a community discussion at Wikiversity, User:Mike.lifeguard made a threat and again deleted the content.


11 November 2008 User:Mike.lifeguard refusal to answer questions as a custodian candidate See


12 December 2008 User:Jimbo Wales Unanswered Questions and Unfinished Threads when he did wholesale deletions, out of process.

3 August 2009 User:Adambro fails to respond to questions from the Wikiversity community during discussion of his Custodial candidacy.

24 March 2010 Question and Request for User:Jimbo Wales at User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Mr. Wales, I would like to have a point clarified. Did you get foundation authorisation before or after your sysop actions without community support? Regards. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation" <-- I'd like to see a public record of the vote by the Board where the Board members all agreed that someone from outside of the Wikiversity community can, in a non-emergency situation, over-ride the Wikiversity community procedures for page deletion, blocking and desysoping. --JWSchmidt 14:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


11 April 2010 Questions for SJ at Talk:Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010

On a personal level, are you saying that you assume bad faith on the part of Privatemusings with respect to the purpose of the deleted learning project? --JWSchmidt 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you would think that - it is not the case at all. I assume good faith on pm's part, as I know him to be a decent fellow, and chatted with him about this drama shortly after it started. The recent reworking of the project as 'ways to detect and prevent hoaxes' seems like a fine way to proceed. –SJ+>
"I'm not sure why you would think that" <-- The thought occurred to me because you have voiced your support for deletion of a harmless Wikiversity learning project, saying "it certainly merited deletion". Mr. Wales has justified his actions at Wikiversity by stating that he was dealing with "trolling". I wanted to know if you assumed that Privatemusings was trolling by creating the "ethical breaching experiments" project. I find your stated reasons in support of deletion to be inadequate. If there were weaknesses in the project, the correct solution was to click "edit" and improve the project. I am shocked that you appear to believe that Mr. Wales has been authorized by the Foundation to to perform out-of-process deletion of a harmless learning resource, authorized by the Foundation to inflict out-of-process blocks on honest Wikiversity participants who violated no rules or policies, blocks imposed with no warning or discussion and no justification beyond the uncivil label of "troll" having been applied, authorized to perform an emergency deysop on a Wikiversity Custodian when no emergency existed and authorized to threaten the closure of Wikiversity in an attempt to prevent his unwelcome intervention from being challenged. I'm surprised that you and Sue imply that that Mr. Wales is authorized to act as the Foundation's agent to exercise editorial control at Wikiversity. Do you really expect thoughtful scholars to participate at Wikiversity under such conditions? --JWSchmidt 02:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SJ: [no reply]


13 April 2010 Requests for User:Jimbo Wales and SJ at Talk:Wikiversity open letter project/WMF Board March 2010

To make a clarification of something that Sj said here - before I took action on Wikiversity, I sought, and obtained, the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue posted publicly in support of my actions, as well. SJ is right that I didn't seek - nor should I have, nor will I ever in similar cases - a vote of the board before taking right action in defense of Wikiversity.--Jimbo Wales 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"right action in defense of Wikiversity" <-- The Wikiversity community would welcome justified and responsible "defense of Wikiversity". In this case, what we are dealing with is out-of-process deletion of a learning resource that explicitly tried to improve Wikimedia wiki projects. In this case, we are dealing with out-of-process blocks of Wikiversity participants who violated no policy or rule. In this case, we are dealing with an out-of-process emergency desysop procedure imposed when no emergency existed. I'd like to see an explicit public statement of support for these actions by Mr. Wales: a resolution from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. The Trustees manage the Foundation and are the ultimate corporate authority for the Wikimedia Foundation. The Board needs to state publicly that it has authorized Mr. Wales to exercise editorial control at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


14 April 2010 User:Adambro falsely accused User:JWSchmidt of "silly attacks on Jimbo"

User:Adambro:
"silly attacks on Jimbo"
User:Adambro: [no reply]
11 July 2010
edit

"Always give reasoning and appropriate warnings before applying sanctions"

User:JWSchmidt:
I call upon User:Darklama and User:Adambro to allow their record as #wikiversity-en channel ops to be examined by the Wikiversity community. Do you give permission for logs of your kicks and bans to be posted at the Colloquium? (source)
14 July 2010
edit
User:JWSchmidt:
Adambro, please list the actions that justified you starting this thread and violating my privacy. (source)
  • [no reply]
15 July 2010
edit
User:JWSchmidt:
What Wikiversity policy allows for massive (look in the edit log!) disruptive censorship of Wikiversity community discussions?
  • [custodian replies to this question]:


"simply enforcing blocks" <-- Abd, please quote from the Wikiversity policy that says you can disrupt a Wikiversity community discussion by repeatedly removing a good faith contribution to the discussion.
  • Abd: [no reply]

See also: "I'm not responding here"

Why do you think this is an acceptable way to participate in a community review? (source)

16 July 2010
edit

Adambro, do you think it is reasonable for #wikiversity-en channel operatives to state the reasons for their kicks and bans? (source)

Abd, you came to this page and made a large number of claims. Custodians have a special obligation to explain themselves to Wikiversity community members. You asked for one question, so here is one: when you wrote "there is no hope" did you expect that would relieve you of your responsibility to explain the many assertions about my "problems" that you made on this page? (source)

17 July 2010
edit

"JWS, you have praised and condoned some of the actions which legitimated Moulton's block" <-- Abd, please list the Wikiversity policy violations that justified a block of Moulton. Abd, please link to evidence that I condoned those policy violations. "if you continue this, you are still in danger" <-- Abd, please explain. Are you saying that if I continue to seek justice for a wikiversity community member who was subjected to a bad block that was imposed against community consensus then I am in danger? Abd, please specify that danger. (source)


"he refuses to promise what I've asked him to refrain from doing" <-- Ottava Rima, what did you ask him do do and on what authority? Ottava Rima, what Wikiversity policy do you think he will violate? (source)

Question for Darklama: does "Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else" mean that you kicked me from #wikiversity-en and told me that I was banned, and you did so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Who imposed the ban that you were enforcing? When was it imposed? Please state the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it. If you do not know the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it, then why did you enforce it? If you did not know the duration of the ban, then why did you enforce it? --JWSchmidt 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

20 July 2010
edit

Adambro, what block were you referring to? "a custodian will take action as appropriate" <-- It has been more than three days since I made a request for a simple Custodial action. Adambro, do you think this was an "appropriate" response to my learning needs? (source)

21 July 2010
edit

With all due respect, do you have any evidence that Moulton is "attacking others"? Is there also anywhere that I can see him presenting his defense, and cross-examining the witnesses? Can you exhibit the record of Due Process, or exhume the cover up? Thanks, Rock drum (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) source[reply]

Adambro, you were given the name of a Wikiversity user account that was obtained by checkuser. You then decided to reveal my IP address. Why did you do that? Why did you start a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? --JWSchmidt 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

Adambro, why did you ban me from the chat channel? --JWSchmidt 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

The following discussion took place at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. When blocking User:Moulton on 21 July 2010, User:Ottava Rima said, "block stays until Moulton gives up his attacks on others". As shown below, User:Ottava Rima refuses to list the "attacks".

