Wikiversity talk:Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010

Note: This Wikiversity community discussion has been censored.

File:Falsification of logs.png

Why is this an "example of a falsified log entry"? Why, if there are some concerns about the page protection haven't these concerns first been raised before the log entry is being described as "falsified"? What are those concerns? If concerns are raised they can be addressed. If anyone with concerns doesn't bother to raise them and in so doing give an opportunity for attempts to be made to address them then it seems a bit harsh to start just using this is an apparent example of the falsification of logs. I have on numerous occasions made it clear that I do make mistakes like everyone and I have acknowledged many over the years. Perhaps this is an example of another mistake? I'm not sure but clearly JWSchmidt has concerns so lets hear them and I can reassess my action. Adambro 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide links to the "excessive vandalism" at Wikiversity:Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. --JWSchmidt 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you know where the page history is. Each instance where the blocked user evaded their block to edit I consider to be effectively vandalism. It seemed reasonable to assume that such edits would continue unless the page was protected. Adambro 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The block of Moulton was a bad block, imposed by an outsider who did not follow Wikiversity procedures. I consider your enforcement of the ban against Moulton is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. You definition of "effective vandalism" does not sound like any Wikimedia view of vandalism that I am aware of. Vandalism is an inherently disruptive or destructive behavior." If you follow the link to Wikipedia it says, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Moulton's edits were not vandalism. --JWSchmidt 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I've said, I consider edits made which involved evading a block to be vandalism, regardless of the exact nature of the edit. Moulton is blocked. Regardless of your opinion of the circumstances in which he was originally blocked that is a simple fact. I also understand that the block has been extensively discussed by the community and recent attempts have been made to try to enable unblocking. Despite my reservations about this, I used my admin rights on Meta to try to facilitate those efforts. Those efforts collapsed because Moulton couldn't resist deliberately provoking another editor by doing exactly what he had been asked not to. That he remains blocked is because the community do not consider it appropriate to unblock him. I will continue to respect that by enforcing the block and consider any edit made by evading that block to be vandalism because it goes against the wishes of the community that Moulton doesn't edit. I don't agree that enforcing this block violates WV:CIVIL. Adambro 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your considering something to be vandalism doesn't make it vandalism. The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right name. WAS 4.250 17:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right that me considering something vandalism doesn't mean it is. Equally though, that someone else might say it isn't vandalism, doesn't mean it isn't. There is degree to which it is a matter of personal opinion. I've explained why I consider it to be vandalism but anyone is free to disagree with my opinion. Adambro 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on Adambro, you've invented a bogus justification for your falsification of the logs, don't try to stick to such a transparently fallacious excuse. Your view of "vandalism" contradicts the position adopted by the Wikimedia community. I advise you to not pursue Moulton to your doom. Moulton is a better contributor to Wikiversity than most sysops I know. Please stop disrupting Wikiversity by enforcing a bad block. If you can't do that, at least change the log to say "Adambro's personal view of effective vandalism" rather than "excessive vandalism" --JWSchmidt 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't be changing the log. It should be obvious that anything I say involves me expressing my personal opinion and that I'm not stating it as fact. I don't agree that enforcing the block is disruptive to Wikiversity. The community is free to decide to unblock Moulton. They haven't done so. Adambro 18:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam, it would behoove you to listen to the wisdom of WAS 4.250. He is older and wiser than any of us here. The right name for my unwelcome edits here is Civil Disobedience. I have no objection to you labeling my participation here as Civil Disobedience, for that is precisely what I am doing, for the express purpose of illustrating the lessons we learned in the 20th Century from Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Are you, perchance, familiar with Henry David Thoreau's classic essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"? —Moulton 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is legitimate to consider all edits by a blocked editor as "vandalism," on the face. That is, they are edits which are contrary to policy, and deliberately so, they add harmful or otherwise prohibited content. Policy provides for discretion in blocking by all administrators and others with the tool. A block may be a "bad block," but any block could be accused of being "ban." "Bad block" does not create a right to edit. Rather, due process requires appealing a bad block, or abandoning editing. If there is no community right to revert or prevent edits under block (typically assigned to custodians here), "block" becomes meaningless. JWSchmidt has hopelessly confused this issue by conflating an allegedly bad block of Moulton with, then, a claim that other administrators supporting the block are abusive. Is the issue here really what term Adambro used for the Moulton block-evading edits? This insistence on particular language -- or criticism based on the language used, rather than the substance -- is typical of "wikilawyering," and it's what I've seen coming from JWSchmidt regularly since I started observing Wikiversity in March. Please remember, I came here, from a position of sympathy to Moulton; but I also had deep wiki and on-line community experience and knew that matters were often more complex than they appeared.

