Wikiversity:Community Review/SB Johnny

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


No consensus that SB_Johnny should not have Custodian and Bureaucrat tools or that Ottava Rima's interpretation of policy is correct.

Note, this was originally in the Candidates for Custodianship as the rules in policy for desysopping is to put the user up for a community vote to determine consensus for adminship, the very act that candidates without Custodianship go through. This was added here even though multiple people pointed out that Community Review is nothing more but just another talk page and that elections are all on one page. Doesn't matter, as this is magically listed in both. The internet is a magical place. This process will still close on February 1st per policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Contents

SB Johnny (talk | email | contribs | stats)

This is a recall/confirmation hearing for Custodian and Bureaucrat SB Johnny.

The Custodianship has the procedure for this confirmation:

Custodians can lose their status for egregious violations of policies. Loss of custodianship involves a process that establishes community consensus. If a specific complaint is not resolved at Wikiversity:Custodian feedback then a new seven day community discussion can be initiated to establish if there is community consensus in support for the custodianship of the custodian who is the subject of the unresolved complaint.

Per a complaint of SB Johnny ignoring consensus regarding the giving Custodianship of Abd as found here, he was asked to immediately withdraw his action and apologize to the community. A complaint was filed per the policy measures for dealing with Custodian abuse. He has refused to address this concerns, and instead pursued a pattern of off-line harassment and inappropriate on Wikiversity blocks.

This recall/confirmation is officially opened. In seven days from 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC), this hearing will be closed and if SB Johnny does not meet the standard support consensus to make adminship (over 66%) and bureaucratship (over 80%), then he will be stripped of both via Stewards at meta.

Any attempt to derail this discussion, delete this discussion, close this discussion, or to do anything that would go against Wikiversity:Consensus will be met with blocks as assured by multiple admin who will be watching these proceedings. SB Johnny's inappropriate blocks before and his used of others to meatpuppet and join in his harassment of Wikiversity members makes these measures of the utmost importance.

Recall justifications[edit]

1. Countless incivility and abuse: SB Johnny has participated in a 3 year long campaign of attacks, harassment, and nastiness on Wikiversity, on IRC, on Wikipedia Review, through email, and over the phone. He has contacted multiple users in real life without explicit permission, he has outed them and used their real life information without permission on Wikiversity, IRC, and Wikipedia Review, and has threatened to contact multiple user's real life associates and friends with the sole intent to harass. One such incident happened on Mon 19th July 2010, 5:12pm on Wikipedia Review, where he threatened to contact a user's professor, their priest, and other inappropriate measures for the sole purpose to create a poisonous atmosphere. --Ottava Rima

This is a rather wild interpretation of history, but I think it's important to give a bit of explanation for that last point. The person who's "support system" I was considering contacting was Ottava Rima's, who seemed at the time to be having some sort of emotional or psychological breakdown. He claims to have "reported me to the FBI" for being a pedophile (which I'm not, and which as the father of a young child I have a hard time laughing off), when he had absolutely no reason to think that. I know he also repeated this allegation to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Just putting this out there for perspective on just how disturbed this person is and why anything he says should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally attacking me and making up claims about an imaginary "breakdown" to defend you outright lies and harassment is not acceptable. You are creating a fantasy of others that Abd was exhibiting, and the fact that you two were constantly reinforcing each other, backing up each other statements, and the such is verification that you share the same problem that needs to be dealt with through removal. It is even worse that you stooped to such measures to try and defend your wacko claim that it is alright for naked pictures of children to be tossed around the internet. Such people are not tolerated in academic communities or around children for a reason. You would fail any background check that interviewed people asking if you ever promoted strange ideas that would endanger children. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll link to the threads if anyone wants to see what he's mischaracterizing here.
So Ottava: can you explain how of trying to keep a man from going to girl scout trips with his daughter in order to win some strange battle on a web forum is a sane thing to do? Not that you succeeded in doing so, but judging from what you just said it seems like that was your intent. --SB_Johnny talk 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So you think outing me on this website with names of people that I deal with real life that you threatened to harass is some how acceptable conduct in our policies? The only one mischaracterizing here is you and you are using outing as a way to try and hide your inappropriate abuse. If you did this on Wikipedia you would be banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. Everybody on WR knows exactly who you are, Mr. Rima. Also, any custodian can easily confirm that I have tried to protect your privacy here on WV. --SB_Johnny talk 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It is ludicrous to imagine that anyone who wishes to exercise substantial political power over others can do so incognito on one of the most heavily trafficked web sites on the Internet. With authority and responsibility goes accountability. If one is exercising authority over real people, with real academic credentials, on a publicly funded educational site, one would have to be crazy to believe they could do so anonymously or pseudonymously without being held accountable or jeopardizing their reputation elsewhere. —Moulton 10:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"You didn't answer my question. Everybody on WR knows exactly who you are, Mr. Rima." Yes, everyone knows who I am, which makes your harassment while hiding behind a fake name even worse. You use knowledge of my real life identity to wage a campaign of what can only be described as stalking and harassing to defend your atrocious behavior at Wikiversity. That is not appropriate for a Custodian. Claiming you try to protect me is only further harassment, as a rapist claiming they love their victim is something that causes more damage, not less. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So now you're comparing me to a rapist? Hyperbole gets old quick, for normal people. --SB_Johnny talk 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Stalking and harassment have the same psychological damage as found in rape. They seek to destroy an individual's privacy and undermine the victim's ability to trust others. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
With the above in mind, I'd also like to point out that Ottava has been making a lot of rather bizarre and nasty comments about me in various places. After seeing just how far out there he really is, I've generally avoided responding to him. However, my lack of response should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt... it's just me ignoring the guy rather than making a full time job out of responding to him. --SB_Johnny talk 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"lot of rather bizarre and nasty comments" - only you feel that is so. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that. --SB_Johnny talk 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
See m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. No, SBJ is not the only one who feels that way. As to recent stuff, see the section on recent activity at the end. Given what I've seen Ottava banned for before, I see about ninety percent he is blocked on meta within a few days. My crystal ball is broken, though. --Abd 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Abuse of consensus: SB Johnny has demonstrated over 3 years that he does not care about community consensus. He lied on Meta to claim that JWSchmidt was rightfully removed in order to game Stewards into desysopping him without any community discussion. He had a friend of his, Mu301, grant him Custodian and Bureaucrat rights after he broke his agreement with Jimbo Wales as part of the regaining of them (and thus, did not fulfill his end of the agreement) and ignored community opposition to him having such rights. He ignored community opposition to Abd having Custodianship rights. He ignored policy and procedure while also encouraging canvassing and meat puppetry to remove the rights of another, and blatantly canvassed through email and Wikipedia Review while lying to the people emailed to cause attempts to address major policy issues to fail. --Ottava Rima

