This is an emergency recall/confirmation hearing for Mentored Temporary Custodian Abd. It was originally proposed by User:Guido den Broeder on 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC). The original situation involved a topic ban of Abd at the Colloquium found here. The topic ban was to ban Abd from "Wikiversity" namespace for 6 months, allowing him to continue to directly talk to users, work on articles, and upload images. The matter was to address Abd's combative way of discussing that involves the "wall of text" noticed by many and disruptive of processes. It also deals with his making unique claims about policy that are not verified.[reply]
The emergency desysop was proposed by Guido then gained community support after Abd declared an "emergency" situation, something having no connection to Wikiversity operations, and blocked a user for a year in a manner that no one thought was appropriate. Abd's original mentorship proposal had multiple objections that were ignored, leading to a desire to change the policy to make it so the objections could not be ignored. The matter was also used as evidence that the Bureaucrat was involved in a long time series of ignoring Wikiversity consensus and should have his powers revoked. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment sets up a hearing but the filer included, as if it were in response to this review introduction, prior comments below, making it appear that these were comments on the proposal here, an "emergency recall/confirmation hearing," an invented process. The original proposal was a topic ban, which was preposterous. The original !voters were instant, users with little activity on Wikiversity. The user "blocked for a year," was Ottava, for massive disruption, misleading the community about sysops "ready to block," and the "year" was explicitly stated as simply being in lieu of "indef," i.e., until review by the community, and it was not only presented to the community immediately, it was actually presented first as an intention to block, after a previous request for neutral custodian attention, which did not manifest. No custodian requested I refrain. Permission was granted, with the block, for any custodian to unblock.
Ottava is, in fact, attacking the entire Wikiversity 'crat community. The votes below are not clearly responses to the charges made above, and the community has not had an opportunity to review the reasons for my declaration of emergency (I proposed Wikiversity:Recusal, which does allow involved custodians to act, by declaration of emergency and immediate notification and consultation.) I acknowledged involvement in requesting the review.
Our desysop process calls first for a filing at Wikiversity:Custodian feedback, and, in addition, as to "emergency," I have explicitly consented to removal of my tools by either my mentor or the 'crat SB_Johnny, neither of whom now supports emergency removal. I would also be responsive to any requests from other sysops, if any are concerned about possible improper action.
This is obvious payback for my role in Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima, which resulted in his desysopping, and at [1] we can see how Ottava manages to define practically the entire administrative community as "involved." This should stop. Nobody was attacking Ottava or interfering with his work here. --Abd04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was told by Stewards that the previous votes to desysop will be included with any future votes to desysop. You don't have community consensus supporting you for adminship ever at this community. That is your fault and a problem until you recognize it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava has not asked stewards on meta, and he's misrepresented many conversations. If a steward actually did make that statement, I want to know who it was so I can complain on meta about it. Wikiversity has a desysopping policy, and it does not involve stewards reviewing our votes, as such. So Ottava is claiming that stewards will bypass our policy, and that is very serious. Ottava's contributions on meta -- might as well note what he's been up to there. He's been trying to get stewards and Jimbo to interfere here. JWS, is this what you want? --Abd05:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the open Steward channel with over 3 dozen witnesses. There is no policy protecting you on this. I find it odd how you talk about bypassing policy when you have done that repeatedly. You are also making up policies now. That is why the community is against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava classically uses off-wiki channels, especially IRC, where we cannot see the logs, gets opinions that he misunderstands, and then waves them about to attempt to convince himself and maybe a few others that he's being backed up. On meta, it looks to me like he's close to being banned. He's certainly got no traction there, Jimbo deletes his remarks, where he's attempting to stir up trouble for us, without comment, etc. "Protecting me on this"? Protecting me from what? I've referred to no "protection of me," I've referred to meta practices, which I understand, they are pretty simple. Ottava is attempting to again bypass Wikiversity process, to gain steward intervention here. It's not going to happen, for reasons that will be well-understood by anyone who knows how meta works. I'm successful at meta, every time I've taken a position there, recently. I don't take positions that I don't think the community will back, on discussion. I'm occasionally wrong, but not often.
I'm describing actual process as actually implemented by those with the privileges. Ottava is describing a fantasy of process, often divorced from both the language of policy and actual process, based on what he wishes were true. He can sometimes attract some support from others with similar misunderstandings, and misunderstanding of wiki process is pretty common, among those who have not truly studied it. I'll address all the significant issues brought up here.
I recognize that pointing out Ottava's errors is not an adequate defense regarding mine (real or alleged). So I ask that scholars give me time to explain what I've done, compile evidence, etc. --Abd21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was that a civil comment? Ah, well, to the substance: Ottava, on Jimbo Talk, pointed to [2] seeking steward intervention at Wikiversity. Jimbo personally removed a number of comments without comment, including two of Ottava's, the one cited and one other. Again Ottava approached Jimbo recently about SBJ. Thus Jimbo deleted two comments of Ottava's without making any comment, and the third comment still stands without response. Jimbo has said that he's watching that talk page for January. My statement was true.
Now, notice what Ottava did above. He presented what appeared to be evidence that I was lying. But the evidence itself supported what I'd said. Ottava may have known that, the way he presented the evidence, the truth might be missed, many users won't read carefully. If I hadn't answered here, there would be users who would continue with the impression that, hey, Abd had lied. After all, their friend Ottava said so, and presented proof. --Abd05:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus Jimbo deleted two comments of Ottava's without making any commen" He didn't -delete- anything. He archived. He also archived a long time afterward. You keep making up things in order to push a point of view that has no basis. That is why community support is against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at his contributions. He *blanked,* which is what I meant by "deleted." Routinely, when users blank warnings and comments from their Talk page, we say that they were "deleted." Jimbo did not copy to an archive, he's depending on history, and his edit summary was (just clearing out old stuff). Thus, "deleted without comment" was precisely what he did, and that Ottava argues this point tendentiously is precisely what he's been doing for a long time, he is "pushing" a "point of view," one that Ottava is Right and the Other is Wrong, just as he accuses me of doing. "You keep making things up" is uncivil, at least by the standards Darklama has been applying. --Abd16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up stuff. "Clearing out old stuff" does not mean anything that you claim it means, especially when it is done 4 months after the material was posted. There is something seriously wrong with your behavior above. That is why you can't be allowed to edit outside of article space. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm feel disappointed of Abd. The SB Johnny confirmation discussion should have not been closed. Diego Grez19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC) P.D. I support emergency desysop. Sorry.[reply]
Support the ban and emegency desysop. This is kinda scary. Abd has demonstrated just in this thread that he shouldn't be editing here and is threats to block for nothing is really bad." IDangerMouse20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that you have blocked someone who is initiating proceedings against you is completely unacceptable. You don't block people just because they don't agree with you! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so people know, I warned Ottava, not for disagreeing with me, but for threatening users with being blocked by imaginary custodians, including myself and our three 'crats, and imaginary stewards had promised to intervene, and Ottava filed this process after I warned him. You don't avoid a block by filing a process against the custodian who warns you. I did have a recusal requirement, per the proposed policy which I wrote, Wikiversity:Recusal -- Ottava claimed there are no recusal requirements, when he was a custodian --, which is why that block was announced in advance, why it explicitly allowed any custodian to revise it without consulting me, and why I even allowed any custodian to short-block me if the custodian feared I might act before seeing a request for me to stop. This was done very carefully. --Abd08:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we've never had a "topic ban" on WV before, and I'd rather we didn't go proposing them without discussing the possibility first. OTOH, I absolutely support an emergency desyssop. --SB_Johnnytalk20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topic ban. The issue of a user's participation being disruptive or not can be complex ("whistleblowers" are disruptive), and that's why we normally require a Community Review for this. We are not Wikipedia and don't ban based on a quick noticeboard discussion. Obviously, if I'm a sysop, I should be allowed to comment in WV space! So first things first. If my behavior is improper as a custodian, that should be addressed, and since the first stage is Wikiversity:Custodian feedback that would be the place to start, as provided in custodianship policy. There is no emergency, I'm highly unlikely to engage in controversial tool use in the immediate future, and the worst I'd do is what I did here: take a possibly controversial action but in a way that it would receive immediate review and correction if needed. I actually asked first, before taking the action. If there is an emergency, though, I gave SBJ consent, above, to request removal at meta, and JtNeill, my mentor, likewise has the right. If I'm abusing the tools, wouldn't discussing it with my mentor be the first step, rather than starting disruptive process like this, out of sequence and really in the wrong place? --Abd18:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Giving Custodial tools to Abd is almost as strange as giving them to Salmon of Doubt. Abd is just one in the series of policy violating functionaries who have vastly disrupted Wikiversity while playing with their tools since the hostile takeover of Wikiversity that Jimbo forced upon this community of learners in 2008. I've seen no justified blocks at Wikiversity for anything besides repeated vandalism. Wikiversity needs to rid itself of the few remaining custodians who think they have the right to disrupt Wikiversity by misusing the block tool. No surprise that Abd blocked Ottava. I have no doubt that Abd will again misuse Custodial tools. --JWSchmidt03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava copied over only about a fourth of the original. Since this is already a train wreck, out of process, I'm not going to fix it. If it were going to be copied here -- which is defective, because it makes it appear that those comments were in response to the filing here -- everything in the section would be included. Including the subsection about the "two custodians." --Abd04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Train wreck at Montparnasse Station, at Place de Rennes side, Paris, France, 1895.
