This is a continuation from User:JWSchmidt/Blog/15 September 2008.
case 8 details. McCormack was not happy that I prevented him from destroying Wikiversity's long-standing cultural practice of welcoming new visitors who self-identify as students and that I foiled his attempt to destroy the system we had for inviting students to participate at Wikiversity as editors. McCormack was not happy that I created a learning resource that described his effort to delete and otherwise disrupt the main Wikiversity student portal page. It was entirely proper for me to defend the long-standing invitation extended by Wikiversity to new student participants. The learning resource I created was a very useful learning resource for student participants at Wikiversity. Because I have prevented McCormack from undermining the mission of Wikiversity he called me a troll and made a large number of false and distorted charges against me. He used those false and distorted charges against me to get me banned, blocked and de-sysoped. I will continue to refute all of the false and distorted charges McCormack against me. It makes me physically ill to read the false and distorted charges McCormack manufactured and to think about the damage he has done to Wikiversity. I hope that by answering all these false and distorted charges I can help the Wikiversity community avoid this kind of witch hunt in the future. --JWSchmidt 23:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
case 9 details. My edit provided useful balance to what was an existing deceptive claim about the Browse page. The Browse page originally functioned to facilitate the development of Wikiversity content, but it had been systematically "repurposed" to subvert that important function. I made a small edit in an attempt to correct the bias of the page and for my trouble I was charged with making an edit that looks like vandalism. Background: McCormack called me a troll and told me that he refuses to talk to me. If I were dealing with a normal member of the community who was willing to discuss matters, then talk page discussions would be a viable option. However, McCormack is part of a special team of custodians that does not have to be civil and follow policy, so I feel free to defend Wikiversity from his disruption by using the direct method of editing Wikiversity pages so as to correct problems that McCormack has created. In order to game the system, he makes false charges about my editing such as implying that my edit to the Brows page was apparent vandalism. Making false charges against an editor and using those false charges to "justify" blocking and de-sysoping is a clear abuse of custodial power. --JWSchmidt 16:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Four Wikiversity custodians have charged me with "policy manipulation" because I have participated in the development of Wikiversity and its policies. This absurd and sickening charge comes from people who openly violated Wikiversity policy and worked to prevent the development of critically needed policies. I call upon the Wikiversity community to carefully examine the actions of these four custodians and how their actions have damaged and continue to damage the Wikiversity community. I stand by my efforts to help develop Wikiversity policy; those efforts are a normal part of developing a wiki community. The charge that my efforts the build Wikiversity are some kind of disruptive "policy manipulation" are absurd and groundless (see also this general reply from JWSchmidt for the charge of "policy manipulation"). Each specific charge is addressed below.
case 22 detailed reply. As for "case 21", Wikiversity:Verifiability is one of a group of policies that is important for Wikiversity and the Wikiversity research policy that was explicitly requested by the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees. I make no apologies for my efforts to develop Wikiversity and the research policy and other related policies. The charge that I "manipulated policy" by my good faith efforts to find collaborators to develop these policies, hold community discussions about these policies and finally to designate them as official is absurd and sickening. That such absurd charges have been used to "justify" blocking, banning and desysoping me is outrageous.
case 23 detailed reply. Wikiversity:Reliable sources is an interlocking policy with Wikiversity:Verifiability and Wikiversity:Cite sources. These three policies work together to make sure that reliable and verifiable sources are cited to support information on Wikiversity webpages. That normal good faith wiki editing and development of the Wikiversity project is called "manipulation" is truly sickening.
case 24 detailed reply. There have always been wiki participants who are tempted to use the vandalism reverting tools for purposes other than reverting vandalism, so it is important for wikis to have policies that say only use these tools for reverting vandalism. Tools for quickly reverting vandalism are a useful feature of MediaWiki. I am proud to take a stand against those who treat good faith edits as if they were vandalism. I find it truly sickening that four Wikiversity custodians with charge me with "policy manipulation" because I have worked to make sure that the anti-vandalism revert tools are only used for their intended purpose. --JWSchmidt 17:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
case 25 detailed reply. The rules for custodians were worked out by means of a large number of discussions and collaborative editing. The claim that marking a needed policy as "official" is in some way "policy manipulation" is absurd and this charge was only manufactured in an attempt to assemble a large number of false and distorted charges that were then used to "justify" blocking, banning and desysoping me. I think the Wikiversity community should closely examine the actions of Wikiversity participants who, rather than help develop needed policies, have obstructed their development, tried to prevent them from being marked "official" and have even ignored them and violated them. --JWSchmidt 18:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
case 36 detailed reply. User:McCormack has worked hard to ignore, undermine and replace the Wikimedia Foundation-approved Wikiversity project proposal. I prevented him from writing the "learn by doing model" out of Wikiversity. It is truly sickening that misguided custodians have accused me of "policy manipulation" for defending the Foundation-approved Wikiversity project proposal and the idea that Wikiversity is a wiki where learners can learn by editing. --JWSchmidt 18:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
to be continuedEdit
I intend to respond to all of the false and distorted charges that were made against me. It is a sickening process to have to read these false and distorted charges. Worse is the fact that a few Wikiversity participants continue to use these false and distorted charges to try to 'justify" the removal of my custodial status, the bad block that was made against me and keeping me banned from participating in #wikiversity-en.