I was not particularly comfortable giving Abd the buttons, and am not particularly comfortable with him having them now (see yesterday's dramas for details). However, policy is pretty straightforward: if someone has a willing and qualified mentor, the probationary custodianship starts. --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This suggests otherwise and is a major reason why you cannot be trusted with the power of Bureaucratship. Your statements on WR, the mocking, the incivility, and the rest verifies that your above statements are misleading and are an attempt to hide from what you see is clear opposition to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
How does that suggest otherwise? --SB_Johnny talk 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It shows you ignoring community consensus, consensus which is necessary for all things. You then tried to disrupt the policy change to ensure that consensus was followed, and you encouraged Abd in the disruption while making repeated incivil comments about it on Wikipedia Review in hopes to drum up support. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I was trying to give you a target for venting on WR, rather than going ballistic here. Didn't work. --SB_Johnny talk 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"I was trying to give you a target" - translation: "I abused my ops so that people have something to be upset over". That is ridiculous and such inappropriate views is exactly why you can't be trusted. You treat this like a game in which you win by causing as much disruption and pain as possible. You honestly should be banned for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Bad translation. --SB_Johnny talk 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No example of abuse of ops has been shown. This is all personal attack, presuming bad faith, with too many blatantly false statements by Ottava to answer. If any other established Wikiversity user is concerned about any of those charges, please set them forth in a separate section and I'm sure that they can be answered. --Abd 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Abuse of block button: Almost every single one of SB Johnny's blocks were done in disputes he was involved in, against users that he harassed on Wikiversity and off Wikiversity, and without any discussion or justification. -- Ottava Rima

I definitely should not have made a block I made in 2008, but I reversed it as soon as it was clear that it was not supported (which, tbh, was a surprise to me). Assuming the "other blocks" are those imposed on Ottava, it's quite untrue that he wasn't warned, and also not true that it was for something involving me (if I had blocked for attacks directed at me personally, there would have been a heck of a lot more of them). --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Even Guido said that your recent block of me was highly uncalled for and would result in ramifications for that action. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"Even Guido"? That's hilarious! Was SBJ the ideal custodian to block Ottava? No. Was it necessary? That's another question. I've proposed Wikiversity:Recusal and SBJ adequately followed it with respect to his recent block of Ottava. (As did I, by the way, in fact, I went beyond what it requires.) Ottava opposed that proposed policy when he was a sysop, and frequently violated it. So it's ironic that he now raises this as a problem. --Abd 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Lack of positive contribution to Wikiversity: SB Johnny has participated solely in drama encouraging events. He knowingly encouraged sock puppets of users from Wikipedia to come to Wikiversity to harass multiple users. He waged war against Jimbo Wales without justification and bullied anyone who pointed out the problems with his behavior. He encouraged disruption by user Abd and others, and has failed to work on anything that would make Wikiversity a safe academic environment. -- Ottava Rima

On the contrary, I've been trying to nudge the drama levels down (which is not easy to do). --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Your posts on Wikipedia Review, your countless taunting, abuse of ops, encouraging Abd's disruption, waging war against the WMF Founder, waging war against Wikiversity's Founder, and the rest suggests that you have been the primary source of drama, not the opposition to it. You were desysopped once for clear abuse for a reason and as JWS pointed out that if we knew that anyone would have tried to allow you to come back the community would have acted to ensure that there would be no way for you to wiggle back to power. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
False on all counts, more or less. And if you can't "take it" on WR, you should stop dishing it out ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So, you say it is false but if it was true it is my fault? You own argument undermines itself and is an admittance that you have a major behavioral problem and cannot be trusted to have any position of power here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The only thing "taunting" you on WR has to do with WV is that I hope you'll direct your energies there (where many find your antics amusing), rather than here (where your antics are causing rather serious issues). --SB_Johnny talk 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As pointed out above, your claims and justifications are completely ludicrous and you will not be someone who can contribute to this community appropriately until you realize why. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Bad conclusions. --SB_Johnny talk 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of contributions (if true, it's irrelevant) is not a violation of policy, at all. Much less an "egregious violation" as policy requires for removal of ops. Ottava has filed his four recent Community Reviews in ways that imply that supermajority support for "confirmation" is required -- that's why he's presented it that way --, when the reverse would be closer to the truth. In fact, it's a 'crat decision, by policy, and the discussion is advisory (both as to conclusion and as to community consensus). --Abd 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments of Abd[edit]
Sysop actions[edit]