I like the "train wreck" metaphor. Permit me to expand on it. The longer the train, the more momentum it has, and the longer it takes to slow it down, if it approaches a dangerous curve, a bad section of track, or (heaven forbid) a bridge out over a chasm. In that case, the train wreck is spectacular, as there are so many cars following the lead engine over the precipice. This is a very tiny train wreck, compared to other long trains that Abd likes to take on a joy ride. I never understood why railroad engineers and electrical engineers were both called "engineers" but I reckon Abd is fixing to demonstrate to me his awesome railroading skills. —Moulton10:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd is using some of the standard jargon of the Wikimedia ruling class. If someone begins to point out the abusive behavior of Wikimedia functionaries then the wagons are circled and the concerns of the peons are denigrated (train wreck, out of process). In contrast, when the abusive sysops want to eliminate a peon, the smallest complaint of the sysop is magnified hysterically. Jimbo created the Wikiversity "train wreck" and a few abusive sysops have joyfully followed Jimbo's clanking train into the chasm that he decided to direct Wikiversity into. There are just a few more of these disruptive individuals who need to complete their journey into the chasm and then Wikiversity will be able to return to the peaceful ways that existed before the Hostile Takeover of 2008. --JWSchmidt13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The "standard jargon of the Wikimedia ruling class" is the standard usage of those who understand how wikis work. Yes, I'm highly experienced on Wikipedia and know the jargon. It has meaning. However, if JWS intends to imply that I've some intention to "eliminate a peon," I'd urge him to provide some examples. I've done the exact opposite. I'm aware of a diff that someone might use to claim otherwise, a !vote in a discussion to support what others, still active, had proposed, but I'd urge him to look at my ultimate participation in that place, not just at what I wrote transiently. And, further, at what I was actually recommending, which was not elimination at all, but moderation. At about the same time, I proposed to the same "peon" that the user ask to be a custodian again, that I thought it might be readily done. I think JWS has been shooting himself in the foot by assuming that I was his worst nightmare, or just another abusive administrator, and my comments in the past, to him, were aimed at encouraging him to move on and stop rehearsing the tragedies of 2008, and start working to prevent them from happening again. So far, I've failed. --Abd20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Moulton. I'm definitely not into eliminating peons, though I've been known to effectively demote sysops who eliminate peons. In fact, that happened here. This is payback time for that. --Abd04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, could you please explain how the use of jargon like "Wikimedia functionaries", "wagons are circled", "concerns of peons", "eliminate", "joyfully followed", "journey into the chasm", "Hostile Takeover", and unspecified generalities like "abusive behavior", "abusive sysops", "direct Wikiversity into", "disruptive individuals", and "return to peaceful ways" help to encourage mutual respect, mutual understanding, concurrency and how it does not belittle, defame, and alienate people? I think you can do better than the above to encourage "a return to peaceful ways". -- darklama 15:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the aim was to bash each other, congratulations I believe you have succeeded. Please Abd, Moulton, and JWSchmidt could you 3 find more constructive ways to unify and help build the learning community that is suppose to be Wikiversity? I believe the above thread in response to Ottava Rima's comment is not that of a civil discussion and should be considered unacceptable. -- darklama 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My aim is to play the role of a seasoned educator. But, as you know, it is not possibly to educate those who do not wish to learn alongside their fellow scholars here. I reckon it will be necessary to advance to story-based methods of education. In this case, the story is the unfolding drama that the cast of characters here is crafting, even as we speak. —Moulton17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darklama, if I'm uncivil, please notify me on my Talk page, with specifics and a warning. This is a process filed to attempt to what, desysop me, topic ban me, what? For me to point out that the material was selectively copied here isn't uncivil, I'd think. Thanks.
"Train wreck," in my usage, refers to a prejudicial approach to filing this, with a discussion in one location, instant pile-in (which will be analyzed), unclear reasons, !voting based on original presentation, then moved here without care and incompletely, into a new context. It means multiple problems, not just one. That's all. Thanks for watching. If you'd been watching before, maybe there would not have been such a fuss. That's not to blame you, personally, watching the project is a collective responsibility. However, it's one I take seriously, as long as I'm a custodian, and I behave as a probationary custodian as I would if confirmed. WYSIWIG. --Abd20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darklama did come to my Talk page and we have been discussing related issues there, at [3]. It is long, as private discussions can be, but as part of it, Darklama revealed that he'd seen the intention to block notice I put up, and that he'd seen the previous request for custodian attention, but that he didn't know what to do. That, indeed, has been a long-term community problem. I do know what to do, and it doesn't involve me being in charge, but it may involve me facilitating a discussion on a difficult topic. It does involve me taking heat for "rocking the boat," but the boat is already rocking, someone is drilling holes in it, there are serious systemic problems that are not the fault of any individual, and it's time we rolled up our sleeves and started facing controversies instead of hoping they will go away if, just, please, could we all be nice?
I strongly believe in civility policy, but civility policy is meaningless if not enforced. I was blocked by Darklama for incivility, recently, and the sky did not fall. I wasn't uncivil, was SBJ's judgment, but it doesn't matter. Darklama was trying to enforce the policy, evenly, and I appreciated that. My interpretation of w:WP:IAR is that, if you haven't been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. All a block is, in my view, is an enforced "Sit down, you are out of order," by an officer, like the sergeant-at-arms of any deliberative body. It's not a ban, and a block tool is not a banhammer. It is an "executive action," subject to review by the sovereign, which is the community. See [4] for my "practice response" to a short block. My response to a longer block would be different, but for a hint, you could look at my Wikipedia history to see how I responded to an indef block by Iridescent, when she believed I'd been harassing Fritzpoll. Frtizpoll and I became very good friends, he was elected to ArbComm, before he resigned, and I often wrote about how Iridescent did it exactly correctly, even if she misunderstood the situation. We don't have indef blocks as an option. We should. It simply means "until review." Since the situation here was, in my view, very serious, of long duration, and unlikely to change, I therefore chose a year. But since I was inviting comment, and, indeed, wanted "substitution," i.e., that someone else "supervise" the block, the time was only a proposal, a default, in the very unlikely event that nobody else looked at it.
You can also see how I actually responded to the block by Darklama. Because I did not consider some of Darklama's responses to be fully satisfactory, I hint, at the end of the discussion, that this might be reviewed. The place for that would have been Custodian feedback, and the likelihood that it would go beyond that would have been very low. Darklama is not an abusive custodian. And, in fact, I never went, because, simply, there is much more important Stuff to Do. I do not believe that Wikiversity should revolve around minor personal disputes, and being short-blocked, in good faith, by a custodian, is a minor dispute at most. I consider Darklama neutral, so he could, again, block, even without declaring an emergency. I trust that he would be careful enough. --Abd16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"those who understand how wikis work" <-- Abd, you are free to congratulate yourself, but I'd like to know why you think you have the right to disrupt Wikiversity with your violations of policy. Abd, I am astonished at how much time I have wasted responding to your disruptions of this learning community. I nominate Abd for the position of Drama Queen. "provide some examples" <-- I spent a vast amount of time last Summer on discussion of examples of your disruptive behavior. Given your continuing disruptions, I have no doubt that because of your experiences at Wikipedia and watching other abusive sysops at Wikiversity you think you have the right to disrupt this learning community. Most recently you imposed an absurd one year block on Ottava Rima. I knew that you would abuse the Custodial tools and waste the community's time on more of your disruptive behavior and I have no doubt you will continue disrupting this community. "assuming that I was his worst nightmare" <-- Abd, I suggest that you not try to flatter yourself. There are others who have been far more disruptive at Wikiversity than you and I have never thought of you as my worst nightmare. "stop rehearsing the tragedies of 2008, and start working to prevent them from happening again" <-- I think the fact that Jimbo lost his toy banhammer means that the worst of the sickening events of 2008 will never be repeated. However, Jimbo opened the door at Wikiversity to disruption by others and I still work to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that existed before a few abusive sysops started claiming the right to block Wikiversity scholars from editing, to censor Wikiversity community discussions, to perform emergency desysops when no emergency existed and to delete the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants without any attempt to improve the pages before deleting them without community consensus. --JWSchmidt00:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the use of jargon" <-- Darklama, as one of the censors of Wikiversity I think you should compile a list of all the terms that are not allowed at Wikiversity. Are you seriously objecting to my use of the term "Wikimedia functionaries"? <-- If so, please see Wikipedia:Functionary and then explain why you want me to explain my use of the term "Wikimedia functionaries". "encourage mutual respect" <-- I can't imagine mutual respect among the scholarly learners of Wikiversity and those who claim the right to disrupt this community by blocking Wikiversity scholars from editing, censoring Wikiversity community discussions, performing emergency desysops when no emergency existed and deleting the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants without any attempt to improve the pages and deleting them without community consensus. "belittle, defame, and alienate people" <-- Darklama, where did you post your objections when abusive Wikimedia functionaries like Jimbo and McCormack brought to Wikiversity the abhorrent practice of calling Wikiversity scholars "troll"? Darklama, where did you post your objections when lies were published at Wikiversity in an attempt to justify my emergency desysoping when no emergency existed? Darklama, where did you post your objections when Wikiversity community members like Moulton and Erkan were driven away from this community? Darklama, given your disruptive policy violations and censorship of Wikiversity and failures to defend Wikiversity against abusive and misguided Wikimedia functionaries and your failure to participate in and develop Wikiversity learning projects I doubt if you can ever understand why I want to return Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that existed before the Hostile Takeover of 2008. I've spent vast amounts of time trying to explain such things to you and I doubt if you can ever understand the harm that you personally have done to the Wikiversity community. At this time, the main learning project at Wikiversity is an attempt to discover if the Hostile Takeover can be terminated and Wikiversity returned to the peaceful pursuit of its mission. My use of terms such as "Hostile Takeover" is simply my way of discussing the tragedy that has occurred at Wikiversity and part of my effort to end the "Hostile Takeover" and prevent further disruption of this community. If you don't like the words I use then I'd like to hear your suggestions for a better way to describe the sickening events that have vastly disrupted this community. Here is a hint: if you don't like to hear terms like "abusive sysops" then help this community get rid of all the abusive sysops. I'd be happy to stop discussing abusive sysops when they stop disrupting Wikiversity. I doubt if you understand my objections to the disruption of Wikiversity since you have personally claimed the right to disrupt this community by means of censorship and policy violation. --JWSchmidt01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My objections are to the context in which you tend to use certain words. For example, you seem to use "Wikimedia functionaries" as a derogatory term to clump people together and to generalize about people, and attempt to use it as a weapon to alienate people you blame for all that is wrong with Wikiversity. As for your other questions, I did object and discuss things in my own way, I saw no need and continue to see no need to be hostile in order to get things done. I believe whatever tragedy has befallen Wikiversity is not because of Jimbo or due to some kind of takeover. -- darklama 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"no need to be hostile" <-- Darklama, I suggest that you tell that to the people like SBJ, Abd, Jimbo and Adambro who like to play with the banhammer. Tell it to yourself the next time you want to block me from editing or participating in the Wikiversity chat channel. --JWSchmidt03:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "playing with" and "wanting" to use the block tool are both rather poor descriptions of what anyone does and are yet more generalizations that you try to use as weapons to create fear, doubt and a sense of urgency. -- darklama 04:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JWS, you are living in the past. Nobody has been banning anyone, and any use of the block tool by me, setting aside Ottava, which is a much more complex situation, has been to facilitate the return to WV of several users, and with what might be thought of as IP vandals, but who are actually very young users experimenting with WV and not finding it easy to learn to follow our rules. Again, my goal is to help them to enjoy Wikiversity, not to exclude them.