  • Once Moulton started pretending to have multiple puppet characters, started mocking people through "song parodies", and started tossing away their real names in a harassing manner, he lost the status of an "expert". Moulton was never a normal participant of Wikiversity as he never treated others per our social standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I did not adopt your "social standards" as I do not believe that Bondage and Discipline are an appropriate social practice for use in an authentic learning community. —Moulton 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cowardly anonymous hitman from Wikipedia harasses a Wikiversity scholar with the stated intention of getting the scholar banned and you object to Moulton writing a song? "our social standards"? our social standards? Ottava Rima is it your vision that Wikiversity accepts all manner of horrors but rejects the healthy practice of using the name of a colleague? Nay! Nay, I say! "tossing away their real names in a harassing manner" <-- This is not Wikipedia, at Wikiversity we don't have to pretend that using someone's name is harassment. Colleagues in a learning community gladly refer to each other by name. If you want to impose Wikipedia's destructive rules on Wikiversity then put it into policy. --JWSchmidt 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't want to abide by common community standards, then put it into policy. There is no acceptable excuse for such behavior. No amount of "he did worse" is ever a justification. If you want to change that, put up a policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that using someone's name is "bad" is a Wikipedia invention. In authentic learning institutions colleagues refer to each other by name. Until the invaders from Wikipedia arrived in 2008 may of us happily used each others real names from 2006-2008 and there was no problem. I don't accept you suggestion that Wikipedia's rule was ever the standard of behavior at Wikiversity. The imposition of a Wikipedia rule against using names of fellow Wikiversity participants needs to be put into policy. --JWSchmidt 04:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? The whole world is using what Wikipedia uses - we refer to others based on the name -they- choose. The name I chose here is Ottava Rima. You refer to me as Ottava Rima. You have no right to attribute some other name to me because you feel you have an ability to override my ability to name myself. That is how reality works. It is not my fault that Moulton is unwilling to act towards others with the most basic of courtesy. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The whole world is using what Wikipedia uses" <-- We must be from different planets. Ottava Rima, what real world learning community allows dogs and fish and bears, hiding under puppet masks, to come in and harass the resident scholars? At what real world educational institution would anonymous animal puppets be allowed to publish false claims about a scholar and then bash him over the head with a banhammer? If your attempt at anonymity has failed, if preventing other Wikiversity community members from knowing your name is so important to you, then you can start a new Wikiversity user account. But rather than do that, why not proudly make an account using your real name? --JWSchmidt 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We must be from different planets." My thoughts exactly. Now, measure which side you are on and then realize you are on that side because you reject the structures of reality. You can come back a any time but you chose not to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion, above, took place at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. When blocking User:Moulton on 21 July 2010, User:Ottava Rima said, "block stays until Moulton gives up his attacks on others". User:Ottava Rima refused to list the "attacks". --JWSchmidt 12:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related community review page section.

Thenub314: "But do we really keep a POV resource when the only person to suggest or agree with this POV later decides it should be taken down?" (source)

Jtneill: [No Reply]

Since a failure to reply is considered a problematic action, I thought I should report one more instance. It didn't personally bother me, I think choosing not to reply is within any editors rights, and custodians are just editors with tools. But perhaps others feel differently. Thenub314 06:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt - have responded here. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22 July 2010
edit

The following "discussion" took place at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. Ottava Rima claims that Moulton is banned, but fails to provide evidence.

Ottava Rima, I don't trust your judgment. Why do you think you can impose a block without providing evidence that Moulton was banned? Why did you accuse a Wikiversity community member of being a sock puppet and do you seriously claim that you can do anything not forbidden by policy? Why do you think you can bully other Wikiversity community members and fail to respond to questions and requests from the community? Ottava Rima, why do you rudely dismiss my request? Are you suggesting that it is "obsessive" for me to want to know why Adambro is misusing his channel ops tools and disrupting the Wikiversity chat channel? The chat channel is not for calling someone out, issuing orders or bashing scholars with the banhammer. --JWSchmidt 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a comment made by Mikeu on Moulton's deleted talk page. It was as true then as it is now:
Quote: If anything, the fact that jimbo was the one to block you only makes it more likely that there would be consensus to overturn the block based on members of the community commenting that it was improper for him to have acted in this case. I see very little support (at this time) for unblocking you on the grounds that it was unjustified. In any case, I did just undo his block of you and used the same reasons when reblocking that I would have used if he had not stepped in when he did. You are free to respond to Wikiversity:Community Review#User:Moulton in any way that you'd like; I'm just informing you that this means is not likely to help you much. Unblocking to "refute a hypothesis" is not a valid reason. (Nor was it stated in "plain english") --mikeu talk 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We had this community discussion for three months after the block and for two months before the block. Why do you pretend that we didn't? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Why do you pretend that we didn't?" <-- I have not pretended anything, and I find your insinuation that I have to be offensive. If Moulton was community banned then you should be able to provide a link to the community discussion where the community decided to ban him. I request that you please provide a link to the community discussion where the community decided to ban Moulton or remove your unjustified block against Moulton's editing. The link that you provided above (Wikiversity:Community Review#User:Moulton) leads to a page that says nothing about Moulton being banned. --JWSchmidt 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted one user. You have my own statement about Moulton. I can quote others. There was community consensus to affirm the ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, either link to the community discussion where the community decided to ban Moulton or remove your unjustified block against Moulton's editing. Alternatively, another custodian should remove the block. --JWSchmidt 16:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above "discussion" took place at Wikiversity:Request custodian action.

Related community review page section.

23 July 2010
edit

Cormaggio, please list examples of Moulton's trolling or retract your accusation that Moulton has a long track record of trolling." (source)

Related community review page section.

25 July 2010
edit

Adambro, why have you presented no evidence to support your accusations? "criticism of other users" <-- Adambro, please list those criticisms so that the community can decide, by consensus, if you have justification for blocking this harmless account. "you mock other users" Adambro, please list any users who were mocked by Beetlebaum. "exacerbate current and past problems" <-- Adambro, you are disrupting progress towards my learning goals without any evidence that I did something wrong. "criticism dredging up past problems" <-- Adambro, please list the "problems" you are referring to and let the Wikiversity community decide by consensus if you have justification for blocking this harmless account. "legitimate learning activities" <-- Music and learning is a legitimate topic in education. Adambro, your deletion of that harmless Wikiversity learning resource is a disruption of both the Wikiversity Mission and the Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation and the subject of community review. --JWSchmidt 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

26 July 2010
edit

Why was Son of Beetlebaum blocked? "Don't know if this is ok, JW. You should wait until the situation is cleared up, please." What "situation"? Is this Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

29 July 2010
edit

Ottava Rima, compare the proposed Wikiversity policy wording: "Participants can through consensus remove facts and claims about living people that are believed to be inaccurate," to the policy at Wikipedia which says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Why should Wikiversity have standards that are lower than those used at Wikipedia? This policy needs more work. --JWSchmidt 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

See the related discussion at the proposal for developing a Wikiversity privacy policy.