SBJ had previously blocked Ottava Rima, see block log, for incivility, as had myself (when he was my mentor!), Darklama, and Adambro. SBJ's block, for two days, was not increased from the prior block by Adambro, which was amply justified. Adambro's block was lifted because of apparent recusal failure; that was an error, a block should never be lifted because of recusal failure, but only because of being not needed. Subsequent events proved that the block was, indeed, needed, that warnings were inadequate. So when disruption escalated, and after warning and consultation with the community -- which mostly ignored it -- I blocked for one year, making it clear that this was really "indef," and the longest period I'd think appropriate. A longer block can always be shortened, after concerns are addressed; a short block may simply be ignored, requiring, then, a reblock if the matter continues, with ready claims of "bias." I knew exactly what I was doing.

SBJ, in spite of being very, very aware of the disruption being caused by Ottava, unblocked, without taking any steps to address the concerns behind the block. There was no sign that SBJ reviewed the evidence. He simply considered it inappropriate for a probationary custodian to act like a custodian, it appears. By unblocking without attending to the actual problem, SBJ showed gross negligence. He was technically allowed to do this, but the manner in which he proceeded showed callous disregard for the welfare of Wikiversity. He should be reprimanded or desysopped over this. --Abd 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat actions[edit]

SBJ opposed my candidacy from the beginning, as expressed on Wikipedia Review, sarcastically, and here on Wikiversity, on the Candidacy page.

He has taken the position that 'crat approval is routine, with no discretion allowed. That's a radical misunderstanding; 'crats are responsible for all that they do, none of it is simply "routine." The policy empowers a 'crat to promote a probationary custodian if a custodian agrees to mentor, but the 'crat has obvious discretion: if the mentor, for example, were a completely inactive custodian, the 'crat would presumably want to ensure that there was adequate supervision. SBJ, in the past, had offered both to mentor and also assigned the bit, which might appear to be allowed, but, in the case of my candidacy, Jtneill wisely stated that he would not act as a 'crat. Jtneill was, then, explicitly requiring an approval, which is a sound interpretation of policy. By "approving" when he actually disapproved, SBJ failed to exercise the default supervisory function of a 'crat, exercised through commenting on a proposal (i.e., opposing it as a member of the community), instead of closing and implementing it.

Now, in Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill 2, SBJ is questioning Jtneill's offer to mentor and alleged lack of supervision. The failure here, if there was one, was SBJ's, and if he's not willing to take responsibility for that, he does not understand the 'crat role. SBJ offered to approve the candidacy before it was re-opened, continuing a tradition of making decisions more privately -- this was offered on Jtneill Talk --, which are then presented to the community as a fait accompli. SBJ has a long history of this, and it happened again in my desysop. It appears that the agreement of Mikeu to the desysopping was negotiated off-wiki. But SBJ carried the water, and, given his clear prejudice -- i.e., he really agrees with the claims being made about my editing and my functioning as a sysop -- he was the wrong person to close. Mikeu was neutral, I believe.

Jtneill knew my history much more deeply, he'd studied and commented on my own review of my previous custodial actions, and had confirmed my warning and block of Ottava for incivility, and when he warned Ottava again, Ottava promptly filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill as payback and possible attempt to establish a recusal requirement. The community, as is normal, did not address the history, and simply looked at this horrifying appearance of a probationary custodian crazy enough to block his mentor. What that block did, in fact, was to trigger a series of events that led to Ottava losing his sysop bit, and, as I've found by later review, there had been a lot going on that the community has never noticed as a whole. He was truly a problem before I tapped him with a warning and a 2-hour block. He was a ticking time-bomb, and that nudge did cause it to explode. That does not make me the bomber!

There were many opportunities for any 'crat and, indeed, any custodian, to intervene in what I was doing. The only one who intervened was SBJ, to effectively nullify all my efforts to protect the community.

SBJ, in the recent events, used Ottava's canvassed proposal as an excuse to revoke my bit. He was, he stated, "unwilling to serve as my judge," when I'd offered to allow him to yank the bit simply on his own discretion, before my CR was ever filed. SBJ thus had the power to avoid all that nonsense, but didn't use it. However, then, he did become the judge, closing the CR desysop proposal and implementing it as a 'crat. He could have allowed Mu301 to close, but I suspect Mike would have more carefully reviewed the thing. I had, by the way, also allowed any crat to yank the bit, immediately. And any custodian to stop me. I was proceeding with strict caution under what I saw, rightly or wrongly, as emergency conditions. I would do it again.

SBJohnny was from the beginning opposed to my candidacy, initially supported emergency desysopping as soon as it was proposed, and never addressed the reasons for my block of Ottava. His close of the discussion as consensus for desysop was therefore in violation of a recusal requirement. A sensible close would have considered the nature of the !votes, and his closing discussion did not. That's a 'crat failure.

In implementing desysopping, I requested at meta that he close based on my prior and repeated offer of the unconditional right. He angrily rejected that as "insulting," and insisted upon closing my CR as if community consensus were blatantly obvious in it. Even Moulton has noticed how rude this was. I wonder what JWS will say!