Now, as to the "chat channel," I have no opinion except I believe that such communications channels should be independent. They should not be official WV facilities unless they are logged for the public. Jimbo got his wrist slapped over his intervention here and at Commons, he lost, JWS. So to speak. Another way to look at is that he made his point and then moved on. He won't be back unless as a member of the community.
Adambro tried to assert his position on Thekohser and Moulton using the block tool, and, as to the latter, I pointed out to him that it was recusal failure, and he undid the block (kudos!), but promptly resigned. Apparently you don't realize that he resigned, eh? No "banhammer." Who has been blocked lately, and for what? I'd suggest you look around. The last abusive block was by ... Ottava. It was, perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back as to his bit. Do you need details?
Sure, I blocked Ottava while involved. That's why I declared it an emergency, which then, by the policy I proposed, Wikiversity:Recusal, required that I immediately consult the community. I actually consulted first, acted later, giving it a little time. Ottava could have averted that block easily, as well, simply by giving it a rest. I would have, if warned. When an admin warns me, I listen, I respect the warning first, then discuss if I disagree. Ottava blocking KBlott -- no notice, no consultation, and a block for alleged offense against ... Ottava. Ottava opposed the proposed recusal policy when he was a sysop.
We don't have abusive sysops any more. I'm kind of amazed, in fact. Now, am I abusive? That's a legitimate question, but I can guarantee you, my goal has never been to ban you, nor to ban Ottava. I want to see Ottava participating positively in this community, as he has previously, as he would seem to be capable of doing. He's the one that's been filing process, trying to remove our trusted servants, over simple actions where they followed policy, but not Ottava's opinion, and this very process here was filed to seek a topic ban on me. Who likes bans?
This constant disruption has to stop, and if it doesn't stop, I can tell you, Wikiversity is in great danger. People have seen his stuff and have assumed that this was Wikiversity standard, and they have gone away. If you want the peaceful community of scholars that you have claimed you want, you will need to start recognizing who is actually trying to rebuild that, and make it sustainable. The old community was not sustainable, it could not meet the challenges, isn't that obvious? You blame this on just about everyone, but the fact is that it wasn't anyone's fault in particular, it was the lack of process and structure able to respond rapidly to a challenge, and we still need to build that. Will you be a part of it? --Abd04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The last abusive block was by ... Ottava." Over 100 blocks by me, and only one against KBlott had any complaint, and there was even consensus that it was a good block. Even SB Johnny said the block should have stayed. You are off on your own once again. All of your blocks have been clearly abusive. That was why you weren't supported for Custodianship originally. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The KBlott block was never formally reviewed, but was a factor in the CR that desysopped Ottava. My comment was for the benefit of JWS, who would, if consistent, consider that an abusive block, and it was abusive, in my view, for reasons that were detailed then. The user, who was new, and fresh from being battered at Wikipedia, over-reacted to Ottava's unilateral speedy deletion of his page, and Ottava blocked him, and did so with gratuitous incivility. [block log] Ottava did not short-block, he blocked "infinite." This CR is not on Ottava, but, I'll note, Ottava did short-block me in September for (Disruption and overall pointyness). By that time it was very obvious that Ottava I were engaged in a dispute. Ottava did not consult the community. He removed access to my Talk page and email, which I did not do when I blocked him. I'd forgotten about this incident.... Ottava also blocked Krunchlolee "infinite." That user was not a vandal, he was a fringe theorist. Krunchlolee was not warned or notified of the block. These blocks were all outside of policy. (Note: Ottava did unblock KBlott, in response to protests. I'd have done the same in response to significant protests over my block of Ottava, but I wasn't given a chance -- and I made it unnecessary because of the permission to unblock incorporated in the block itself.)
All of your blocks have been clearly abusive.' I know Ottava thinks that, but it's preposterous. If there are "clearly abusive" blocks, they should be documented in this CR. There are only two controversial blocks, AFAIK, and the first was reviewed by Jtneill, he found the first block, of Ottava, for gratuitous incivility, as proper, within discretion, and warned Ottava against repeated incivility. Ottava promptly filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill as obvious payback. The only other controversial block would be of Ottava, again, days ago -- but after this filing as originally placed --, for creating an atmosphere of intimidation and threat by massively misrepresenting the existence of sysops who would block me and others Any Minute Now, allegedly having promised to do so off-wiki, And that has not yet been reviewed by the community upon presentation of evidence, rather, the unusual character of it -- my blocking of someone with whom I was in dispute -- has received immediate, knee-jerk comment, as I'd expected.
Note that this original filing was afterI'd warned Ottava of intention to block. That's classic wikilawyering, file a dispute with an admin who has warned you, and then claim that the subsequent block was retaliation. However, there is no doubt but that Ottava and I were already in a dispute, and only a declaration of emergency, with prompt consultation, would have allowed this block. If I was wrong about "emergency," the community will judge me, and properly so. But it hasn't deliberated the issue. --Abd17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion is quite appalling. I am too busy to work on wikiversity on my project, but I look at my watchlist from time to time, and have been following this getting worse and worse. As somewhat of an outsider, a few things are obvious. First, this discussion is not doing wikiversity any good. It needs to stop. Second, neither Abd or Ottava Rima deserve to be a custodian and since I gather that only Abd actually is at the moment, he should be desysoped at once. What is his mentor doing allowing this to continue? Third, both Abd and Ottava Rima should shut up on general issues and go away to work quietly on some small part of the project while they cool down and get some perspective on what this project is about. I may be right to not work on my project here, as if this continues it might be a complete waste of time as wikiversity will be closed. Please, just STOP. --Bduke07:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bduke. Ottava has been attempting to gain steward intervention, and those efforts increase risk of closure. ("Can't they take care of their own problems?") Why has my mentor has allowed "this" to continue? Why not ask at Jtneill? He knows the history, most of it. I understand this mess looks bad, and that it's easy to assume I caused it. But I didn't file this, it was filed out-of-process, the only "actions" I filed were requests for custodian attention, and I've been working, mostly "quietly," just as you suggest, on a topic where I'm both a student and an expert of a kind. (It's a hot topic, but not disruptive.) I was invited to be a probationary custodian again, and I believe that helping clean up the place is part of my responsibility here, and I believe we should have many more custodians; one of the problems here has been too little attention from too few, yet this particular sequence began with an effort to make it harder to become a custodian. I made one controversial action, after this was originally filed. Properly, that action should have been reviewed at Custodian feedback. --Abd15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Review started as an effort to ban me entirely from Wikiversity space. I'll ask you, if you are going to support desysopping or banning, that you look carefully at what it's for! It is for attempting to stop train wrecks like this, by standing up and saying "enough" and being willing to take the heat for it. I can't do it alone, I pressed a button once, and that's the limit of my authority and, indeed, of my responsibility, beyond answering reasonable questions. Do you have any? --Abd15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment for Bduke. If this discussion is "appalling" -- I agree it is! -- why not close it? It's out of process, it doesn't set up the conditions for desysop and solicit evidence and opinion on those conditions, so why not add an archive template to it? See what I did with [5]. Calling discussions appalling won't close them, and if I stopped participating here, I'd be accused of being "unresponsive." The problem here, BDuke, is that you have complained about this process, but have also agreed with one of the desired conclusions, but without review of evidence. You could stop this in a flash, but do you really want to stop it? Because we are all really equal on wikis, our habits of blaming "those in charge" for failures are dysfunctional. We are in charge, not "them." For closing that other discussion, which was simply an expression that, my opinion, it was a divisive and disruptive train wreck, and out of process, I was the subject of serious complaint, and the original comment above supporting Ottava's proposed topic ban was a complaint about my closing, an ordinary action, any user can do it, and it was obviously accepted by the community. That was only re-opened after being moved to Community Review, where it was at least closer to proper. All this shows how a user can be blamed for doing what is actually consensus. And people who don't check the history can be sucked into believing it. Happens all the time on Wikipedia. --Abd17:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mubarak found the discussion in Egypt appalling, and he tried to close it. He not only imposed a curfew, he shut down the Internet there. Did you notice what happened when he tried to interrupt the public discussion? —Moulton17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody has been banning anyone" <-- Abd, I am physically sickened by the the fact that many honest Wikiversity community members have been censored, harassed, blocked, had their work deleted, been subjected to emergency desysopping when there was no emergency and I wasted vast amounts of time this past Summer having to argue with misguided Wikiversity sysops who insisted that Moulton was banned. SBJ engineered a bogus "community ban" of Moulton, Jtneill did nothing to end that sickening banning of a Wikiversity scholar and now here you are, installed by them as yet another policy-violating sysop after having promised to continue violating Wikiversity policy and imposing on this community your fantasies of "wiki common law". Of course