30 July 2010
edit

Ottava Rima, why was Moulton singled out for his use of real world names when others such as KillerChihuahua were allowed to make statements such as "My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him." (see this discussion)? Ottava Rima, is it not true that the decision to ban Moulton from Wikiversity was made in secret, off wiki by just a few people? Ottava Rima, were you part of the secret off-wiki discussions where a few people decided to impose a ban on Moulton? Ottava Rima, is it true that Moulton was never community banned? Ottava Rima, please either respond at the community review or remove the block that you imposed on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 02:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

1 August 2010
edit

See: this related discussion.
Note: Wikiversity policy states that, "Custodians should always be able to explain how their actions support the Wikiversity project."

Adambro, why did you fail to respond to my request for an account of how your actions support the Wikiversity project? Adambro, please explain how your violations of Wikiversity policy and misuse of chat channel operator tools and your failure to explain your disruptive actions supports the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 16:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]


Darklama, does "Yes I was enforcing a ban by someone else" mean that you kicked me from #wikiversity-en and told me that I was banned, and you did so without any warning, discussion or reason provided? Who imposed the ban that you were enforcing? When was it imposed? Please state the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it. If you do not know the reason that was given for the ban by the channel operator who imposed it, then why did you enforce it? If you did not know the duration of the ban, then why did you enforce it? How does using the IRC kick and ban tools without explaining why they were used support the Wikiversity project? Darklama, how did your call for an unjustified block against my editing support the Wikiversity project? Darklama, how did this bad block support the Wikiversity project? --JWSchmidt 18:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (source}[reply]

3 August 2010
edit

See: this related discussion.
Note: Wikiversity policy states that, "Custodians should always be able to explain how their actions support the Wikiversity project."

Ottava Rima, how do your actions such as violations of policy, bullying, alienation of Wikiversity community members and preventing Wikiversity community members from collaborating with Moulton support the Wikiversity project? --JWSchmidt 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

emergency desysop

edit

Procedure. Removal from Custodian status (desysop) can be requested at the Wikimedia meta wiki. Stewards only implement valid community consensus. Custodianship decisions are made by community consensus with at least five days for community discussion. Emergency termination of custodianship should only be done if a Custodian's account is being used to disrupt Wikiversity. For example, there have been cases at Wikipedia where custodial accounts have been compromised and used to perform out-of-process page deletions or user blocks. Steward actions must comply with Wikiversity's policy on removal of Custodian rights, which specified seven days of community discussion.

Wikiversity history. There have been three occasions on which Wikiversity's policy on removal of Custodian rights was violated:

  • In 2008, a decision to desysop User:JWSchmidt was made in secret, off-wiki.

How can the Wikiversity community prevent future violations of Wikiversity's policy on removal of Custodian rights? Should Wikiversity Custodians who have been subjected to emergency desysop procedures, when no emergency existed, be immediately given back their Custodianship? How can Wikiversity bring back community members who were alienated by violations of Wikiversity's policy on removal of Custodian rights?

See also: The Wikiversity community needs protection against Custodians who make decisions off-wiki, including in #wikiversity-en. Important decisions such as removal of sysop tools from Custodians should be made in a Wikiversity community discussion. See: #wikiversity-en chat channel.

censorship

edit

There is on-going and repeated censorship of Wikiversity community discussions (one recent example, another example). What Wikiversity policy allows for the removal of constructive edits from community discussions? One excuse that has been used for this ongoing censorship of Wikiversity community discussions is that it is in response to violations of the Wikiversity Privacy Policy, but no evidence has been provided to support that claim.

It has also been claimed that this censorship is justified by "the principle of requiring, as a minimum, that a registered editor approve of an IP edit of a blocked user in order for it to stand in the current text"

Out of process deletion of learning resources:

In this learn by doing project, we will each explore our own musical interests while collaborating to document the ways that music stimulates learning.

Related reading


Discussion of censorship
edit

Can anyone quote language from a Wikiversity policy that provides justification for censorship of constructive edits that are made in Wikiversity community discussions? --JWSchmidt 12:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that this official WMF policy is the governing policy:
All WMF-sponsored projects are funded by tax-free donations to further the advertised educational mission of the Foundation. To my mind, it would be inappropriate and unwise to countenance arbitrary, capricious, and unjustified censorship of otherwise constructive and wholesome contributions that further the educational mission of these projects.
Barry Kort 04:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

policy violations

edit

Note: Many blocks imposed at Wikiversity that were not imposed to prevent repeated vandalism have been made in violation of Wikiversity policy. At Wikiversity, Custodians "block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community consensus". The block tool is for preventing vandalism. At Wikiversity, "blocking occurs in response to obvious and repeated vandalism". Some of the unjustified, policy-violating blocks are discussed at this community review.

Adambro and privacy
edit

User:Adambro requested and obtained checkuser data while investigating a harmless Wikiversity user account. User:Adambro then, acting on results from the checkuser action, improperly revealed the IP address of User:JWSchmidt. There was no reason for User:Adambro to reveal the IP address. The Wikiversity community should discuss if User:Adambro's action violates the letter or the spirit of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy.

Discussion
Adambro, please explain why you started this thread and the custodian action you were seeking when you revealed my IP address. --JWSchmidt 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy: Make the proposed Wikiversity:CheckUser policy official. See this proposal.

Adambro and rollback
edit

See: Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Policy development#Rollback

Adambro and civility
edit

Calling for or imposing unjustified blocks.
See: Civility

Ottava Rima and civility
edit

Calling for or imposing unjustified blocks.
See: Civility

Related: Ottava Rima removed a warning about incivility and was blocked for incivility.