The same appearance exists in this CR. If it is defective here, it was defective there. Normal desysopping process was not followed. There is a reason for the normal process, precisely to avoid these train wrecks. Indeed, this CR was more legitimate, because it was preceded by a Wikiversity:Custodian feedback filing, mine was not. This was put up as a "confirmation hearing," which was quite defective, but my desysop hearing started as a topic ban proposal, even worse, gained votes on that basis, which were then copied to the new CR. For future reference, folks, do not allow !votes from one context to be stripped and placed out of context in a new one. The wikilawyering tricks Ottava used here were impressive, and, it appears, I was the only sysop who noticed them and who realized what was going on.

Ottava, when I warned him before blocking him, promptly filed that topic ban proposal, so that if I blocked, it would seem to be retaliatory. He's highly skilled at this business, in fact. And that is precisely why he's so dangerous, and why, in unblocking Ottava, without taking steps to protect the community, SBJ abused his sysop bit. I now believe that he did all this deliberately, knowing that the appearances created would lead to sufficient cover for my desysop.

I don't mind the desysop itself, I don't need the tools, and I take no joy in blocking anyone. But who, exactly, is going to protect Wikiversity from the bullying and threats and lies that continued, that intensified, once Ottava was desysopped? There are some who seem to enjoy the drama and who think that nobody should ever be blocked for anything. No real university could function in that way. It's been tried! They didn't last more than a few years! Consensus and deliberative process require protective structure. SBJ is standing firmly in the way of that. He should lose his bit, and can then function as an ordinary member of this community. --Abd 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for candidate[edit]

In 2008 Jimbo vastly disrupted Wikiversity and I wonder what pressures were imposed on SB Johnny at that time. I would have included SB Johnny in the community review of "problematic actions" last Summer had I thought he intended to return and exercise special user rights at Wikiversity. I'd like to hear from SB Johnny about how he views the events of 2008 and if he has an interest in returning Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that existed before Wikiversity was infected with "Wikipedia Disease". --JWSchmidt 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I knew then what I know now (namely that Jimbo wasn't actually capable of just "turning off" Wikiversity if we didn't do what he wanted), I think things would have been very different. Hopefully peace will reign again one day, but not if we have to go through a drama per week like we have been lately. --SB_Johnny talk 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, SBJ was being pressured by Jimbo, who was in turn being pressured by FeloniousMonk to intervene on his behalf. FM was already here, as User:Centaur of attention, but he had been blocked. Once FM/CofA was out of the picture (thanks to ArbCom) those atrocious bullying tactics lost most of their traction. —Moulton 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Felonious Monk, Hipocrite, and KillerChihuahua were disrupting the community and waging war on other users before Jimbo arrived and were aided by SB Johnny in IRC and on Wiki. He went so far to give one sock puppet ops even though he threatened to make sure "Moulton would never be able to edit" with a script that was opposed by the community as reckless and dangerous. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • They were too chummy on IRC, Wikipedia Review, and Wikipedia to lead me to think such. But, if SB Johnny did give him enough "rope" he used it to hurt a lot of others before himself. Such is irresponsible. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Whom did Salmon of Doubt harm due to SB_Johnny mentoring him for a few days? If he harmed someone, did he use admin tools to accomplish it? I've looked, I haven't noticed anything, but perhaps I missed something. Isn't "chummy" the right way to treat Salmon? --Abd 06:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Potential is more important. Custodians require community trust, which Salmon of Doubt did not have and as a known sock puppet used to cause disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Mentored custodianship is a manifestation of the trust of the community through the mentor. If a custodian cannot be trusted to mentor, then the custodian should be prohibited from mentoring. The proof of the pudding with SoD was that SB_Johnny did not allow damage to occur. By offering to mentor, as he did, he avoided a contentious discussion, thus helping the community. Ottava is trying to change long-standing WV policy allowing any custodian to mentor, without discussion, it only requires a 'crat approval of the mentorship. Given that no actual damage has occurred from this, we can see how the present claims are motivated, not by protection of the wiki, but by revenge and payback. Determining, here, "known sock puppet used to cause disruption," would have been, at the time, way too disruptive! I.e., exactly what SoD may have wanted. SB Johnny finessed it, taking the wind right out of SoD's sails. Really, it was brilliant. --Abd 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"a manifestation of the trust of the community through the mentor" No. All Custodians, temporary or not, need community's trust. If a mentor pushes a mentee who lacks it or is found later to be abusive, then that undermines the community's trust in a mentor. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In 2008, SB Johnny sided with Jimbo and was able to remove you and Moulton, which represented two influential people here. He also repeatedly blocked you without reason and set about trying to alienate your supporters, as many of them no longer edit here. When Jimbo came around in 2010, SB Johnny went against Jimbo. It would seem that Jimbo was only a tool of convenience, as the personal attacks against you and Moulton on IRC, Wikipedia Review, and elsewhere shows something more deeper than just Jimbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. If I supported blocking Moulton, I would have just done so. --SB_Johnny talk 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If that was true, then Moulton wouldn't have been repeatedly booted by you from IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Moulton can be a frustrating participant in conversations. Without reviewing those logs, it's impossible to tell if the "booting" -- which is temporary in effect, practically speaking -- was abusive, and it's abusive for Ottava to argue this here. It's moot. More to the point would be Moulton's block log. Notice who set the longest effective block terms. Short blocks are merely a sergeant-at-arms "You are out of order, sit down!, enforced." Moulton was globally locked in 2008, as I recall, so the later unblocks and blocks of Moulton were symbolic in effect, until the recent SBJ renaming action, which I supported, and it was the Caprice account which was allowed to edit, so see Caprice block log. Adambro unblocked because I asserted recusal failure. Ottava was unblocking quite possibly as a provocation, i.e., perhaps he anticipated that Moulton would be a big problem, and he was about to be desysopped. Or it was making up for previous errors. I'm not a mind-reader. --Abd 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton can be a frustrating participant in conversations.
It depends on whether your goal in a conversation is at cross-purposes with mine. What is your objective in a conversation, where you find yourself frustrated and blocked from achieving your goal? —Moulton 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The amount of influence I have here is el zippo de nada. —Caprice 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, you managed to get quite a few people to join you at Wikiversity and worked on many foundational projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Whodat? —Caprice 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Caprice/Moulton has the same right of influence as do I. The extra "power" of a block button is weak, indeed, if not backed by the community, in the long run. Use it and lose it, if you use it abusively. It just takes time, sometimes. And sometimes people cry "abuse," when, in fact, the sysop is correctly anticipating consensus, or at least community permission. Wikiversity:Recusal was designed to protect against the most serious abuse or even appearance of problem, but that is only proposed policy and isn't widely understood. (Basically, the recusal part is somewhat understood, but the "emergency" bypass is not. Yet, in fact, this is what happens, except that sysops claiming the right to act in spite of an appearance of involvement don't consult, too often.) Similar was proposed for Wikipedia and generally rejected, because admins there dislike the idea of any restrictions at all on their behavior, and they assumed that recusal failure would be wikilawyered to death; but, when an admin there violates that unstated policy, and offends enough users and especially other administrators, they do lose their bits. Hence the emergency bypass, which sets up procedure to follow, clear and, in fact, simple. --Abd 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it only took two and a half years here. And on WP, Meta, and other WMF project sites, it's still an unresolved issue after three and a half years, notwithstanding the fact that FeloniousMonk was slapped down by ArbCom a year ago. I don't care about retributive justice, only restorative justice. When will I be restored to the status I enjoyed before the corrupt bullies of IDCab played their foolish game? —Moulton 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • When you stop your own bullying, Moulton. It could take some time, still. Societies display inertia. I confronted the same cabal, Moulton, and I'm not blocked on Wikipedia. I withdrew from the fray, there, though, because I concluded that Wikipedia structure is hopelessly defective and "victory" was way too expensive. It wasn't because I didn't know how to do it, there were several sysops I could have creamed before ArbComm, that door wasn't closed. But, at best, it was such a royal pain in the ass that it wasn't worth it. There is only one sysop that I believe I could get desyopped over what he's done, the others would just get "admonishment," and you know what that does? They ignore it, and they retaliate, or their friends retaliate. Wikipedia has zero protection for whistle-blowers. Those sysops weren't so bad, usually, just stupid, and the structure enables that kind of stupidity, it even appears to recruit it and depend on it. I saw the sane users leaving, and eventually simply joined that crowd. Wikiversity has similar problems, but the scale is small enough that it might be possible to address them before it is too late. I certainly can't do it alone, though. --Abd 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation discussion[edit]