you imposed a one year block on Ottava, which could easily have turned into yet another bogus community ban at the hands of SBJ and the other policy violators who have disrupted Wikiversity since 2008. Also this past Summer you tried to block me indefinitely (discussed here), which was the first step (indef block) that led to Moulton being banned from Wikiversity. "Nobody has been banning anyone" <-- All the Jimbo Juniors who play with their tiny banhmmers and disrupt this learning community make me want to vomit. It is sickening the way each little tyrant tries to whine, "but I'm a good guy!" while they bash another scholar with their banhammer. You have shown that you cannot be trusted to do anything with the Custodial tools except deal with obvious repeated vandalism. I urge you to accept the role of Drama Queen and let this community get back to its mission. If you do not agree to limit your use of Custodial tools to dealing with obvious repeated vandalism then you should not have access to the tools at all. --JWSchmidt13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not whining. Thank you for taking the time to think things through before you enlightened us with your objective comments that in no way accused anyone of "whining" or "playing", did not call anyone a "little tyrant" or "Jimbo Junior", and helped so much to resolve issues important to the Wikiversity community. Thank you for being a role model that everyone trusts and wants to emulate, for leading the way, for demonstrating how to focus on Wikiversity's mission, and for showing the Wikiversity community that you know how to avoid drama. Thank you for being an inspiration to us all. -- darklama 14:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with above) Darklama, sarcasm doesn't go over well in print, and in person, it would be accompanied by a sneer, so it's uncivil. Please be straight, JWS has suffered enough here, his condition is tragic, because the battle he's been fighting was won long ago. Persistence of vision. I understand the temptation, JWS has been irritating, for a long time now, even if his response is understandable.
You are correct that sarcasm isn't conveyed well in print. Even though the intent was to lighten the tone with good-humor, I can appreciate how it might be seen as uncivil. -- darklama 17:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you propose to mentor him? He's surely experienced, and properly done, mentored custodianship is quite safe. That, in fact, is what SBJ demonstrated with Salmon of Doubt. SoD was, I believe is now common knowledge, a certain seriously disruptive Wikipedia warrior -- my major nemesis there, in fact --, but there is this problem with sysop tools in a closely watched environment, as Wikiversity is, compared to Wikipedia. (Overall, it's closely watched, but there is delay.) Seriously abuse the tools, you will face fast consequences here. Look at how much flap there is over one block from me! Look at what happened with Ottava's deletion and block of KBlott. For a time, Ottava was not closely watched, he was trusted, and I've never gone back and raked his actions to try to find Bad Stuff, I only responded to what I saw routinely, and recently. We need more people watching, and we need more people with the tools. Many more! --Abd16:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to mentor JWS, if I felt he was able to deal with criticism and rejection maturely and professionally which the past 6 years suggest he is unable to do. His discussions over the past 6 years also suggest, despite his repeat claim to want to put an end to what he considers oppressive practices, he is unable or unwilling to work with people he strongly disagrees with and believes is harming the community, which looks to me like a desire to replace one set of practices that he considers oppressive with another set of oppressive practices. I believe that makes him an unsuitable candidate for Custodianship at this time. I also believe that being his mentor would be highly risky as his mentor would likely be held accountable and responsible for any actions JWS took that was considered inappropriate by the community. I think the only way at this time I'd be willing to be JWS' mentor is if the Wikiversity community showed a willingness to share in any risk. -- darklama 17:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd share. My opinion is that probationary custodians can't mentor, per se, but could agree to assist a formal mentor. If JWS agreed to reasonable restrictions, which would include allowing any mentor (or co-mentor) to go to meta and request immediate desysop if the mentor considers there to be risk of serious damage, I rather doubt that it would be necessary. What would he do that would be a problem? I doubt that JWS would become a massive vandal! He's unlikely to block anyone abusively, and if he "unblocks abusively," that could be quickly and easily addressed, and community attention can be brought in as needed. Mentors, in my view, may prohibit specific actions or classes of actions, and may undo actions of the mentee, without "wheel-warring." Mentored custodianship, if there is adequate supervision, is quite safe. We are, to my knowledge, the only WMF wiki with it, and there is no example of serious damage from it. (But Ottava has been trying to yank this, as to the simplicity of it.) Now, I've not reviewed in detail the events leading up to the emergency desysopping of 2008. That was a time of crisis, Jimbo was involved, and, just then, having a sysop who might wheel-war with Jimbo -- did he do this? -- would be an immediate and serious problem. In my view, the desysopping may have been proper as an emergency, but combining it with a block was probably overkill, if the block wasn't immediately reviewed and confirmed by consensus. It's true that JWS did not respond well to the action; note that I was abusively desysopped by Ottava, first time, in violation of our policy, but I didn't start screaming and trying to overturn it. After all, all it took was for a new mentor to offer. I also didn't ask for that, to avoid disruption. JWS could have returned to being a sysop almost immediately, my guess, with more sophisticated understanding of the situation -- on all sides. However, Darklama, I've suggested that JWS come back to being a custodian before. It seems he prefers to stand outside and complain, and why he prefers that is not something he's disclosed to me. Moulton, however, often expressed that preference. It's definitely easier than actually trying to clean up the place.
You have mentioned JWS as being uncooperative for many years. That doesn't match my observations. He would have been a shoo-in for 'crat, shortly before 2008, it was only that he declined. I think he was seriously shocked and hurt by what happened in 2008, and simply has not recovered. His trust was damaged.
By the way, ordinary users could assist mentorship. The user would be given (by agreement of the mentee) the right to request the mentee to undo any action, with the mentee being obligated to accept that, and an ordinary user could be given the right, by explicit permission. to go to meta for desysop in the even that the mentee does not keep the agreement. Mentored custodianship is far more flexible than we might have realized. It is also possible to, routinely, have extended mentorship, if the mentee is willing to accept the "suspense." It has happened anyway, you know. I have no problem with having an "extended supervisor." Or more than one! That allows me to serve with uncontroversial work, the vast part of the job, while still being restrained to satisfy community concerns. --Abd18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above we see two policy violators (Abd & Darklama) who have greatly disrupted Wikiversity sharing their fantasies and openly planning how to continue disrupting Wikiversity long into the future. "the battle he's been fighting was won long ago" <-- The "battle" on this page is a struggle to protect Wikiversity from more policy violations and abuse of Custodial tools by Abd. The context is that Wikiversity is still struggling to free itself from the policy violators who imposed a Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity in 2008 and crippled this wiki community...a policy violator like Abd is their kind of guy, just one more in a series of policy violators who have been made members of the gang and given their chance to disrupt the Wikiversity community. "JWS has been irritating, for a long time now" <-- I've never seen a policy violating sysop who was not irritated by having their abusive behavior discussed. This past Summer Abd & Darklama tried to subject me to an indefinite block, their preferred solution to the problem of any peon who objects to abuse of Custodial power. It is a disgrace and embarrassment that these policy-violating sysops continue to band together and give each other the power to disrupt Wikiversity and drive away the honest participants of this learning community. "he is unable or unwilling to work with people he strongly disagrees with" <-- Save your breath Darklama. I know what you have to teach me: how to censor community discussions, how to ban someone from the Wikiversity chat channel without discussion, warning or reason, how to violate Wikiversity policy by imposing bad blocks. No thanks. Your disruptive practices have done great harm to Wikiversity and this community will not recover until abusive sysops like you are put under some restrain. Of course I strongly disagree with abusive sysops like you who gang up on the honest Wikiversity participants to violate Wikiversity policy and disrupt this community. Darklama, you came to Wikiversity to do some technical work for SBJ, I'd still like to know why you decided to stick around and disrupt a peaceful community of learners. Does SBJ pat you on the head and throw you a bone once in a while? "agree to assist a formal mentor" <-- Save you breath, Abd. I'm not interested in learning your fantasies about "wiki common law" or anything else you dream up as a way to dance around Wikiversity policy and disrupt this fragile learning community. Your penchant for imposing bad blocks and deleting content with no attempt to improve it sickens me and and your bag of dirty tricks contains nothing I want to learn or even be exposed to. This kind of self-congratulatory love-fest between Abd & Darklama is what Wikiversity sees after a bureaucrat has assured a policy violating sysop that he will be protected and allowed to continue disrupting Wikiversity as an abusive sysop. Since the Hostile Takeover of 2008 it has become common practice for "community" decisions to be made off wiki, in secret, so why should this community review be any different? The policy violators work together to retain their power so they can keep playing whack-a-scholar with their tools....the real Wikiversity community members watch in horror and wait for the reign of terror to end. --JWSchmidt23:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to reply to JWS walls of charges before, a full response would be long. Mixed up above are complaints about many different users. It's ironic that it's claimed I'm guilty of "walls of text." I do write at length, it's true, but I hope it's more coherent and substantiated than the above!