By the way, WAS 4.250, how old are you? Moulton once complained to me that it was all very well for someone as young as I to urge patience, but he was getting old.... As it happens, and I explained, I'm older than him -- and have prostate cancer to boot. Stage I, to be sure, but it makes me quite aware of my limitations. Bottom line, I understand why Moulton was complaining and I understand how he was also off and continues to be off, requiring us to continue to block him unless something shifts. In him. I understand why JWS was upset, and likely why his reaction to that has kept him, and to some extent Wikiversity, from moving on. None of these are mysterious, in fact, though I'll admit to being a little surprised at how intransigent Moulton turned out to be. I'd not researched the underlying events deeply enough.... --Abd 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You wish to evaluate me according to unverifiable claims of my age???? - WAS 4.250 10:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, an evaluation was proposed by others incorporation what seemed to be a possibly incorrect assumption about age. It appears below that you do not wish to disclose your age, which is fine. It is not obligatory at all. --Abd 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'd not researched the underlying events deeply enough...." Surely your enthusiasm and verboseness makes up for any lack of actual understanding. - WAS 4.250 10:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Understanding develops with experience. "Deeply enough" in this case refers to seeing the other side from Moulton's, through tracking down and reviewing the evidence he's provided in many places. The situation is complex enough that my sense is that not even the players understand it well. --Abd 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:WAS_4.250 WAS 4.250 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(:)) Your behavior of creating unnecessary drama is just like Barry's, so by the famous Duck Test you therefore are block-able as a sock of Barry (or is that a shoe?); so prove your loyalty and fitness as someone with the power to block and block yourself. ... (Sorry, as I'm 120 years old and have had all my organs removed due to cancer, I'm not responsible for my bitter cynicism.) (/:)) WAS 4.250 10:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From this brilliant analogy, it seems that, indeed, all the organs were removed. I'm surprised that the cynicism persists in spite of the removal of the organ that sustains it. My condolences. I do have the power to block and block, but if I use that power contrary to community consensus, I'd lose it quickly. What I'm seeing here is post-facto criticism from an editor who could actually intervene to help with the situation, but who chooses to sit back and take potshots. How about asking for admin tools, WAS? Wikiversity has the most liberal policy about granting them. I'll assume that I can't mentor yet, or I'd offer. And if you can't find any admin to offer to mentor, well, that would say something, eh? --Abd 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:WAS_4.250 WAS 4.250 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take up a scholarly review of this peer-reviewed essay which first appeared on the P2P.Org web site:

The Governance Model of Wikipedia

Moulton 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice essay, Barry. Pretty accurate except for a few facets overlooked. As to scholarly review, you're welcome. I'm not a scholar, I'm a revolutionary. Okay, a revolutionary scholar.... not a scholar of revolution. --Abd 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What do you see as missing, that needs to be addressed? Moulton 03:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• "otherwise prohibited content"

Why should any constructive and good faith contribution to Wikiversity be called "prohibited"? Removing such edits from Wikiversity disrupts Wikiversity. Every edit at Wikiversity should be judged on its own merits, and certainly not judged by the rules that apply at Wikipedia.

• "due process requires appealing a bad block, or abandoning editing"

Abd, quote the Wikiversity policy that supports your claim. An honest Custodian would remove a bad block, not wikilawyer about some imagined need for "appealing."

• "a claim that other administrators supporting the block are abusive"

In my view, anyone who supports a bad block is violating Wikiversity policy which warns against calling for an unjustified block. Sysops who enforce rules from other websites at Wikiversity by blocking Wikiversity community members or deleting and protecting pages are abusing their Custodial tools. Blocks for non-vandalism should be made by community consensus, not by sysop whims.

• "Is the issue here really what term Adambro used for the Moulton block-evading edits?"

No, the issue is falsely calling good faith edits "vandalism". Anyone who would call my insistence on honesty by Custodians "wikilawyering" certainly should not be a Custodian.

• "This insistence on particular language"

The insistence is on honesty.

• "I understand why JWS was upset, and likely why his reaction to that has kept him, and to some extent Wikiversity, from moving on"

Abd, please explain how insisting that sysops be honest is doing damage to Wikiversity.