I am a bit confused about why it is a problem that he took down the warning. I can understand being upset if he did not heed a warning, but the contents of his talk page are for him to edit. As far as I am concerned he can keep, archive or remove comments as he feels is appropriate. The important thing about a talk page is that you read the messages people leave for you there. Thenub314 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, editors are generally given discretion on what they keep on their Talk page. On the other hand, custodians are expected to be particularly sensitive and responsive to criticism, and the removal of the warning without consideration, in situ, of the content of the warning, was disrespectful of the relationship between the custodian and the community, for the custodian is a servant, and the privilege marks a certain expectation of superior conduct. This action in itself is not a major offense, particularly after a single, possibly disruptive user has repeatedly "warned" of what does not justify warning. But in context, that was not the case, and this was a serious action, for Ottava did in fact ignore the warning and proceed to repeat the alleged offense without discussion, and it is that which is more seriously a policy violation. By removal, Ottava was indeed acknowledging reception of the warning, that was an element in the ensuing block decision. He does have the right to remove warnings, but having that right does not make it advisable; removal without discussion can be a showing of contempt, though that did not enter into my block decision. On my Talk page, he called it a "fake warning." It was not fake, and that was proven. By ignoring the warning and by his ensuing actions, Ottava insured that all this would receive attention. --Abd 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abd and civility
edit