JWS wrote This past Summer Abd & Darklama tried to subject me to an indefinite block, their preferred solution to the problem of any peon who objects to abuse of Custodial power. JWS has referred to this many times; it's not what happened. See Wikiversity:Community_Review/JWSchmidt_2010#Abd.27s_view. Given the situation I described, I proposed a topic ban, designed to allow JWS maximum access while minimizing the ongoing disruption. The ban was much less sweeping than what has been proposed on this page for me, which JWS seems to support. Other than my proposal and JWS's opposition, there was no comment.
Instead, Adambro proposed an indef block. Ottava immediately supported this, as did Darklama. Odd, isn't it, that JWS is now going after me and Darklama, but exempting Ottava? At first, however, I did support a block, but only "pending resolution." I later struck this, based on harassment of JWS, by "two custodians," over JWS's Beetlebaum account, Ottava was one of them. Darklama was not harassing JWS. JWS doesn't mention the assistance I gave him in the Beetlebaum affair.
JWS has such a strong image, of an abusive cabal taking over Wikiversity, that he doesn't see the reality in front of him. When I disagreed with how he was proceeding -- before I was a sysop --, and tried to advise him, he assumed that I was against him.
There is no "reign of terror," certainly not now. What abusive blocks are standing? If someone finds one, let me know, I'll review it. My talk page is open. I already negotiated the unblock of Thekohser, and worked on setting up conditions for Moulton to be unblocked.
Yes, there were some Bad Blocks last year, I just found this gem, where Ottava infinite-blocked a user who had made a single edit removing material, attacking the user, that Ottava had written there, that was utterly inappropriate for Wikiversity (and Ottava removed it the next day himself). This was clear recusal failure, but at that point Ottava was claiming that there was no recusal policy. The user, I just checked, has over 10,000 edits at Wikipedia, and is a "Checkuser; OTRS-member; Sysop" at Commons. So how did this block make Wikiversity look?
Whom have I abusively blocked? In that discussion of a block for JWS, I had the tools. I did not use them. There is no list of abusive actions in this filing, not clearly laid out for response. There is one obvious block that I recognized -- in advance -- would be controversial, the one the other day of Ottava And I can, and will, defend that action. This process was created before that block. But one block of a user who is being massively disruptive, wasting far more time than any vandal I've ever seen around here, is hardly a "reign of terror." I've worked intensely to insure that newcomers be welcomed and not blocked if they make mistakes, and that their work be saved and not deleted if possible. (It's usually possible!). That was KBlott, that was many others, as well. --Abd04:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the tasks of a custodian is to assess community consensus, to close discussions. If Guido thinks that a community consensus has been expressed here, he's demonstrating serious disqualification misunderstanding. Are you still willing to mentor him, SBJ? Guido is somewhat experienced at meta, he is currently blocked there, see his Talk page. I had experience with Guido in helping keep Thekohser's speaker availability up; I approached that by seeking and demonstrating meta consensus for it, Guido's approach was confrontive.[6] Bad News. --Abd 17:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Struck comment re possible mentorship per suggestion from Guido. --Abd18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain that most active users here do not want an environment where they can get blocked for voting 'oppose', and confrontation is the only way to get a result. Guido den Broeder18:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we don't. What did I block Ottava for, the other day? For threatening users, with block, who !voted to oppose Ottava's proposals. I agree, intimidation is serious. If Guido was blocked on meta for a simple oppose vote, I'd like to know. I know how to intervene. That's why Guido's position here is perplexing. "Confrontation" is not, however, a complete description of how to get results. "Cooperation" has to be part of the mix, or it all spins out. If I were to go in swinging, on meta, I'd get slaughtered, or at least I'd lose my credibility there. Wouldn't matter if I were right or not. --Abd18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I think it would be better if it were closed by someone a bit less involved. There's a few modicums more heat than light here, and in this case it doesn't even seem that the discussion was actually closed. --SB_Johnnytalk13:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion doesn't need to be "closed" as the community is so small that the 15 people Abd would need to support him per policy would be near impossible to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to misrepresent our policy and procedure, as Ottava has done many times, including deceiving stewards as to our policies, is highly disruptive. On the point, we do not !vote. There is no specific threshold required, and cogency of arguments, supposedly, prevails. A close is by a 'crat, not the proposer. The !votes from the Colloquium were cast in a different context, and were not based on, nor did they show, "egregious violation of policy" as our Wikiversity:Custodianship#Problems with custodians policy requires. A removal requires consensus, but Ottava has been attempting to present these processes, with SBJ and we see it with me, as if they required supermajority to retain a custodian. As is well-known, custodians who act boldly to protect the community will arouse opposition, so we do not make it easy to remove them. Mentored custodianship, however, is quite safe, and the problem here is that Ottava is attacking the entire 'crat community, and Jtneill, my mentor, has been included in that. He is attacking anyone who noticed his prior abusive behavior as a custodian, and later, and did something about it, and he's famous for this, at meta, on Wikipedia, and elsewhere. If people think this review is a train wreck, how about looking the engineer, instead of at the flag man who tried to warn, or the switch man whose hand was taken off the switch by someone who thought he was the wrong person for the job, but who did not, himself, then act. So the train sailed on, with predictable results. --Abd17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima is not the one who proposed your desysop, I am. You are correct that this procedure has not been closed. However, users are free to seek help from Meta at any one time. Guido den Broeder17:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are. However, when users repeatedly "request assistance" to pursue personal vendettas, they get blocked there, it's a matter of time. Ottava edited his prior comment to include emergency desysop, which is what you proposed first. A discussion of emergency desysop is actually an oxymoron. Imagine calling 911 (emergency services) and they have a "discussion." If there is time for a community discussion, it's not an emergency. You do emergency desysop by getting a 'crat on board, who then discusses it, sometimes off-wiki in chat, with other 'crats, so that one of them can go to meta with the request, promptly. If there is a tearing emergency, a single 'crat can request desysop at meta, and meta will respect this from a 'crat, generally, because it is easy to fix if wrong. They are naturally suspicious of individual users coming with requests. If you watch the Permissions page (I do, I get email notifications from it), you'll see many such individual requests based on alleged abuse. I've never seen one be approved unless the community discussion took place previously and was solid. I've seen quite a number of requests where the requestor ended up blocked. I've made one request at meta on a Permissions item, and it was promptly granted. I do know how to do it, Guido.
As well, if a single user sees a custodian doing massive damage, with, perhaps fast bot-assisted deletions, or massive blocking, meta might be the place to go if local attention can't be obtained, or even first. A block of a single user is almost never considered an emergency, no matter how bad it was. , On Wikipedia, WMC blocked me during an RfAr I'd filed, enforcing the very ban that was being challenged (and that was found to be improper, by the way, i.e., such individual admin bans were generically rejected, one good result of that RfAr even though the precedent may have been ignored), and, while immediate removal of his bit was considered by ArbComm, they didn't see a risk of recurrence, so they (properly) didn't remove the bit. Until later, considering all the evidence. Not an emergency, they thought.
"Emergency" encourages quick voting, snap judgment. This is not the way to have a community discussion. This process, here, is fatally flawed, and should be closed for that reason. A new discussion, following proper process, with compiled evidence of "egregious violations," is essential, if this is to be pursued. That can refer to this discussion, but comments should not be copied from this except by those who made them. These were !votes made without underlying evidence. Right now, people can shout "Custodian On Block Rampage!" even though there is only one block that is even being questioned by the community at this time, and no history of abusive blocks shown. It's hysteria, fomented by Ottava. And by you, who should know better, but, apparently, you don't --Abd18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed an emergency desysop before you blocked Ottava Rima, not after. As for the meaning of emergency, once again I'd rather follow an established course of action rather than your personal ideas of what policy should be, but isn't. There are better times and places to discuss policy changes. Guido den Broeder19:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guido's edit summary: wrong order of events. My descriptions of policy are sometimes of actual practice, sometimes of written text (mostly in this case), and are occasionally normative, I'd call that "emerging policy," but I don't think that applies here.
I don't think I made any errors in describing the sequence. I'll add diffs if anyone needs them, or if there is an error, I'll correct this.
I warned Ottava about block if threats and disruptions continue.
Ottava filed proposed topic ban.
Guido proposed emergency desysop. Given what I'd written, a Request custodian action filing would have been a much better way to proceed, and there was already an announcement there of my intention, requesting immediate review, before blocking.
I blocked Ottava. A custodian is not prohibited from blocking simply because a user files an action against the custodian after being warned. My interpretation of Wikiversity:Recusal does require that such a block be treated as having a possible conflict, with prompt consultation. I would -- and did -- consult anyway, because of obvious concerns about long-term conflict with Ottava. I'd been asking for neutral custodian intervention for days, and only acted when it did not appear. At least one custodian saw my request for review, and did not intervene. I'd have greatly preferred intervention, I was certainly not the ideal custodian to deal with Ottava!