--JWSchmidt 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't. But that's not what you are doing. --Abd 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Moulton

I've known John and worked with him on Wikiversity (and off-wiki) for two years. I found John to be a diligent and conscientious scholar and researcher who was unfailingly helpful to others. John and I haven't always been in 100% agreement, but we've nonetheless managed to craft valuable and useful content (both on-wiki and off), and we've enjoyed working with each other. John has a high level of personal integrity and ethics -- a trait that occasionally got him into difficulty with the less scrupulous members of the community. I was appalled and chagrined to see John treated abusively by a handful of admins here during the time I've worked with him. I was gratified to see Leigh Blackall and James Neill stand up for John in the recent kerfuffle when Adam veered off the rails. —Moulton 03:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"useful content" <-- I've been thinking that Wikiversity:History of Wikiversity should be updated. Maybe Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions can serve as a page for accumulation of data. Moulton, do you know if there is a paper trail for the events leading up to the bad block that was imposed on you? Who asked Jimbo to come to Wikiversity? Such things should be on the public record. --JWSchmidt 04:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a paper trail, although most of it is not located on-wiki, since it was almost entirely expunged in the cover-up. As you may recall, Jimbo privately threatened to block me in this exchange, which was witnessed in real time by Alison Cassidy, a well-respected diagnostic engineer at Apple Computer. Before that, there was the flap over the contents of the biographical sketch on my user page. There remains these unanswered questions on Jimbo's talk page here. The deleted pages are mostly salvaged and reprised here. There is this lengthy discussion at Wikipedia Review when Jimbo summarily deleted the pages on Managerial Ethics. And just today, SB_Johnny recounted his version of the events. There may be other relevant IRC logs (some of which you may well already have), although there may have been another IRC channel just for Admins. —Moulton 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wikiversity:Vandalism doesn't make any attempt to describe vandalism. Could we develop something out of this conversation? My view is that vandalism is something like in the real world, where property is intentionally defaced or damaged. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an attempt to improve the description of what constitutes vandalism by quoting Jimbo. Of course, that attempt was treated like vandalism, repeatedly. Adambro violated policy while preventing the Wikiversity community from exploring the important issue of what constitutes vandalism. For the past two years, many Wikiversity community discussions and the development of needed policy have been disrupted by a few sysops who abuse their power, Adambro is just one example. --JWSchmidt 11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not an "attempt to improve the description of what constitutes vandalism", it was an attempt to use a proposed policy to effectively protest about Jimbo. Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is appropriate to include that in our vandalism policy? As I have explained, I don't accept your suggestion that I violated the rollback policy. That policy says it is "for quickly undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive such as vandalism". Can you not accept that it doesn't just say it is for dealing with vandalism but also other edits which might be considered "blatantly unproductive". Whilst you of course disagree, I remain of the opinion that your edits were "blatantly unproductive". Adambro 11:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"blatantly unproductive". The edit that was repeatedly reverted by Adambro was constructive. If Adambro did not like the edit then Adambro should have stated his alternative view of vandalism on the talk page. Adambro, rather than edit collaboratively so as to improve a needed Wikiversity policy, you disrupted Wikiversity and violated policy. --JWSchmidt 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, since it was your edit, you aren't going to accept that it wasn't productive so I can't say I'm too concerned by your assertions that it was productive. However, you repeatedly state that I've violated the rollback policy yet seem to avoid actually discussing whether that is true. As I've asked, isn't it the case that the rollback policy doesn't say rollback should only be used to deal with vandalism? Adambro 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"I can't say I'm too concerned by your assertions" <-- This is exactly your problem Adambro, you don't collaborate with honest Wikiversity participants, you just do your own thing, even when you are violating Wikiversity policy. The only reason you've gotten away with disrupting Wikiversity is because of threats that were made against the Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 12:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You again conveniently don't address the issue of the scope of the rollback policy. Adambro 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The only issue is a few sysops who abuse their power by making specious claims about what constitutes vandalism and disruption. --JWSchmidt 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• On the one hand, JWSchmidt is raising issues about a description of intention, i.e., the reason for an action as distinct from the effect and function of the action, with only one reasonably clear purpose: to impeach the actor. On the other hand, Adambro does appear to accept that the edit rolled back was not clearly "vandalism" in the blatant sense, but hasn't taken the obvious step of apologizing for, say, some unintended implication. Did Adambro make a "specious claim"? Only if we interpret "vandalism" in the strictest sense, edits with only a purpose of defacing content. But edits that are contrary to known policy (whether explicit or implicit) can also be called "vandalism," in a loose sense. And really, the point here would be whether or not the use of rollback in a specific case -- which JWSchmidt doesn't clearly describe -- was abusive. That is a separate and distinct issue from whether or not there was some problematic description of the action by Adambro. Because there is an apparent intention to defame Adambro -- and "a few sysops," though there is no sysop supporting JWS's positions -- it's impossible to resolve the specific issues here, because it is not really about "vandalism" and "rollback policy." It's about "bad sysops."
