Wikiversity: user blocked

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
Post Reply
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Mod
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Wikiversity: user blocked

Post by JuiceBeetle » Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:34 pm

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_ta ... 05#Blocked

Pending analysis of preceding events.
#Bbbgate

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikiversity: user blocked

Post by Abd » Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:42 pm

Mu301 (Michael Umbricht) was a mostly-inactive 'crat when the Smith socks incited a riot, and his response was to delete "fringe" content because it had allegedly created disruption (which was simply not true, there had been very little disruption over fringe content, which had always been allowed) and to block me for carrying on a "vendetta," also not true. He was supported by Dave Braunschweig, who had previously blocked me for "attacking" him by simply mentioning, in a comment by one of his followers that he was expert in dispute resolution, that he didn't know the first thing about it, which I would say what he did demonstrated. When I was not unblocked due to the gross and obvious violation of recusal expectations, I decided that Wikiversity was unsafe and stopped contributing, until the impersonation socking in 2017 caused me to intervene, with *successful* steward checkuser requests, which Umbricht called "frivolous." Because the very last one of a long series was rejected, and why was it rejected?

There was clear basis for it, but by that time, behind the scenes activity had ramped up. In any case, there was a sysop who announced he was considering unblock, Umbricht threatened him with desysop. By the time this could have been properly referred to a Community Review (the only legitimate way to ban a user on WV), I was WMF banned, also, obviously, because of private complaints. So I don't trust Umbricht's judgment at all. A checkuser request was filed on meta based on a single edit by a single account with no other edits, which was drastic overkill. What I see is about Wikiversity administration having lost the open character it once had.

As I concluded before, Wikiversity, which I used to consider the crown jewel of WMF sites, because topics could actually be discussed there, in depth, with neutrality-by-inclusion rather than by-exclusion as on an encyclopedia, had become unsafe due to what the founder called "Wikipedia disease." Fascist administration, no comprehension of academic freedom and what it takes to foster it while allowing order to develop. I did attempt to protect Wikiversity, and I failed, I was unable to inspire the community to take interest in central process. Instead, if an individual's resources were not attacked, so what if others were? Not important to them. The first truly abusive administrator on Wikiversity was SB_Johnny, who also became very active on Wikipediocracy. And then there was Ottava Rima. Long story.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Wikiversity: user blocked

Post by Abd » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:42 pm

I found a more. What a mess!

This appears to the the beginning of the user's troubles. A conflict with Dave Braunschweig and Mu301. Mu301 blocked the user, who (as is common) did not know how to address it. The block log.. The last reason:
04:48, 8 December 2019 Mu301 ... changed block settings for Tech201805 ... with an expiration time of indefinite (cannot create accounts, no emails, cannot discuss) (Cross-wiki abuse of multiple accounts: see https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... ikiversity
This is a repeat of old abusive practice on Wikiversity before I became involved, a sysop effectively banning a user on their own initiative. Normal procedure was a sysop could block and the user would put up an unblock template, which might sit there for a while but which would never be removed by the blocking admin. While the user did not handle conflict skillfully, few do. Sysops are expected to be supportive and to help users comply with policies and guidelines and what supports the project, not beat them to the ground, but that restraint was lost over time. This user is not the first to be blocked for arguing with a sysop, which appears to be what happened.

Once upon a time, in a wiki far away, very little was deleted if there was any user who cared. There were many ways to avoid deletion of work by a reasonably good-faith user. First of all, tagging was easy, anyone could tag a page for deletion. But any user could remove the tag, and if the tag was removed a deletion discussion was necessary to delete the page, and among the options was moving a page to user space. I think the Draft space was designed to take the place of that, but Draft is for pages intended to become regular resources, whereas User space could handle more or less anything a user cared to create.

Most conflict on Wikipedia is over deletion and page content, and Wikiversity has subpages in mainspace, so there could be alternate versions of a page (which generally defused conflict). When this was fully implemented, as it was when I was a custodian and later as an ordinary user, conflict on Wikiversity became rare, and essentially came in from outside, Wikipedians who hated some topic being studied on Wikiversity.