Calling for or imposing unjustified blocks.
See: Civility

Darklama and civility
edit

Calling for or imposing unjustified blocks.
See: Civility

Darklama and Custodianship
edit
User:Darklama improperly started a vote for making Abd a full custodian, in violation of the Wikiversity policy on Custodianship which specifies that community discussions of candidates for full custodian are initiated by the candidate's mentor. --JWSchmidt 14:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Wikiversity community cannot ignore policy? -- darklama  01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darklama, how is your question about the community relevant to this page section and what you did as an individual? As is being documented in this community review, a few rogue sysops have frequently violated Wikiversity policy and done great damage to the Wikiversity community. I believe that the community needs to protect itself from those rogue sysops and part of such protection is making sure that policy violations are discussed by the community. --JWSchmidt 02:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated discussion to establish community consensus, that is how my question about the community is relevant. How is sysops relevant to this page section? No tools were used. Any participate could of initiated discussion to establish community consensus. -- darklama  02:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"establish community consensus" <-- You ignored policy. If you wanted to establish consensus you would have gone to the talk page of the policy page and proposed changing the policy. Your action was part of a pattern of actions in which rogue sysops have violated Wikiversity policy and done great damage to the Wikiversity community, a pattern that is being documented in this community review. Policy explains how community discussion of candidates for full custodianship is initiated and you violated that policy. --JWSchmidt 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page would not of made sense, I wasn't proposing a change in policy. You have failed to explain how you think the Wikiversity community is damaged with any of your documentations for this community review.
There was also nothing to ignore. The Custodianship page does not say what to do if the 48 hour period isn't given, doesn't say what to do when a mentor is indecisive, and doesn't say that only a mentor can initiate community discussion for full custodianship. I haven't violated any policy as a result, which leaves you only to explain how the Wikiversity community is damaged. -- darklama  14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says: "If your mentor evaluates you fit for permanent custodianship, a request for comments will be submitted at Candidates for Custodianship for a period of five days." That is the one way to become a full custodian. Your attempt to create an alternative path to full custodianship ignored the policy. If you want to create new policy, go to the talk page of the policy page and proposed changing the policy. By violating the policy you created a disruptive argument and a forum for nonconstructive wrangling: a waste of time which has very real costs and damages the community. Here is an analogy: if you decided to start driving on the opposite side of the road from everyone else your personal decision would cause damage. In order to prevent disruption and damage we all follow existing rules or we propose a new way to do things. Custodians have an obligation to follow policy, not do anything they can imagine doing as long as it is not explicitly forbidden in policy. --JWSchmidt 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Custodianship does not say that is the one way to become a full custodian either. As I already said, I wasn't proposing to create a new policy. How was a disruptive argument created by what I did? Using a similar analogy: Another driver earlier drove on the wrong side of the road crashed and caused the normal path to be blocked/closed off, which means a detour on the other side of the road is now required, until the normal path can be cleared, and I am driving on other side of the road because of that detour. One person having not followed the rules to begin with created the circumstances in which there was a need to detour from what might be called normal expectations. A detour on roads can be a normal expectation to follow when a crash happens to due the rules normally followed having been ignored. People were basically arguing over whether people should continue to drive on a closed road or not, and whether it was appropriate for the road to be closed, instead of finding an alternative route that would allowed them to reach their destination. People use their imagine to solve problems when rules don't apply or have been ignored by others. I followed Wikiversity:Custodianship because it does not say what to do when someone else doesn't give 48 hours to find a new mentor nor what to do when a mentor is indecisive. There are no rules to follow when 48 hours to find a new mentor isn't given and when a mentor is indecisive, which means what to do is up to the discretion of individuals. -- darklama  11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Custodianship does not say that is the one way to become a full custodian either" <-- Darklama, Wikiversity policy is very concise and there are an infinite number of things that are not said there. It disrupts Wikiversity when a few rogue sysops ignore existing policy and try to impose alternative procedures that contradict existing policy. "How was a disruptive argument created by what I did?" <-- Darklama, I already answered that question. "There are no rules to follow when 48 hours to find a new mentor isn't given and when a mentor is indecisive, which means what to do is up to the discretion of individuals." <-- Darklama, when you took your misguided action, there was no probationary custodian to make into a full custodian. The probation was terminated by a Steward according to the terms of an agreement made by Abd with the mentor. You had no "discretion" to start a discussion of full custodianship. --JWSchmidt 07:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JWS, you are filling pages of questions and alleged facts that don't correspond with reality, but only with a very distorted memory that you are holding. Check your facts. My probationary custodianship was termined by a steward, yes. But it was not "according to the terms of an agreement." Neither the requestor, nor the steward, mentioned the agreement. It was terminated because Ottava, a custodian, made a statement requested it, claiming that this was routine. Stewards are not going to do the research to find out what is "routine." They will trust what is said to them, and they will do this because if it's wrong, whatever they do can be fixed. Common law, JWS. You have totally missed something. Darklama had the discretion to do what he did, and there is a proof of this. He did it. And nobody reversed it. You could have reversed it, but your view of Wikiversity defines you and the rest of the community as victims. Darklama is correct. Policy did not prohibit what he did. The restrain on abuse is not and cannot be "policy," it must be some kind of executive authority that has the power to make changes. Custodians are given that kind of executive authority, and the "authority" is enshrined in the software. Don't want to give that authority, don't assign the privilege.
I've said this again and again, and you aren't getting it, and I'm not sure anyone else is, either. Because you won't stop and think about the roots of the problem, you are tangled in the branches. It's very simple. Wiki common law -- and all common law -- allows executives discretion. The degree of discretion is limited by policy, but policy itself, on a wiki -- this is a wiki, or has that changed? -- is subordinate to actual practice, which is considered to represent "consensus." The consensus was to let the poll started by Darklama continue. How do we know that was consensus? Because nobody changed it. Anyone could. You could have. So by allowing it to happen, if it was violating policy, you were violating policy. Not individually, collectively.
Why would you violate policy? After all, you were "disagreeing" with it. However, actions speak far louder than words. Your actions show that you prefer the status quo here, with "renegade sysops" against whom you futilely rail. Why you want this, I don't know, but it's what you do.
You have listed Darklama's poll as a "problematic action." The poll could have been started by anyone. If I'd wanted a poll, I could have started it. If I had tried to start it, I bet, it would have been reverted by someone correctly pointing out that it was not the procedure described in policy. Maybe you? But you did not revert Darklama, even though the action was not what policy prescrbed. Why? Because he's a custodian? What difference would that make? Do you think he would have reverted you and threatened to block you, as Ottava did with me when I reverted his improper premature closing of my candidacy? I don't think so.
By your lack of discrimination between what is actual tool abuse and what is simply ordinary discretion, the discretion that we all have with editorial actions, or the extra discretion that custodians have, you are unable to focus your complaints against actual abuse and instead raise a huge fuss about trivia. The poll, relatively speaking, is trivia. Perhaps it wastes a little time, perhaps it's causing continued disruption, though I don't think so, but, in the end, Darklama will never be sanctioned for starting that poll, because the community and those with the power to sanction will agree: it was within editorial discretion and if the community didn't like it, it could easily have changed it.
This is the relationship between discretion and policy and the community, in a functional wiki. All editors and custodians possess discretion. When we don't want an editor to have editorial discretion, we block the editor. When we don't want a custodian to have discretion, we desysop. Short of that, we may warn, but we do not warn effectively if there is no realistic blocking or desysopping procedure. Since there is practically no policy on this, it is all common law. The largest problem here is that there isn't any coherent community to restrain the discretion of sysops. That's how it normally works. A community starts with all common law, typically, except perhaps with a few special policies put together by the founders. Then, when members cause a problem, policy is written. In dysfunctional communities, members will be sanctioned for violating a policy that didn't exist, because "they should have known." That's called an ex-post-facto law, and it is widely recognized as abusive.
Say it straight out, John. Your complaint here is about alleged abuse of discretion on the part of Darklama. Not custodial discretion, but editorial discretion. If Darklama doesn't recognize the alleged problem, if Darklama refuses to allay our fears that he will repeat the "error," should Darklama be blocked? What remedy are you calling for? You are obviously failing to convince Darklama, you are failing to convince anyone, for the most part. So what are you trying to do here? What is your goal? What proposed action are you recommending to the community? I don't see any at all. It is all on the level of "Look at this terrible abuse." SoFixIt. What's the fix? I know what the fix is for abuse of discretion, it is obvious. But you are trying to remove discretion, it looks like. That is actually poisonous, my prediction is that Wikiversity would be dead, and quickly, if you succeeded. You are only thinking about custodians. What about editors? Why should editors have discretion and not custodians? If you want to remove the discretion of custodians to block, I believe that it could be removed from the tool set. Is that what you want? I don't think so, because you want custodians to block vandals, right? But anyone can revert vandalism. It's actually impossible to stop vandalism if we have open editing. Why do we block vandals? Whatever the answer to that is, if we are going to, someone must make the judgment of "vandalism," and then have the power to act. And to be useful, probably quick action is called for. That judgment is discretion. How far down would you want to nail the definition of vandalism, and are you going to write all these details in policy, and how many years or decades do you want to take? Should we shut down Wikiversity until we develop detailed and adequate policy to guide all editorial and custodial actions?
Or do we go ahead, as do all wikis, based on common law? And write policy as it is needed to fix problems that show up, not to punish and eliminate discretion, but to guide editors and custodians, so that disruption is reduced. There still must be some enforcement process when an editor or custodian abuses discretion. What is that process? In theory, discussion is part of it, but how does discussion turn into a decision? Let me tell you wiki common law on this. It turns into a decision when an individual decides that the discussion is over and a decision is made. If the decision requires custodial tools, the decision either must be made by a custodian or by someone whose decision a custodian accepts. We could create a special class of editors, possibly not custodians, with the special power, by policy, to close discussions. We cannot force custodians to actually do anything, they are voluntary servants, not slaves. If you want Moulton unblocked, who will do it? I did it. Did you support that action? No, you were too busy arguing against my explanations of the status quo here and on all wikis. Was my action unblocking contrary to policy? If it is not defended by the community, it doesn't matter if it is in alignment with or contrary to policy, because actual practice is just that, actual practice; policy is normative but ineffective if it has no enforcement teeth.