• "Abuse of power" involves two things: abuse of tools and abuse of reputation or position. The latter is not really sysop abuse, it's user abuse, and should be separated. This is a CR on JWSchmidt, not Adambro, and he's attempting to divert attention from his own behavior by multiplying charges against others, demanding response, demanding full evidence for every claim by any user critical of his behavior (or that of Moulton), and generally by demanding, demanding, demanding, the opposite of the listening he promised. I suggest he start listening. It's never too late, and Wikiversity is, rather obviously, a very forgiving community. But it cannot long continue to forgive what isn't acknowledged as an error, that continues to be repeated. --Abd 14:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"what isn't acknowledged as an error" <-- If something is not an error then you will wait a very long time for me to admit that it is an error. Abd, you can call anything "vandalism" but it is not rational to expect other people to go along with a contorted definition of vandalism. False charges of "vandalism" are a very serious matter. Custodians are empowered to deal quickly with obvious vandalism. Any sysop who starts wildly applying the term "vandalism" to anything that is not obvious vandalism should expect to defend their claim with careful reasoning and evidence. Very early in this discussion I pointed to useful definitions of vandalism (at Wikiversity and Wikipedia) and it is only fair that other people do the same if they want to suggest an alternative definition of vandalism. My view of what constitutes vandalism is not swayed by quirky personal definitions of vandalism. "edits that are contrary to known policy (whether explicit or implicit) can also be called "vandalism," in a loose sense" <-- but not when a scholar's reputation is on the line. If I stand by and let someone falsely label a Wikiversity participant's edits as "vandalism" then I know the next day the next step in gaming the system will be an unjustified call to ban the vandal. Good faith edits are not vandalism. Period. Making false claims in log entries is the subject of another community review. I mentioned one particular falsified log entry in the community review of my behavior because it was a convenient example that was literally in my face while I composed my reply to WAS 4.250. "This is a CR on JWSchmidt, not Adambro, and he's attempting to divert attention from his own behavior " <-- I'll let the community decide. If the actions of other people are relevant to the discussion of my Wikiversity participation that I have the right to discuss the actions of other people. I request that Wikipedians observing this discussion not try to game the system by trying to invent reasons to place restriction on what I can say. WAS 4.250 asked me about my aspirations for Wikiversity and if they have been attained. It was natural for me to discuss a few examples of what deflects from advancing the Wikiversity mission. Falsely placing the label "vandalism" on a good faith edit was simply a convenient example for me to mention, entirely relevant to the discussion and not an attempt to divert attention from my own behavior. I have ample opportunity to discuss the actions of other people at the other community review. And really, the point here would be whether or not the use of rollback in a specific case -- which JWSchmidt doesn't clearly describe -- was abusive. <-- The specific case is now the subject of the other community review. See "case #3". "there is an apparent intention to defame Adambro" <-- My intention is move Wikiversity towards fulfillment of its mission. I have the right to object to sysops who abuse their power by violating policy and falsely calling good faith edits "vandalism". Correcting the errors made by sysops does not constitute an effort to defame anyone. it is not really about "vandalism" and "rollback policy." It's about "bad sysops." <-- Abd, please support this wild accusation with reasoning and evidence. Start at the other community review. There you can read about #Rollback|rollback policy and vandalism. "bad sysops" <-- The community review is about bad actions that have disrupted the Wikiversity community. Notice what I have called for: policy improvements and protections against problematic actions that disrupt Wikiversity. I suggest he start listening" <-- Are you suggesting that I have not been listening? I've made a good faith effort to respond rationally to ever question and request. Is there a question or request that you want me to respond to? --JWSchmidt 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback of IP edits to this page

I rolled back IP edits to this page restoring a Moulton comment. This page has been unprotected to allow IP editors to comment. Moulton is a blocked user and his edits may be reverted on sight; however, my view is that any registered editor may revert them back in, taking responsibility for them. JWS, for example, if he wants the Moulton edits to show here, may revert them back in. If IP traffic on this page becomes too heavy, and if it appears to be sourced with Moulton or somehow allied with him, it may be necessary to return to semiprotection. I hope not, I prefer that all readers be allowed to comment if they wish, and that includes Moulton. A reverted comment is still a comment and may be normally be read by anyone. Because this CR is about JWS, he should be able to present whatever evidence he chooses, within reason, and Moulton comments, if they do not specifically violate policy, may be part of that. --Abd 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)