You can see that the focus has moved toward "articles." One of the methods for learning is discussion. How does a "discussion" -- which is not an "article" -- fit into Draft space? The Muggles took over, with a very limited view of "educational resources." I supported a guideline that, except for truly illegal pages and spam, like that, a sysop would not delete on their own initiative. Braunschweig did that for a time, then began deleting based on his own ideas, directly.

It was when I confronted that, that he blocked me before that last Mu301 block. As well, Mu301 blocked me twice. The first block was for removing a deletion tag that he had placed (because it had become irrelevant). What appears to me is that he was looking for an excuse to block. When it was obvious that the first excuse was completely bogus, he simply made up another. These were bans without following guidelines for ban. That was very Wikipedian and not Wikiversitan, but WV is almost dead. Once upon a time, the WV community actually confronted Jimbo, and successfully. There was a community then that valued academic freedom. Killed by these 'crats, over time, gradually.

Tagging hundreds of pages for 30-day proposed deletion was offensive. Usually, proposed deletion allowed more time, but not informing the user of the right to remove would be a major lapse in sysop responsibility. However, this is where it became truly abusive. on User_talk:Tech201805.

So December 5, this user discovers that an enormous corpus of work has been moved without prior discussion. By December 7, he has been effectively banned, with no apparent cause other than disagreement. He was accused of "cross-wiki abuse of multiple accounts." A URL is given to the steward checkuser request, and what it (with CA) shows is two accounts, Tech201805, with almost 9000 Wikiversity edits and 2000 Wikipedia edits. The other user is Nancyn25 showing 5 Wikiversity edits, while contributions show only 1. Nothing cross-wiki. That indicates that 4 edits were deleted. Registration of Nancyn25 was at 04:17, 7 December 2019, plausible it could be this user. Blocked by Dave Braunschweig.

I was able to find out who Nancyn25 likely is. Nancy Ngo of CloudRepo. This is quite unlikely to be Tech, but it is not impossible there is a geographical connection, hence the "Likely" checkuser finding. This wasn't spam, exactly, but COI editing (which is not necessarily prohibited, but disclosure is required -- as per WMF policy). While Tech was interested in DevOps, they never mentioned CloudRepo, as far as I could find. The claim of pursuit of Tech's interest is very weak. It is possible that the edits were legitimately on-topic, without seeing the CloudRepo subpage she created, impossible to tell.

The checkuser request was filed on meta by Braunschweig, which was unusual, to immediately take up steward time for such a minor amount of possible socking. This would be done to really whack the user. How dare he argue with me! Less abusively, the user would have been warned. If the edits were actually disruptive, that would be directly addressed, as it may have been. But I think this was a spammer, which would explain the blocks, they would have been spam page creations. Yes. This was the page, Dave deleted it.

The user denies socking, (see his comment on a steward talk page, mangled by an IP -- because he placed it at the page top instead of the bottom, this is a user with no experience with wiki discussion) and that single visible edit of the alleged sock looks to me like spam, not this user continuing. But many blocked users will sock if they have no experience with being blocked, and they had a clean block log everywhere until this. But no "cross-wiki abuse" is seen, unless the user mentioning his block on Wikipedia is considered abuse, which it would not be. No warning there.

He was correct. For better or worse, the 'crats are imposing their personal standards on the project, quite visible by no citation of policies or guidelines. There was never a "quality" standard. Resources were allowed with the thinnest of reasons, perhaps the user was learning wikitext, etc. If it might be useful to others, it would be left in place, perhaps refactored as a subpage. Something inappropriate for mainspace would be moved to user space, there was respect for users. All those pages instead of being moved to draft space, could just as easily have been moved to a subpage of an appropriate resource. The argument about hundreds of hours of cleanup being necessary was ridiculous. He used a bot, obviously. Having stubs under a top-level resource would be no problem at all on Wikiversity. When I saw Dave doing this, and confronted it, and was blocked, I abandoned Wikiversity, because it had become obviously unsafe. And, no surprise, it got worse.

The user has said that they would probably not be contributing to Wikiversity as long as those 'crats are in charge. The problem is deeper than that. The problem is a community that does not monitor what the sysops are doing, and sysops like Braunschweig tend to believe that they are the only ones standing between a decent wiki and chaos, and they become abusive, and if nobody is watching, nothing stops this. It really is Wiki disease, not just Wikipedia disease, but for a time Wikiversity had a community that was paying attention, but this faded.

Post Reply