  • Oppose confirmation for Custodian and Bureaucrat per long term abuse of community, harassment of others, and his sole purpose in causing the destruction of Wikiversity. A long term ban of this user would also do a lot to aid in the recovery of this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose confirmation I am deeply concerned of him regaining the bureaucrat and administrator/custodian rights without any discussion with the community, that should have never been done. Diego Grez 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose confirmation Unfortunately SB has not shown me any reason for me to support him and so I don't believe that he is suitable for the position ever. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support confirmation I feel these proceedings are a kangaroo court. →StaniStani  09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Your statement must show a justification for him being reconfirmed by a Steward, which means why he can be trusted. You have not provided such. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ottava posted this on Stanistani Talk. With this threat as well, and even more at Request custodian action, Ottava is threatening those who disagree with him. He presented no evidence for the alleged egregious behavior, and the above comments don't allege egregious behavior, except for Ottava's claims. (Diego is concerned about process, not realizing, apparently, standard procedure on WMF wikis for recovery after voluntary resignation, which was followed. Kevin has "no reason for me to support," and "doesn't believe" SBJ is suitable, but doesn't allege the required "egregious behavior.") Ottava only threatens those who disagree with him. --Abd 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"He presented no evidence for the alleged egregious behavior" 1. There is no discussion that can be found where SB Johnny was deemed by the community as rightfully getting ops back. 2. There is no discussion that can be found that the community discussed removing JWS before SB Johnny went to Meta. Those two alone would warrant a desysop. You have not contradicted them and you know it. There is also no "standard process" for recovery of ops on Wikiversity, and such is only allowed when policy allows them. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Designate as Drama Queen. I propose that all sysops who have abused their Custodial power be switched to a new category of Wikiversity functionary, the Drama Queen. Wikiversity Drama Queens will only be able to block obvious repeat vandals and will only be able to delete Wikiversity pages that were created by obvious vandals. If, during any month, a Drama Queen's number of edits in the Wikiversity namespace is greater than the number of edits in the main namespace, the Drama Queen will automatically and permanently lose access to all special tools. Similarly, any Drama Queen who uses their tools for any purpose other than dealing with repeat vandals will automatically and permanently lose access to all special tools. I propose that all Wikiversity sysops who have 1) imposed a block on a Wikiversity community member for any reason other than obvious repeated vandalism, or 2) censored a Wikiversity community discussion or 3) participated in an emergency desysop of a Wikiversity Custodian when no emergency existed or 4) acted to support one of Jimbo's interventions into Wikiversity affairs be designated a Drama Queen. --JWSchmidt 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Adendeum: I see no indication that SBJ is willing to limit his use of Custodial tools to dealing only with cases of obvious repeated vandalism. Rather than say that he will change his ways, SBJ continues his past methods including denigration of honest complaints from Ottava. If SBJ does not agree to limit his use of Custodial tools to only dealing with obvious repeated vandalism then he should no have access to any special user rights. If there is a remaining Wikimedia Functionary who cares, the list of policy violations and abuses by SBJ is long. The main problem has been poor judgment in supporting the disruption of Wikiversity by a gang of policy violators from Wikipedia in 2008. SBJ imposed a bogus community ban on Wikiversity community member Moulton. SBJ showed poor and damaging judgment in forcing upon Wikiversity policy-violating Custodial candidates who have in their own turns vastly disrupted Wikiversity. SBJ has imposed emergency desysop procedures against Wikiversity Custodians when no emergency existed and lied to the Wikiversity community to attempt to justify his actions. Rather than correct and admit to his policy violations and his vast disruption of this project he has used his special tools to silence those who tried to stand up to his abusive misuse of his position or trust and responsibility. I believe that if this community is going to be able to bring back the abused community members that SBJ helped drive away and attract a healthy community of collaborating learners then SBJ cannot continue to be in a position to continue making more bad decisions and cause further disruption of this project. --JWSchmidt 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I propose that the Cast of Characters who are designated as Drama Queens be recruited to perform the newest Comic Opera in the Rinse Cycle, The Final Absolution to be produced by Schadenfreude Theater of the Absurd. The grand finale will be "The Riot of the Mockeries." —Barsoom Tork 14:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't had time to read through all the background but I saw this at the Colloquium and I don't see enough to say that I can trust this user having rights. IDangerMouse 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your well thought out remarks that will surely encourage a unified learning community. I look forward to more civil discussion from you. -- darklama  16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Mu301 may have miscalculated how controversial giving the tools back to SB_Johnny would be, and it may make sense to require SB_Johnny to go through some kind of process to establish that there is community consensus for SB_Johnny to have administrative and bureaucratic tools again. -- darklama  16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about Mike, but I certainly miscalculated on that note. Or maybe I didn't... it's a bit hard to tell :-). --SB_Johnny talk 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • According to my calculations, we are in for a blizzard of words. —Moulton 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose desysop' Just to be clear. This process is hopelessly flawed, presented as a "confirmation hearing," which we don't do. We have a clear and specific desysop process, and it has not been followed, except now, in the name of this page, but simply moving the page did not change the content. The description of process at the top of this page, is misleading --Abd 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are very good reasons to maintain the standard policy that resignation not under a cloud may be reversed without process, upon request. It is to encourage users who don't need the privilege to resign. It makes the cost of resignation low. Administrators may also resign, sometimes, out of temporary frustration, and there is no reason to convert that into making it impossible to recover the bit. As is well-known, administrators who are active frequently make enemies, and thus requiring a full process for recovery usually means the end of the line, even if that admin is no less trusted than other active admins. It is the most disruptive users who pay the most attention to process like this. --Abd 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. This whole "confirmation hearing" process was designed by Ottava to make it appear that supermajority would be required for confirmation. In fact, removal of a sysop bit requires consensus, typically supermajority, coupled with a decision by a 'crat on the arguments, showing egregious violation of policy. I haven't seen that even being alleged with evidence. Note the arguments above:
  • I am deeply concerned of him regaining the bureaucrat and administrator/custodian rights without any discussion with the community (Diego Grez}
  • SB has not shown me any reason for me to support him (Kevin Rutherford)
  • I don't see enough to say that I can trust this user having rights (IDangerMouse)