A proposed emergency desysop, as part of a topic ban discussion that may well be ignored -- there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of that passing as a topic ban -- when any custodian could simply have said "Don't do it," is bad process, talk about Drama! If it's a true emergency, it's necessary to get custodial attention immediately. IRC, direct email to custodians, Talk page requests of active custodians (who may be then notified by email of the request) or the standard, on-wiki, Wikiversity:Request custodian action, is the way to do it. Out of respect for the seriousness of what I was about to to, I consented to being short-blocked, to avoid the possibility that I might be engaged in the block and not see the warning not to block. I did it right, in fact. --Abd20:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you still have to adress the reasons given for the two proposals, although as you perpetuate the behaviour on this very page there seems little chance of convincing us there is hope for improvement in the near future. Guido den Broeder20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a coherent policy-based statement of the reasons for the "two proposals," which have been mixed, and which are very, very different in nature. I haven't seen a request for response from any established user other than JWS, who asks everyone the same questions, and I've responded to him in detail. If you need a response from me, on some question, you are welcome to ask me. I suggest creating a section for your questions and my responses, this "additional comments" section is hopeless, and there is a reason why evidence is generally presented first, before discussion. --Abd20:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no questions for you, thanks. If you don't want to respond to the complaints (The matter was to address Abd's combative way of discussing that involves the "wall of text" noticed by many and disruptive of processes. It also deals with his making unique claims about policy that are not verified.), that's your choice, it'll probably make the final conclusion easier to make. Guido den Broeder20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This section is for my own advice, because if it becomes apparent to me that what is being claimed is true, that the community does not support my work as a custodian, I will indeed resign. Has this disapproval already been expressed? So I need to analyze the !votes so far. My conclusion is that the community has not spoken. An initial appearance has been created through biased drawing of new or infrequent participants, similarly to certain other discussions Ottava has started recently. This analysis may, of course, change, as new comments appear. ==Abd17:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is being alleged that the community has already decided the issues here, though what the community has decided is far from clear; normal wiki tradition is that a topic ban is closed by an administrator who finds the evidence adequate to justify it, and there is certainly no such close
Our policy requires that a bureaucrat review a desysopping discussion and determine if there has been egregious failure to follow policy (not merely a single error, I'd think, but it's up to the 'crat), and then, if "egregious violation" is found, the 'crat goes to meta, representing the community, and requests removal of the bit. I believe that stewards will require a pointer to the discussion, but they will not make an independent determination, if the discussion shows what the 'crat has concluded. Since any 'crat can restore a bit, they may not review it closely, because any error can be easily fixed locally.
This section is about the !voting above from the original discussion. The Collquium discussion followed this comment by Ottava:
Abd has shown for the past 6 months that he is unable to do anything with Wikiversity name space besides disrupt, act incivility, make up claims about our policies and procedures that are just not true. He also hides this under a wall of text. I propose that he is topic banned for 6 months from any Wikiversity namespace page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that Ottava has not copied, here, the question to which !voters were responding.
Ottava Rima then !voted to support his own proposal, and, while his allegations did not cover sysop abuse, he proposed, in his vote, "emergency desysop," though he had shown no emergency. However, at that point, I'd requested custodian review of his actions, and had declared an intention to block ("indef", i.e., pending review) if no custodian intervened. This is procedure as outlined in proposed policy, Wikiversity:Recusal, covering the situation that a custodian is involved, but also considers a matter to be an emergency. I did not and do not consider simple criticism of me to be an emergency, but I did consider threatening users with blocks, based on an alleged promise from unspecified custodians, to be a very serious situation.
Diego Grez then supported, but based his support on a single legitimate close of a discussion. The close invited reversal by any custodian. Why custodian? Because this was already highly controversial, and should be handled by the most trusted members of the community. (And I was prepared, given how disruptive that page was in situ, to protect it if needed, pending custodian review. And I was asking for that review, on Request custodian action.) That close stood until the page was converted to a Community Review. At this point, Ottava was claiming that I would already be blocked Real Soon Now for my "disruption." Surely if the close was disruptive, one of these custodians supposedly waiting in the wings would have taken a moment to reverse it.
Diego Grez, "retired" on Wikiversity, see his user page, has since acknowledged that he doesn't "care about Wikiversity," and his participation at Wikiversity was only to learn how to use the sysop tools, nothing else. Glad we could help him, but as to depth of understanding of policy, it wasn't there.
Guido den BroederContributions, supported. Guido has been registered for some time, with a small handful of contributions, but started up to intervene in the first "skirmish" in the current mess, the proposal of a change to custodian policy to eliminate our very easy process of automatic mentored custodianship upon the acceptance of any custodian to mentor. While there is a possible problem with the existing policy, I've asked a question for some time as to what the real problem was, actual damage, with no response to that question. The goal of the change was obvious: interdict my mentored custodianship. Guido "didn't see" the problem with the edits of Ottava's that led to a three-day block by SBJ, but no custodian interfered with that block, it simply expired normally. Guido does not apparently accept civility policy. This is a user, however, who does appear to intend to participate in Wikiversity seriously.
IDangerMouseContributionssupported No history of previous WV contributions. User account is old, but no edits. User retired from Wikipedia, possible connection with Diego Grez there. (But no obvious Wikipedia problems) User most active in number of contributions at WikiNews, but nothing since 2009. Timing: First edit to Wikiversity: 14:28. Ottava files topic ban proposal, 19:04. IDM !votes in topic ban 20:04. Possibly saw discussion in recent changes.
Subsequent !vote in SB_Johnny CR: :* 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. The comment shows how Ottava has misrepresented desysop process. We do not have "confirmation" votes, removal must be based on egregious violation of policy, and there is very little evidence re SB_Johnny that has been shown, so the comment is to be deprecated. The user shows no understanding of the current situation.
Kevin RutherfordSpecial:Contributions/Ktr101. supported. User first edited Wikiversity to oppose deysopping of Ottava. [7]: "Per Seddon. I might not be an active editor here but I know Ottava enough that I can attest that although he might be a little rough around the edges, he is well intentioned and I find these claims very baseless on those grounds." (Note that Seddon's vote was also Seddon's only edit to Wikiversity.) Kevin started editing again January 19 to welcome users, a favorite Ottava activity, while Ottava was blocked. Then Kevin yesterday, opposed "confirmation" of SBJ ("no reason to support") and supported topic ban, [8] and emergency removal of tools[9].
SB_Johnnyopposed topic ban, initially supported emergency desysop, reconsidered, does not support it as an emergency process. I offered to allow SBJ to remove the tools (i.e., request removal), at the point where his !vote was for emergency desysop, but he declined.
Anonymous UploaderContributionssupported. First day of contributions to Wikiversity, !voted in the mentorship amendment discussion, showing no understanding of why Wikiversity has a mentorship program (which has actually worked flawlessly; we have fewer problems with sysops here than does, say, Wikipedia. I'm generally suspicious when a user's first and only contributions are to process pages, like this.
JWSchmidt as usual, did not express a clear opinion. JWS, like Ottava, has filed extensive process attempting to reject the Wikiversity administrative structure, from which he was removed under emergency conditions in 2008. Regardless, JWS' position is utterly no surprise, if sad.
Other opinions were expressed in the part that Ottava did not copy, see
Chase me ladies, an arb from Wikipedia, commented that my block of Ottava seemed "a little improper," which is like saying the sky is blue. Of course it seemed that way! That's why I consulted in advance and why I certainly did not insist! Now, I wonder why a Wikipedia arb was moved to comment here. I guess I'll ask. No opinion expressed on topic ban or desysopping.
Dinsdale made a comment -- first edit on Wikiversity -- echoing my concern. Does it seem a bit unseemly to have users being threatened with anonymous 'WMF people'? It certainly seems like a poor way to have a discussion. Of course, I thought it more than "a bit unseemly." I found it seriously disruptive, that's why I acted.
User:Darklama expressed concern about the same thing: Suggestions that another person or group of people may take any kind of action is a poor way to have any discussion.
Jtneill. The person who is most important with regard to my probationary custodianship is my mentor. Mentored custodianship is designed to avoid this kind of massive discussion process over what is almost intrinsically disruptive and controversial. If a custodian acts in violation of policy, the mentor is responsible for stopping it. My mentor is Jtneill, a bureaucrat. Jtneill has issued several opinions, brief, about current matters. First, he proposed that the Candidates for custodianship page on SB_Johnny that Ottava opened was more properly a Community Review, which was my position, and that is why I closed that discussion; that action prompted at least one of the negative comments above, that of Diego Grez. My close stood, it wasn't reverted. The page was moved, however, to Community Review, creating numerous problems. still unresolved.
Then, Jtneill advised against emergency desysop. Yes, Jtneill also criticized my "block for a year." As an emergency action, I had not, at that time, fully justified it, and I was really looking for a custodian to review the situation and act independently. I do not yet know if Jtneill was aware of my announced intention to block. I did not and have not communicated with him off-wiki. And I assumed that one of the active custodians would change my block if needed. But my conclusion remains that Ottava must take a break of some kind, and I doubt that the present situation is likely to go away soon. If someone can negotiate something, great! I'm not seeing anyone actually attempt to do it.
So, review:
6 users supported something like a topic ban/emergency desysop. Not clear which, in some cases. However, setting aside Ottava, nobody who has been active as a Wikiversity user supported, and there appears to be canvassing and cronyism. JWS, as usual, was unclear.