This is an ancient problem, John. Moulton knows that, one of the reasons we need him here is that he has quite a bit of understanding of this. But Moulton also cannot be here if there is no restraint. The concept of restraint is important both for custodial discretion and editorial discretion. Was I restrained in my custodial actions? There is a list of all of them at User talk:Abd/Custodial actions. My actions were either accepted by the community or quickly changed by another custodian. Was there any review of this? Nothing yet that is of any substance. Ottava refers to your complaints in buttressing his claim that I was acting contrary to consensus or without consensus. At the same time he was encouraging me to ignore you. You are being used, John. And apparently you don't care about that.
I understand common-law recusal policy, and follow it. That alone would prevent me from being seriously abusive; I might make some occasional strange action, not understood, and be reversed, but it would not create real disruption unless there was an underlying and serious problem, because I would not repeat that action. In other words, I understand that I have very substantial discretion as a custodian, but this is tightly restrained within recusal policy, and my position is that wikis should treat recusal failure very seriously, because that is exactly where runaway abuse starts and continues. Wikipedia does, in theory, treat it seriously, but Wikipedia has set up such a cumbersome and arcane process for addressing recusal failure that perhaps 1% of serious recusal failures are addressed. Pretty much, a sysop there has to have weak political support to be desysopped, and the sysops will circle the wagons when one of their own are attacked. There are systemic solutions, but try to raise them on Wikipedia if you want to be seriously ridiculed and perhaps blocked if you don't shut up.
Your complaints here are part of an overall social pattern that ascribes problems to abusive people. In fact, in general, social problems are due to lack of structure that would guide and channel the activity of people away from abuse and toward cooperation. Wikiversity is no exception. Writing policy would be great, but without enforcement mechanisms, it's useless. There are classic solutions and innovative solutions and the status quo of no-solution. What's your choice? I'm willing to help with the first two, and it's my area of expertise, such as it is. --Abd 12:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"alleged facts that don't correspond with reality, but only with a very distorted memory" <-- Abd, please list all the "alleged facts" and "distorted memory" that you are concerned about so that we can discuss your concerns. Abd, I made the good faith assumption that the Steward who terminated your sysop status read this statement that was made by you. Any Steward reading that would take note of the fact that you expressed the idea that a bureaucrat might terminate your sysop status, while such decisions are made by Stewards. Abd, you wrote, "In addition, prior to completion of probation, I will suspend usage of administrative tools in any area of activity upon specific request by any supporting administrator, and, as well, I request that any bureaucrat give speedy consideration to removal of my privileges, upon complaint by any supporting administrator, if I do not abstain as promised, excepting only actual emergency action as considered necessary and approved by the bureaucrat", which any Steward is likely to interpret as you having granted permission to terminate your probationary custodianship upon request of the mentor. "Common law, JWS." <-- Abd, what do you mean by "Common law" and why is it relevant to Wikiversity? "Policy did not prohibit what he did" <-- Abd, if you want the system at Wikiversity to be "Do anything not explicitly forbidden in policy" then please write that into policy. Policy says that the mentor nominates candidates for full custodianship, not random onlookers. "some kind of executive authority that has the power to make changes" <-- Wikiversity is run by community consensus, not "some kind of executive authority". "Custodians are given that kind of executive authority" <-- Abd, have you ever read Wikiversity policy? "A Wikiversity custodian is an experienced and trusted user who can protect, delete and restore pages as well as block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community consensus." "authority" is enshrined in the software <-- Abd, please explain what you are talking about. Software is the "executive authority" of Wikiversity? "Wiki common law" <-- Abd, I suggest you create a policy called "Wiki common law". actual practice, which is considered to represent "consensus." <-- There can be no community consensus for anything that damages the Wikiversity community and that deflects Wikiversity from its Mission. Actions that damage Wikiversity are being documented in this community review so that the community can protect itself from misguided actions. In 2008 some misguided practices were forced upon the Wikiversity community. Now is the time to end those misguided practices. "So by allowing it to happen, if it was violating policy, you were violating policy." <-- Abd, I suggest you write that into policy: "If Darklama violates policy then JWSchmidt is violating policy." Your actions show that you prefer the status quo here, with "renegade sysops" against whom you futilely rail. <-- Abd, I find your comments about what I prefer to be quite offensive. Abd, please list my actions that show I want "renegade sysops". "Darklama's poll" <-- Abd, if Darklama wants to start a "poll" then he can start a page called Darklama's poll. The mentor starts community discussions for full custodianship. Darklama, not a mentor, tried to start such a discussion when there was not even a candidate for full custodian. "you did not revert Darklama, even though the action was not what policy prescrbed. Why?" <-- I decided to ask that the policy-violating discussion be terminated by a 'crat. "Do you think he would have reverted you and threatened to block you, as Ottava did with me when I reverted his improper premature closing of my candidacy?" <-- I never thought about reverting, so I'll not answer your hypothetical question. "the extra discretion that custodians have" <-- Eh? What "extra discretion" are you talking about? Abd, have you ever read Wikiversity policy? Beyond powers explicit defined in policy, "custodians have no more power or weight than other users". "raise a huge fuss about trivia" <-- Abd, I suggest that you create a guideline called Trivia where you can define for the community what constitutes "trivia". I suggest the first line that seems to be what you are suggesting: "When a Custodian violates policy, that is trivia." "When we don't want an editor to have editorial discretion, we block the editor." <-- Abd, thanks for explaining that. Now, can you also explain who "we" is and where it says in Wikiversity policy that blocks are imposed when "we don't want an editor to have editorial discretion"? "we do not warn effectively if there is no realistic blocking or desysopping procedure. Since there is practically no policy on this, it is all common law." <-- Abd, procedures for blocking and desysoping are explicitly stated in Wikiversity policy and "common law" has nothing to do with it. If you need to stop a repeat vandal then there is no need for a warning. In all other cases, warnings are needed before a block so that the community can decide by discussion and consensus if there should be a block. "there isn't any coherent community" <-- The Wikiversity community was almost entirely destroyed by disruptive interference from outside Wikiversity. Now is the time for the community to protect itself from such disruption and recover. "What remedy are you calling for?" <-- So far, these. This community review is still under development. "So what are you trying to do here? What is your goal? What proposed action are you recommending to the community? I don't see any at all." <-- Abd, at the top of this page it says: "This page is a chance for members of the Wikiversity community to review problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Proposals for improvements to policies and procedures that arise during this community review can be listed at the page section for Proposals. "What about editors? Why should editors have discretion and not custodians?" <-- Abd, Custodians are editors. "Why should editors have discretion and not custodians?" <-- I don't know, I certainly never suggested such a thing. "it could be removed from the tool set. Is that what you want?" <-- Abd, I find your suggestion to be absurd and if you are insinuating that I have ever indicated that I like your suggestion then please list direct quotes from me to support that idea. "you want custodians to block vandals, right?" <-- If you are insinuating that I don't, then please list direct quotes from me to support that idea that I don't. "Why do we block vandals?" <-- Abd, if you don't understand why vandals are blocked then I suggest you spend some time thinking about the Mission of Wikiversity and how it can be disrupted by vandalism. "How far down would you want to nail the definition of vandalism, and are you going to write all these details in policy, and how many years or decades do you want to take?" <-- Abd, since a few misguided sysops want to treat good faith edits of Wikiversity community members like vandalism, I think we need a policy on vandalism that would give some guidance about what vandalism is. "Should we shut down Wikiversity until we develop detailed and adequate policy to guide all editorial and custodial actions? Or do we go ahead, as do all wikis, based on common law?" <-- Abd, I don't like either of those choices. My suggestions are being listed here. "you want Moulton unblocked, who will do it? I did it. Did you support that action? No" <-- Abd, I think Moulton should be unblocked. Why do you say that I did not support him being unblocked? "Was my action unblocking contrary to policy?" <-- No. "You are being used, John. And apparently you don't care about that." <-- Abd, please list the evidence to support your claim that I apparently don't care. "There are classic solutions and innovative solutions and the status quo of no-solution. What's your choice?" <-- Right now, I have been tasked with starting this community review where we can list problematic actions that are deflecting Wikiversity from its mission. We can also identify proposals for how to protect the Wikiversity community from further disruption. I have begun to act on those proposals. --JWSchmidt 07:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • JWS, your analogy of opposite driving sounds improper or implausible. Anyone will never ever be free to drive to the opposite direction, on a collision course. It is a matter of common sense, (even) if not explicitly prohibited by written law. An old Russian woman thought of freedom such that she were free to cross the road anywhere anytime. Largely, however, you are indeed free or permitted to do practically anything probably good or even immoral as far as it is not explicitly prohibited. This is what they take most seriously and call freedom and free will. I am not a man of law. But you may be too simplistic in this legal aspect. An alternative would be not too bad, especially should the current policy be too bad and its revision too hard as now as you'd admit. Moulton is even mentioning "civil disobedience" which Abd looks like attempting. Please explain how similar and different both motivations are.
    -- KYPark [T] 12:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought of pointing out that JWS' analogy was implausible, but gave it more thought. A person could do it and that would likely lead to a crash. A person could also do it if there is at least 2 lanes and one of the lanes is closed. There would be police officers or construction crew managing traffic under those circumstances and that would be a situation in which people could be driving in the opposite direction. However the problem I see with the analogy is that JWS is not fully taking into context the circumstances, one lane is closed due to an accident not of my doing and people were arguing over the lane being closed, and now JWS is arguing that I should of turned around and tried to drive through the closed lane again, and that I was wrong to accept the lane is closed and detour around the closed lane. At least that is how I see JWS' argument using a similar analogy. -- darklama  12:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasons do make since though if talking about roads that normally only allow traffic one way. -- darklama  12:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also
Wikiversity:Colloquium#The alleged discretionary "rights" of wikiversity custodians
-- KYPark [T] 04:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diego Grez and civility
edit