I'm seeing, here, zero support for desysop based on policy, with the only four comments favoring it coming from Ottava and three inactive users, possibly canvassed (based on evidence shown elsewhere). --Abd 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see a reason to trust SB Johnny with Custodian or Bureaucrat status, more evidence needed. IDangerMouse 15:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support confirmation I have seen nothing to justify removal of the tools, which have been in place long before they were incorrectly removed by Jimbo and before SB Johnny needed a well-deserved wikibreak from the drama. Adrignola 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
So, multiple instances of ignoring the community when it comes to giving and taking sysops is nothing? Is it a coincidence that you tag team with him on Wikipedia Review and make other problematic statements? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The only people making significant contributions to that site are yourself, Abd, and SB Johnny. Note that I have not taken sides there nor have I made comments about people there. If I have something to say, I say it on wiki, on record. Adrignola 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
SBJ is not particularly my friend on Wikipedia Review, he completely ridiculed the idea of my being a custodian there, and he flat-out doesn't get it as to what I've been doing. Ottava sees everything in terms of the Vast Battle Between Good and Evil that is his view of the wikis, and "Evil" means "anyone who disagrees with him," it's been obvious for a long time. I predict he's banned on meta within a week. Wikiversity was unwilling to ban or even restrict JWS, so I have no idea what will happen with Ottava here. I do believe that the status quo is causing massive and ongoing damage, I'll ask Adrignola to testify to that. --Abd 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's my take on things. The problem is I've put a lot of effort and work into trying to bring order to chaos at Wikibooks, then I see the community evaporate in spite of it. I find myself very reluctant to put such attention into any other Wikimedia project, including Wikiversity. Wikiversity has always been a conundrum to me, always something I've found difficult to understand; the project itself often doesn't seem to understand itself either. I have ruled out any idea of long-term significant maintenance at Wikiversity, much less acting as a custodian, until all the people calling for removal of those they feel are causing disruption realize they are causing far more disruption themselves. It's pedantry left and right, assumptions of bad faith, incivility with name-calling such as "drama queens" above and "charlatan" below. It's bouncing back and forth from one discussion to another; once one "side" gets its way in one area it feels enabled and starts another call for action; if one "side" doesn't get its way in another area, it calls for action against whoever it feels slighted them. It's blown over to Meta, Wikipedia Review, IRC, emails. Great that it's such a welcoming environment for giving people second chances, but at some point you need to draw a line. But I don't think anyone will, because people are afraid of further retaliation. Time for a reboot. Go ahead and remove all the bureaucrats and while you're at it, all the custodians. When the project is capable of rational discussion and consensus-building, with policies and procedures put into practice in such a way that resembles a stable community of people working hand-in-hand, then you deserve to administrate yourselves. Adrignola 01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a strange chick/egg theory. Two possibilities - people complain about abuse then abuses happened or abuses happened and then people complained. It would seem from the multiple desysops without community consensus in 2008, the adding sysops multiple times without going by discussions, making countless "civility" blocks while ignoring that civility says that ignoring is the first step and not a pattern of incivil warnings and blocks that only cause more drama. Tthere ae many other problems too. Most people here would like a reboot of the admin - many were added with no discussion, 12 have been inactive for over 2 years, and many other actions happened here in defiance of community will. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"The only people making significant contributions" Fair enough, but when I do see you it always seems to be inline with SB Johnny's statements. You can still think what he did in the past doesn't warrant a desysopping while acknowledging errors. I find it odd how you think a Bureaucrat should ignore the community will. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose process. This entire "reconfirmation process" fabricated by Ottava has no precedent or basis in policy. The existing probationary custodianship process states that once a mentor accepts a candidate then a crat should flip the bit. Perhaps the custodianship process should be modified, but that is a separate issue from any individual's actions. I support SB_Johnny as a custodian and crat but do not consider the many reviews opened by Ottava (including this one) to be legitimate. --mikeu talk 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    The precendence is 2. 1. JWSchmidt was removed without community discussion. 2. Ottava Rima was removed after 3 days even though unanimous community consensus was to throw the whole thing out as inappropriate. Mu301/Mikeu was involved in both. This process, however, follows what is expressly written in the policy. It is interesting that Mikeu says this is wrong yet was involved in two that ignored community consensus and were deemed abusive by many here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Mikeu, the conclusion that process or policy needs work could actually be the main outcome here. Reviews don't always end in a simple 'for' or 'against'. Regards, Guido den Broeder 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Ditto what Guido says. I'm quite sure Mike feels the same way about policies needing work. --SB_Johnny talk 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Bad Idea, in fact, but a common one on wikis. Under Robert's Rules, a motion must be on a single topic, and people who don't care about the topic may ignore the debate. It creates social utility efficiency, in fact. Wikis, in theory, could be even more efficient, but allowing the question(s) to shift in midstream places the prior !votes in a questionable context, and, as well, people who have looked and who were not interested in participating don't know that something new has arisen. (that happened here, in fact, there is an unclarity about the question and the process of decision. Is it "confirmation" or is it "removal of the bits)." So we depend on closer discretion to extract consensus from a farrago of opinions given under different circumstances. It can work, but it can also be incredibly inefficient, and it burns people out. I believe we need hybrid systems that incorporate elements of traditional deliberation and the freer wiki style. I experimented with some on Wikipedia, and they worked. But the community picked up on none of it. If we want real dispute resolution, we will need efficiency as well, if it's inefficient, it isn't sustainable. --Abd 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Well, that was the intent when the CR page was setup, but I'm not seeing suggestions that policy needs to be clarified. Instead, the review jumped to the conclusion that a "recall" should be put to the community and a few people immediately started voting on that question. Why wasn't there a discussion of the problem before a solution was proposed? --mikeu talk 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    "Why wasn't there a discussion of the problem before a solution was proposed?" There was a lot of discussion. We attempted to fix the problem via passing policy, it was brought up at Meta, and it was discussed in multiple forums here. The other matters with previous incidents by SB Johnny were discussed for many months here in many forums. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    (edit conflict with above) Freedom from evidence has been a feature of the recent processes filed by Ottava. Just to give an example, I closed the Candidates page that was later moved here by Ottava. That closure stood, for reasons explained on the Talk page. However, when Ottava then put up the topic ban proposal for me, the first !vote was from User:Diego Grez. His complaint? I'd closed that Candidates page. In other words, my "crime," worthy of a topic ban, was taking a simple action that enjoyed consensus. A careful Community Review would collect evidence and present it before any !voting starts. We should write this in process, if we want out decisions to have some depth. Otherwise they become merely a matter of how loudly the crowd shouts, what friends can be gathered and how quickly, and the principle of a closer weighing both evidence and arguments, as well as numbers of !vote, becomes meaningless. --Abd 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Churlatan. n. An invented word, compounded of “churl” and “charlatan,” denoting an individual who justifies his or her opinion on a contested and controversial subject by crediting only the evidence that supports his side of the argument, and conceals the dishonesty of his position by aggressively attacking proponents of the opposition. Coined by Paul Janssen, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 2011.