2 users opposed (myself and SBJ, in the end). Jtneill has not commented on the topic ban, but topic banning a custodian from WV space is preposterous, we need to use the space. Jtneill has opposed emergency desysop. Emergency desysop is a different procedure from normal desysop. It is typically not done by the community; in the past, it's been done by consensus among 'crats. That's the procedure that JWS has been so upset about, since it was he who was desysopped. It would then be reviewed by the community, as a discussion, and generally any emergency action is submitted to the community for review. That's why an emergency desysop as a community discussion is an oxymoron.
If I deprecate the SPAs/very new users, I don't see much community expression here. Definitely there is no consensus yet. There is certainly cause for caution, and certainly there is a sense, from trusted users, that I should not have blocked Ottava, but, remember, this process began before I did that. And I have not actually been formally questioned by those trusted users, I haven't made the case except peripherally.
So far, no reason for me to resign. I will resign if a true community consensus becomes apparent, or if my mentor asks me to. My mentor and SBJ also have permission to request immediate desysop at meta.
Note that Ottava has also filed, recently, Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill, Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu, Wikiversity:Community Review/SB_Johnny, thus has challenged all three active bureaucrats. Reason: they took actions with which he disagreed. In the case of Jtneill, the filing was immediately after Jtneill confirmed that my original block of Ottava had been reasonable, within discretion, and the filing seemed to be purely to harass. Mikeu restored SBJ's 'crat bit on request, which is considered routine if resignation was not under a cloud, and there was no cloud, Jimbo had restored the bit and the resignation was purely voluntary. And, of course, SBJ has been attacked by Ottava for a long time, it was Ottava's incivility toward SBJ that was the reason for my first block.
Ottava is abusing our process to pursue a personal agenda, and this cannot be allowed to continue. But it's up to the community, I've done what I could, beyond what I do intend: to add additional material to Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima. That will take time. --Abd03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to bypass Wikiversity process[edit source]
This process was filed without following policy here; besides the normal process of requesting mentor review of alleged problem actions, policy for all desysopping here requires Wikiversity:Custodian feedback as a first step. Then a seven-day discussion (minimum!) is required, which would be here.
Instead, a emergency topic ban and desysop proposal was floated at [10], then later copied to this community review, but selectively, the entire discussion was not copied. In the new position, the !voting is then out-of-context, with a new header, and extended comments have been removed.
As SBJ has noted above, Ottava has gone to meta to request immediate desysop, presenting arguments there (which is very much disapproved, stewards dislike being judges and will do much to avoid it). The current discussion is at [11]. As I'd expect, the request was denied. I pointed out present Wikiversity policy, which stewards will respect. Ottava is acting, effectively, as a closer for his own proposal. But there, not here.
Ottava is continuing massive disruption over all this. This is precisely what I attempted to avoid with my emergency block, knowing that the block would be reviewed, and I again request that a neutral custodian watching this act to protect the community. SBJ, you are involved and would likewise be prohibited by normal recusal policy from acting, which is why Wikiversity:Recusal includes emergency bypass, with protections against abuse. You may, however, my opinion, reblock, with or without reducing the original block period, regardless, because this is merely undoing or lessening your previous action, not wheel-warring. However, naturally, your call.
Ottava may have filed process against SBJ merely to attempt to prohibit SBJ from acting based on his prior warnings (and block) of Ottava. He clearly filed this action against me, on the Colloquium, to create an enhanced appearance of recusal failure: I had warned him (about making threats of block by unspecified custodians) and he then filed the Colloquium proposal.
Whatever anyone does to manage this situation will likely arouse opposition. I was willing to take the heat. Is anyone else? If not, I'd say, Wikiversity is dead, vulnerable to take-over by factions, and we are seeing just such an attempt, by a user attachking and seeking to dump the entire Wikiversity administrative core. with a claque immediately supporting. --Abd17:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, are you saying that Wikiversity is dead if people are allowed to discuss your misuse of Custodial tools and if they try to protect Wikiversity from your misguided behavior or are you just requesting that proper bureaucratic care be taken in how your Custodianship is contested? If you just want policy to be followed, I agree with that sentiment, but given your abusive 1 year block of Ottava I think any Steward would be justified in terminating your Custodianship. That Wikiversity bureaucrats have not asked you to resign is a disgrace. --JWSchmidt17:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposal of an emergency desysop was, however, not made by Ottava Rima, so all the evil planning you think to see can logically not exist. As for the heat, I am capable of absorbing any amount and of doing that without producing a multi-volume litany or building a castle of blocks. Guido den Broeder17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Yeah, I see. 3 month block on meta. Problem is, the "heat" seems to be fireworks that you yourself created. Guido is technically correct, the record is misleading because Ottava edited his !vote later to add emergency desysop, didn't note that. Bad practice. Guido proposed emergency desysop in plain text after his bolded support of the topic ban, which was a nonstarter. The whole thing was way out of process. It's hard to build a "castle of blocks" with one block, Guido. You were blocked multiply by Abigor on meta, and I pointed that out as a possible problem, but Abigor stopped. You continued, with predictable results, it seems. --Abd18:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you appreciate how the Meta community operates, I suggest that you concentrate your efforts there and leave Wikiversity in peace. Meanwhile, any objections to a possible custodianship for me should be made at the proper time and in the correct location, which this page is not. You are not helping your case by attacking others. Guido den Broeder18:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what disruption was I engaged? Have you reviewed my admin logs? Wikiversity is my home wiki, this is where I'm primarily active on content, it's been of no importance to you till now. Who is not leaving "Wikiversity in peace"? I go to meta to serve other wikis, including this one, not to "concentrate my efforts there." And when I'm under attack, as I clearly am, I'm allowed to point out the apparent motives of those attacking. With evidence, if needed. As to possible custodianship, elsewhere I mention the offer from SBJ. I'll review it and may strike it. --Abd18:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(@JWS) Generally, it is known that an "indef block" with immediate discussion and review, as I requested, is not a ban, and a year is less than "indef." But the Wikiversity interface does not allow "indef," or I'd have used it. It means "pending a change." There was no way that my block wasn't going to be reviewed, but I simply hoped that, in reviewing it, a custodian would negotiate behavioral restrictions with Ottava, and I did not want to prejudice that. Notice, JWS, that, with my block, I waived the normal courtesy of an unblocking custodian discussing it with me. This was not designed to impose my will.
JWS, Ottava was threatening anyone who disagreed with him about his SBJ "confirmation hearing" -- radically out of process -- that they would be blocked, by one of "two custodians," and it was only a matter of time before they showed up. If you are concerned about bullying, there it was. There are two possibilities: he was lying, or he was deluded. In copying the material here, he omitted the questions about that. The one who doesn't want complete discussion is not me! If anything, I discuss too much. Ottava seriously doesn't like that: one of the reasons for the proposed topic ban is "walls of text."
Yes, I want policy to be followed. This process, here, isn't what policy prescribes, and "emergency" has been conclusively rejected by those who make those decisions -- 'crats! JWS, does it occur to you that our 'crats might understand the situation better than you? You've been, here, acting to support Ottava, but I've been looking at the history. The most abusive admin we had was Ottava, by far, and he was doing ongoing damage, including harassing you. Ottava supported that block proposal you referred to, I only supported it, temporarily, with qualifications, then withdrew the support. I believe that because I discussed with you, before I was ever an admin, my criticisms of how you had continued to act, you identified me as an enemy, but have you seen any place where I harassed you or made it difficult for you to do scholarly work here? Or anyone, for that matter?
Ottava was issuing "infinite" blocks, and I just found one where the only offense of the editor, who was a checkuser and admin on Commons, was a single removal of offensive comment written by Ottava about him. Utterly and absolutely abusive, use of admin tools for personal vendetta, etc. Yet where were you, when that was happening? Open your eyes, JWS, the world is considerably different from what you thought. The peaceful Wikiversity that you want is almost here, it's Ottava and claque making it different, still. Your response: shoot the messenger, continue the "abusive custodians" rap, with the wrong target.
Wikiversity is dead if it continues to shoot the messengers; that's an ancient truth, as to any society. It is just a matter of time. Full discussion is part of necessary process, but how discussions take place is crucial. My task, here, is to improve process so that discussions actually find consensus, not just an impasse with most people frustrated. --Abd18:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"JWS, who, at least, accepted that this was out of process" <-- Since Jimbo's misguided intervention into Wikiversity affairs and since SB Johnny imposed rule-by-cabal on Wikiversity in 2008, Wikiversity has been "out of process". That an abusive policy-violator like Abd would be given access to sysop tools is par for the course since the Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity in 2008. Wikiversity continues to be disrupted by Zombie Drama Queens. By 2010, due to disruption by the gang of abusive sysops who took power in the Hostile Takeover, there was essentially no remaining Wikiversity community and no more honest Wikiversity community members for the abusive sysops to bash with their toy banhammers. The Zombie Drama Queens started bashing each other like an absurd Keystone Kops skit. Abd is a stickler for process except when he is violating Wikiversity policy or trying to write absurd new policies (example) that would vastly disrupt this learning community. If disruptive bureaucrats insist on forcing an endless stream of policy-violating sysops on the Wikiversity community then I'm glad to support any effort aimed at discussing such sickening disruptions of Wikiversity and stopping the madness, the WIkipedia Disease, that has been inflicted on Wikiversity since 2008. It does Wikiversity no good to give policy violators like Abd access to sysop tools and anyone who would do so should have their own tools removed. We are in a difficult spot. In order to remove the bureaucrats who have disrupted Wikiversity we need an honest bureaucrat. Since there seems to be no active bureaucrat who will put an end to the Hostile Takeover, the peons can only take to the streets and protest. The peons are in the streets chanting, "Pharaoh Abdul Rahman Mubarak created a flood of nonsense and other plagues at Wikiversity and it is now time for him to get on a plane and fly back to Wikipedia where he learned to abuse sysop tools." The whole world is watching in disgust. --JWSchmidt15:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been opened for over 4 days now. We do not have a Probationary Custodianship policy and the policy on Custodians being removed is for full Custodians who are assumed to have been voted in to begin with.