Calling for or imposing unjustified blocks.
See: Civility

Cabal

edit

Statement by User:JWSchmidt:
Custodians can delete obvious vandalism and block vandals without warning. All other use of the delete and block tools is made only after community discussion and by consensus. Page deletion discussions take place at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion.

The entire Wikiversity community should make important decisions about things like blocking Wikiversity community members from editing. Discussions about blocks should be held before blocks are imposed and should be held on the Wikiversity:Colloquium not hidden on a another page that most Wikiversity participants never use. Examples of questionable practices that generate the appearance of a Custodial Cabal are discussed in other parts of this community review:

Discussion about a cabal
edit

I'm sorry to learn JWSchmidt, that you think so little of the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages. Should we be taking steps to merge all Wikiversity pages into the Colloquium, so that Wikiversity participants are able to participate in learning? I have faith in the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages, why don't you?

The impression that Custodians are a class above other Wikiversity participants, can also be created by Wikiversity participants when they expect Custodians to have god-like powers to understand and answer every question or request asked of them without fail. The greater the expectations are for a group of people, the greater the impression is that they are a class above others. I think the cure is to remind people that Custodians are human, don't know everything, don't have the answers to everything, and are capable of being utterly dumbfounded that they don't know how to answer or respond to comments, questions, or requests too. -- darklama  04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you think so little of the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages" <-- I'm intrigued that you claim to be able to judge and critique my thought processes. Darklama, please quote my statements where I have commented on the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages. "Should we be taking steps to merge all Wikiversity pages into the Colloquium, so that Wikiversity participants are able to participate in learning?" <-- No. "I have faith in the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages, why don't you?" <-- Darklama, do you have any evidence and reasoning to support your claim I don't have faith in the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages? Darklama, please quote my statements where I have discussed the ability of Wikiversity participants to find and make use of pages. The point is that blocking Wikiversity community members from participating is one of the most important topics for community discussion at Wikiversity. Before the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 the barbaric practice of blocking and banning Wikiversity participants did not exist. As stated in policy, blocking is a tool for dealing with vandalism. The Wikiversity community needs protections against the abhorrent and disruptive practices that were forced upon the Wikiversity community in 2008. Community discussions about imposing a block on a Wikiversity community member should be in the most heavily visited and used Wikiversity community discussion forum. If a block is proposed then the Wikiversity mailing list should include notice of the block proposal. Important decisions at Wikiversity must be made by the entire community, not two tag-team sysops (one to block and one to reject the unblock request) who have decided to remove a Wikiversity community member from participation. It has been shown that a few sysops working in a back room of Wikiversity cannot be trusted to make good decisions about blocking. Darklama, do you understand this? Darklama, do you agree that it is best for Wikiversity if the community decides on important matters like blocking? "The impression that Custodians are a class above other Wikiversity participants, can also be created by Wikiversity participants when they expect Custodians to have god-like powers to understand and answer every question or request asked of them without fail." <-- I think Wikiversity should have some minimal standards for Custodian behavior such as being responsive to Wikiversity community members. Custodians must be trusted members of the Wikiversity community (see the first line of Wikiversity:Custodianship). Darklama, what happens to the bond of trust if a Custodian fails to respond to the questions and requests of Wikiversity community members? "they expect Custodians to have god-like powers" <-- Darklama, who as expressed this expectation? "Custodians are human, don't know everything, don't have the answers to everything, and are capable of being utterly dumbfounded that they don't know how to answer or respond to comments, questions, or requests too" <-- It is a normal part of human communication that you can say, "I don't know how to answer." That is a good response and then the discussion can continue. In contrast, when people in positions of trust and responsibility fail to respond to Wikiversity community members it disrupts Wikiversity. Anyone who does not understand the importance of responding to questions and requests should not be a Custodian. --JWSchmidt 11:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to 'The community can use the "history" button' you said, "And how many people never look in the history or read the talk page?" and at the start of this Cabal section you said, "not hidden on a another page that most Wikiversity participants never use". I hope that satisfies your request for me to quote where you have discussed the ability of Wikiversity participants to use and find pages.
I think holding Custodians to human standards is good for Wikiversity. I think what is even better for Wikiversity is to hold Custodians to the same standards as any community members. If a custodian doesn't respond in a few days, can't hurt to restate the question or request, just like people that really want people to respond to comments left on resource talk pages by non-custodians are likely to do.
I think without contributing to a discussion there is no way to know what people feel is important to keep them informed about, and without knowing there is a discussion there is no way a person is going to contribute to a discussion. I think frankly there is a catch 22 problem regardless of what is done. I think new discussion avenues like "Request custodian action" and "community review" come about because people think there is a need to give people a choice on what they stay informed on, and because people think some discussions could distract people from what is important. I think people can arguing endlessly what people need to know, to what extent people need to be kept informed, and what is/are the best way(s) to keep people informed. I think when people disagree with what people need to know, what people should be kept informed about, what the best way(s) is/are to keep people informed, that they might be tempted to use words that do not invite discussion like "censorship" or "false claims". -- darklama  12:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope that satisfies your request for me to quote where you have discussed the ability of Wikiversity participants to use and find pages." <-- I think it is a demonstrable fact that most Wikiversity participants don't look at policy pages, their talk pages or their histories. Only a very few Wikiversity participants concern themselves with policy. My comments say nothing about the abilities of Wikiversity participants. "If a custodian doesn't respond in a few days, can't hurt to restate the question or request" <-- The problem goes far beyond your sensible solution. A few sysops and other Wikimedia Functionaries never respond, even after repeated requests, and sometimes they even go to absurd extremes such as deleting questions from their user talk page and accusing the Wikiversity community member of being a sock puppet. The chronic failure of Custodians and other Wikimedia functionaries to answer questions disrupts Wikiversity. words that do not invite discussion like "censorship" or "false claims" <-- Darklama, such words do invite discussion. They are flags signaling the need for discussion. The problem is Wikimedia functionaries who fail to respond to complaints and questions about their misguided and damaging actions. --JWSchmidt 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue sysops

edit

The Wikiversity community has been severely damaged by sysops and other Wikimedia functionaries who don't follow the community practices of Wikiversity and whose rogue actions disrupt the mission of Wikiversity.