Example: “The churlatan railed against anyone who dared to suggest that 'excess heat' in Cold Fusion experiments was either an error in measurement or a mundane effect explained by principles of classical physics that have been well known since the days of Antoine Lavoisier and Michael Faraday.”
Moulton 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
My my, Favorite Topic by Favorite Troll. But off-topic here. See Cold fusion, where vigorous debates rage down in the grass, like in w:Blue Velvet (film), over a topic where there is a vast gap between common understanding and what the mainstream peer-reviewed literature shows. Correction of stupid unsourced churlish POV-pushing, on any side, at any level, cordially invited. --Abd 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ottavan Empire. Nice. I think I'll use it at meta. Damn! I wrote "Ottava Era," I was almost there. See why I want Moulton around? Besides, hardly anyone else will play. --Abd 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no escape from Moulton's atrocious song parodies. —Montana Mouse 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Major Oppose SB Johnny has shown himself to ignore community consensus, cause drama, and cannot be trusted with adminship or bureaucratship... He is indeed a fucking charlatan who only thinks of himself... --Anonymous Uploader 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for sharing. --SB_Johnny talk 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The incivility is unfortunate, but I could no longer effectively warn, eh? The basic conclusion, though, is sound. SBJ's personal irritation with "walls of text," which boils down to an unease with someone who has lots of ideas, lots of experience, and whom he doesn't understand, and doesn't want to take the time to understand, is behind much of his comment, over the last few months, about me. --Abd 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose confirmation. Arguments will be presented above for the removal of both the 'crat and sysop bit for SB_Johnny. The issues are separate, and some of the charges made against SBJ here are spurious, as noted before. However, there are legitimate reasons for concern, as the ultimate play-out of my own probationary custodianship made clear to me. This CR was premature and defective, but a 'crat can still sort it out, as, indeed, SBJ argued in my case, where the defects were even worse. Please note the arguments SB Johnny gave in closing Wikiversity:Community Review/Abd. He applied them there, against me and in favor of Ottava's claims. Those same arguments and principles, applied here, would lead to a conclusion that SBJ has, indeed, offended the community. True? How would we know? Looking at the votes in my CR, it appeared so. Looking here, practically the same appearance exists. A 'crat would not have acted like this, SBJ had means to end the issue over my adminship non-disruptively, with my explicit consent. He chose, instead, to end it controversially, as will become clear. As to his sysop bit, my primary reason is that he, without ensuring that the community was protected from very serious disruption, threats of block and steward intervention, as well as tendentious argument and gross incivility, offenses over which Ottava had previously been blocked, three times, with no community opposition, unblocked Ottava without addressing the reasons for the block. While he had my permission, that didn't make it any more than technically proper. It left the community unprotected, forcing me, ultimately, to continue to act. He could have left it in place, or, probably better, reduced it to some length he thought more appropriate. Note that, by recusal policy, he could not increase it. That's one reason I made it a year! SBJ showed what I've ultimately concluded was personal animosity, he'd turned pretty ugly at Wikipedia Review, and opposed my custodianship from the very beginning. Reversing a block merely because the blocking admin was "biased" is widely rejected on the wikis; rather, a reviewing admin will look at the reasons for the block. Just because someone is allegedly biased does not mean that a specific action is wrong. --Abd 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support confirmation — from a passerby. I've not gotten involved in this project because every time I look at it, I see major drama storms... and I see SB Johnny seeking to protect this project. I know him from other projects, from a friend who has had dinner at his house, that I've had entirely agreeable emails with him over several years. And I know his detractor, who *lies* about anyone who's ever offended him. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support confirmation It has taken me some time to think this over. I believe that Ottava Rima's concerns are sincere and that he has been correct and justified to start this review, although I'd rather not have multiple, connected reviews at the same time. Clearly there is pain from the past that has not been sufficiently dealt with earlier; maybe it never will be. It is also quite possible that SB Johnny has made errors in judgement on more than one occasion. In fact, I have seen him make one. However, none of us is perfect, and in contrast to someone else who comes to mind (no, not Ottava) SB Johnny doesn't claim to be. IMHO he has dealt admirably with the most recent major issue, the end of Abd's probationary custodianship, and has shown willingness to improve himself as well as work towards a better future for Wikiversity as a whole. And that is the important part here. This place needs an overhaul, and the people to make that happen. SB Johnny, like Ottava Rima, is capable of playing a significant, constructive part in that effort. The idea of a social contract has gathered support and may be the very thing that can turn things around. Best regards, Guido den Broeder 02:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose procedure. I am not aware of any precedent or procedure for confirmation processes on English Wikiversity, thus I oppose the current process. I'm also not sure where the claimed need for 66% and 80% in favour comes from (but I'm interested to learn), especially as I've seen Ottava argue elsewhere along the lines that vote-counting doesn't matter but rather that argument and consensus matters. I'd prefer to first see community discussion about the general idea of confirmation processes before applying it to particular cases. Similarly, I don't see why should we have a one-off confirmation process for one custodian/bureaucrat. If the community thinks this confirmation processes are a good idea, then it would seem only fair to systematically apply it to all custodians/bureaucrats. Having looked around a little at some sister projects I see that there are some examples of confirmation processes which we could review and consider their relative merits (e.g. meta:Stewards/confirm. Personally, I think the general idea has merit and could be useful at Wikiversity because I think that custodians and bureaucrats should be subject to ongoing scrutiny and that the community should have a chance to undertake regular review. A more regularly confirmation process could help to prevent the somewhat messy and unresolved CR situation, which seem mostly to be about custodians/bureaucrats. However, I think the possible merits or otherwise of confirmation process should be made as a separate proposal for discussion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Process is our most important impediment to progress. —Moulton 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/SB_Johnny&oldid=699840"