See: policy violations, #wikiversity-en chat channel

Misusing the block tool as a means of disrupting discussions
edit

"I felt the block would facilitate discussion" <-- One of the most abhorrent abuses of Custodial power is preventing Wikiversity community members from participating in discussions. Wikiversity is a community of collaborating learners, not a battle ground. It is unacceptable to block Wikiversity community members from editing so as to prevent them from participating in discussions, particularly discussions about their participation at Wikiversity. It is important to discuss first, before a block. The community decides on blocks by consensus. Warnings must be given first, before a block to allow for discussion. The Wikiversity community needs an official blocking policy to restrain sysops who are too quick to use the block tool. --JWSchmidt 01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grab bag of rogue actions
edit
I or any custodian can declare such a ban unilaterally"
  • As we have seen, decisions may be advised by consensus, but they cannot be "made by consensus" except in one way: by the cloud. That doesn't work when there is no coherent and broad consensus and no structures for making decisions outside of that. What custodians can do is described in the software. Policy may restrain that, but only if there are enforcement mechanisms? How is policy enforced? By consensus? How? How is consensus formed and measured, and how is it converted into action? There are structural solutions, but I haven't seen any proposals to create them that have attracted any attention. Status quo: decisions involving tools are made by custodians, bottom line by a rough de-facto majority, except some custodians follow recusal policy and some don't. The custodians who follow recusal policy are seriously hampered in restraining the custodians who don't, they can only act once, under this policy, and if they don't get support and backup from the community, the freer custodians, the "non-recusing faction," will prevail ("I don't need no stinkin' recusal policy, it keeps me from doing what needs to be done," and I've seen this position openly advocated on Wikipedia by admins, who are still admins, showing, right there, the "Wikipedia problem."). That will continue until and unless the community intervenes to defend and enforce recusal policy. The problem in a nutshell. It's not going to go away by mere discussion and more discussion and discussion of the discussion. Shall we get to work, or not? That's an individual decision, not strictly one made by consensus. I'm not going to stop working on it if you want to keep yelping and yapping. --Abd 12:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alienation of Wikiversity participants:

User:Rock drum was treated rudely by a Custodian on his talk page and called "obvious sock puppet".

"There is no policy keeping me from blocking people who post names. So, until Wikiversity has a policy, I will continue to enforce the blocks.
Wednesday Jul 21, 2010
3:45:14 PM: *** Mode change "+b *!*@wikia/JWSchmidt" on #wikiversity-en by adambro
3:45:16 PM: *** You have been kicked off channel #wikiversity-en by adambro (JWSchmidt)
Note: This ban and the kick of JWSchmidt by User:Adambro with no discussion, warning or explanation provided. (see also) Adambro, why did you ban me? --JWSchmidt 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense
edit

He?!? If you mean Professor Nancy Williams, she does not edit at any WMF-sponsored project, nor (as far as I know) do any of the faculty, staff, or students in the USU School of Journalism. They have studied the systemic corruption of WP in their courses on Mass Media Ethics and Online Journalism, and they have written about their findings on the subject. They do not consider WMF-sponsored projects to be a respectable example of ethics in online media. —Moulton 05:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (source)[reply]

Discussion of rogue sysops
edit

What does it mean for a sysop to be "rogue"? -- darklama  13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page section I wrote, "The Wikiversity community has been severely damaged by sysops and other Wikimedia functionaries who don't follow the community practices of Wikiversity and whose rogue actions disrupt the mission of Wikiversity." I think it is widely accepted within Wikimedia that a sysop is "rogue" when they don't follow community practices. --JWSchmidt 15:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Abd

edit

JWSchmidt, on this page, makes various accusations regarding certain of my actions. Because he has made many of these accusations in many different places, and I've often answered before, I'm not responding here unless asked to do so by another registered editor in good standing. I've already wasted way too much time deconstructing and responding to JWS's complaints. Please notify me on my Talk page that you have a specific question for me to answer.... Thanks. --Abd 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, do you agree with this aphorism... "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." —Barry Kort 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the quoted statement mentioned by Dr. Kort. I ask Abd to participate in community discussion of the Civility policy. I ask Abd to respond to questions and requests in this community review. --JWSchmidt 10:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the statement too, conditionally. Does this make it consensus? Now, what do we do when "good men" are doing nothing? Walk away? Isn't that a possibly good man doing nothing? What happens when "good men" believe that nothing can be done and walk away? Evil prevails, Q.E.D. Who is therefore responsible for the evil prevailing? Obviously, all the good men who walked away. The statement contains an oxymoron. Good men who have the power to prevent evil and who instead walk away are not good men. So I'd revise it to: All it takes for evil to prevail is for the community to do nothing to stop it. None of this nonsense about "good." This assumes that evil is perpetrated by "bad men." Error. Nothing here but us chickens. Us. If we think that we will prevent evil by replacing the "bad men" with "good people," we are perpetuating an old and terribly destructive fantasy. --Abd 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Diego Grez

edit

Sincerely, what is the purpose of all of this. Want to get people banned, what? Diego Grez 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for John, but my purpose here is to facilitate the educational objectives of those who are here to learn. —Barry Kort 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Near the top of this page it says, This community review is a collaborative search for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. That is my best understanding of Ottava's intentions in requesting that I start this review. I think blocks are for vandals. I don't think bans play a role in education. I'd like to see Wikiversity procedures returned to the good practices that allowed the community to grow from 2006 to 2008. I reject the wiki-cop MMORPG that was imposed upon Wikiversity from Wikipedia in 2008. --JWSchmidt 00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reject it, but you propose nothing to replace it but your fantasy of returning to an ideal community that did not actually exist. The proof: it turned into what you reject. You will, I'm sure, blame this on "outsiders." Fine. How do we define who is an insider, able to participate, and who is not? You have no solutions, JWS, and only when you realize this and start listening and thinking will you be able to move beyond this deficiency. --Abd 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

edit

Proposals for how to improve Wikiversity procedures can be listed here. Describe each proposal in a page section, below.

These proposals were moved to another page:

  1. Rollback Policy Fix
  2. Policy for IRC chat
  3. Privacy Issues
  4. Truth in Advertising
  5. Vandalism
  6. Page Deletion
  7. CheckUser rules

see also: 8. Official policy on consensus, 9. Official policy on blocking

New Proposal

edit

add you proposal here Wiki-diplomas - certification I work as a e-learning system supervisor in Brazilian government. We start to discuss the future of all these open education. How to certify the studies made in all over the world? I think the future is wiki - free education without governments. But we have to find a solution to create wiki-diplomas. Internation treaties?

The Wikviersity is not a degree-granting institution. We are simply an information organization and wiki. Is this off topic?--JohnBessatalk 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section appears too improper to be here. So a custodian would better cut and paste this onto Wikiversity:Colloquium. -- KYPark [T] 11:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk fork proposal

edit

On the topic of "too much information" (was synopsis), I think we need to fork the help desk multiple times to lighten the information load on the Colloquium:

  • Q&A about A&S, or Arts and Sciences, as it is (I equate arts and sciences as being equally collaborative!)
  • Technical (as in making pages, or lessons(?), and also possibly Highly-technical, as in programming mediawiki PHP)
  • Q&A about WV activities

There is no reason the Colloquium should not remain a welcome desk and switchboard referral--JohnBessatalk 15:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! -- KYPark [T] 08:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Problematic_actions&oldid=1880146"
  NODES
admin 6
chat 10
COMMUNITY 214
Idea 5
idea 5
INTERN 2
Note 13
Project 29
twitter 2
USERS 11