We have 6 original supports for desysop, 1 support in the new discussion, and a statement of confusion he was ever granted ops. There are no opposes to desysop. This appears to be unanimous support for Abd's removal as a Probationary Custodian.
We have 6 original supports for a topic ban of Abd from Wikiversity name space (anything with Wikiversity: or Wikiversity_talk: in front of it). There is 1 oppose from Abd and 1 expression that topic bans might be a problem. This appears to be strong support for topic banning Abd from Wikiversity namespace.
Be it proposed to formally close these proceedings as there is no progress towards these findings being overturned and enough time has passed for the community to speak. - Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you really just say "Be it proposed to formally close these proceedings"? We're not in the Royal Court here.
That is evidence why you are unfit to continue as a Bureaucrat. Unanimous opinion is to remove him for past and current abuse. Instead of doing your job as mentor to reign him in, which you have not done at all, you are encouraging him to do it for yet another week. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support closing discussion without prejudice as process was hopelessly defective and prejudicial, no charges were made and substantiated of "egregious violation of policy," there was apparent canvassed participation from "new users," as shown above in my voting analysis. Some votes were over trivia not related to "egregious violation." Votes from one proposal were transferred from the Colloquium page, converted into an appearance of votes for a different proposal, with the original discussion truncated and mostly not transferred. This proposal was for a topic ban, converted into an emergency desysop ban. Emergency desysop was rejected by 'crats, so votes for emergency desysop are moot, based on hysteria and hyperbole. Only one custodian action was controversial, and it took place after the opening of this discussion. --Abd01:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I mean, but there has been so much evidence of off-wiki canvassing lately, mostly by IRC, probably, that I may not have in mind the exact history for each discussion. I do see, shown in the vote analysis above, a large number of new users who suddenly showed up in the last few days to support various Ottava proposals. --Abd08:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a fairly strong consensus above among "established" users to revoke Abd's status (5:2 in favor of doing so, taking Jtniell's comment in mind). I personally think revoking would be a good idea too, and I happen to know that Mikeu shares that opinion (which makes it 7:2). There have also been comments by a couple of regulars that seem to be undecided or uncommitted. Barring someone pointing out something I've missed, I will try to close that issue later today.
It is also strange how you put a "2" for keeping Abd, whereas no one has made that clear. Imaginary votes do not count. Only Abd has opposed his topic ban, which means that no one in the community has opposed it, making two unanimous decisions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize he didn't put it in boldface on a bullet point, but I think it would be a stretch to interpret Jtniell's comment as not being in opposition. (JWSchmidt didn't do the boldface and bullet point thing either, but I managed to divine his preference too). --SB_Johnnytalk19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see his view now. Who was the other? Are you assuming it is Abd? Or are you saying the labeling of "drama queen" by JWSchmidt is a keep? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only see an oppose to the topic ban, but I am willing to assume an oppose as RfAs have an assumed support. However, since RfAs don't consider the person involved's opinion, do removals? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the comments here and elsewhere I don't see that there would be much of a chance for confirmation of abd as full custodian, regardless of when it would be held. Some of the recent actions and statements by abd should not have been made by a probationary custodian without consulting with the mentor. --mikeutalk19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss this later, Mike. All of my statements and expressed intentions were designed to solicit response, both from the community and my mentor, who was aware of the conflict. I explicitly allowed any custodian or 'crat to ask me to stop, and, as well, for any and all 'crats, to go to meta immediately, without fuss, and lift the bit. My practice as a probationary custodian has been to act as if I were not probationary, I'm not a newcomer, so WYSIWYG. "Probationary" means, though, that I can be restrained easily, and I have been. I've been responsive to every other 'crat and custodian; the problem is that nobody else was willing to act, and for a few days it looked like nobody was watching, while the store was being torn up. I'm still a custodian as of this moment. Yet do you see me pushing buttons improperly? I warned. Any user can warn. I did express intention to follow up, but, at the same time, I announced everything to the community, so that I could be restrained if my action were improper. I still believe that what I did and warned I would do was proper, and if it's important, we can review all that. Carefully, I hope. Not as some kind of emergency. --Abd21:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As did Ottava, more or less. Different situations. I issued three warnings, two of Ottava and JWS for disruption in WV space, setting an ad-hoc topic ban on that space. Ottava ignored the warning and violated the ban, so I gave him a final warning, I don't know about JWS, he protested on my Talk page but I didn't notice if he continued elsewhere. I warned Moulton for outing Ottava in an edit to Ottava talk that I reverted and revision-deleted, per Ottava's prior expressed disapproval. Moulton then came in as IP and restablished the Ottava link. Blockable offense. But ... Ottava had clearly seen the page and had not objected, so I asked him about it. He removed my question as "harassment." So my next comment to Moulton, "Never mind!" Basically, as a custodian, I would not block for mere defiance. For ongoing disruption after warning, yes. Here was a special case, though, I was acting only under a declaration of emergency, explicitly promising to stand down upon protest by any custodian. SBJ protested, so .... I didn't act any further. I'd still have blocked Moulton if Ottava had not relaxed his position about being outed. I'm really glad he has, since he was able to use that as an excuse to block or get anyone blocked who dared to call him by his well-known real name. --Abd22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What we need, rather than topic banning, is a better method of regulating the flow of information within a topic or discussion page. You've heard of death by a thousand cuts? In communication systems, the equivalent is death by a thousand buffer overflows. The solution is called flow control (or flood control), and it appears we need it here, when someone goes off on a never-ending, long-winded, mind-numbing jag with Frachtwaggons von Kauderwelsch (Boxcars of Jibberish). —Moulton18:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest a better method. I've really spent a good bit of time thinking about that, and haven't found an effective solution that doesn't involve draconian measures (like those suggested above). --SB_Johnnytalk20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flow control works between machines on the Internet because it's built into TCP/IP. The 'P' in TCP and IP stand for Protocol, and the Protocol amounts to a functional set of practices that the machines adhere to. Flow Control is an integral part of TCP/IP. In human systems, we can adopt analogous protocols, and promise to abide by them. The idea in flow control is that the slower machine tells the faster machine to slow down, to avoid buffer overflow. When you write "tl;dr" you are saying "buffer overflow" meaning all that information was discarded without being processed. Part of a Social Contract or Community Agreement is to promise to communicate in a functional manner, and not to snow people with a blizzard of words that causes a "tl;dr" buffer overflow. —Moulton21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that context, tl;dr is not rude, it is mere information that the buffer overflowed. Thus the handshake results next in a smaller transmission. On the wikis, tl;dr has become shorthand for "you wrote too much," which is a judgment that would be legitimately based on the capacity of the receiver, not of the sender, yet it's easily converted into a complaint against the sender, that "sending too much" is Bad. In fact, in a discussion, a receiver could collapse the sent message and request a summary, as an example, it would take practically no more work than just writing tl;dr. What happens in practice is that tl;dr is a common response to unwanted messages, it is actually the content being rejected, not the message, but the receiver doesn't want to waste time on the content, considering it already useless, perhaps without reading. My suspicion is that it has, often, actually been read, so tl;dr is disengenuous, posturing. But it's impossible to tell, for sure!
On a wiki, as with mailing lists and other fora, tl;dr can be colossally rude, it disregards the great effort that may have been put into writing a message, and turns that into, often, presumptive evidence that the writer is crazy. A message can be read later. There is nothing uncivil about not reading a message that does not attract the reader. If a message is summarized by someone, including the sender, later the recipient might want to read it. Others might read it and find it useful, and tl;dr only means, in fact, "you and what you write are not important to me, don't bother, go away." It depends on context if this is truly uncivil or not. "tl;dr, please summarize," would not be uncivil at all, it would be an invitation to communicate. tl;dr? Maybe. For SBJ, for sure. He likes his text in small bites. His privilege. --Abd21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SB_Johnny was already given, by me, the unconditional right to revoke my custodianship. What that boils down to is reversing his prior decision to approve, so that I might cry "recusal failure" is moot. "tl;dr" you(SBJ opposed the custodianship in the first place, and apparently does not understand what I've been doing. Jtneill might, I'm not sure, but Jt has obviously been willing to allow this to continue.) The advantage of SBJ's yanking the bit is that the custodianship discussion would become moot, unless another 'crat decides to approve. It makes practically no difference to me. I don't need sysop tools, they are more of a nuisance than a help, as to any personal agenda. I do not favor putting this CR in the site message to gain wider participation, so what it boils down to is SBJ's discretion. SBJ has the advantage here because it was his approval that started this. It was an error for him to imply that policy required him to approve. Policy never requires a functionary to do anything, only to refrain from doing certain things. One of the safeguards in the mentorship procedure is that 'crat approval is, in fact, required, and thus prior expressed opposition can be considered. If SBJ did not believe that Jtneill would adequately supervise, it was his responsibility to abstain from approval, and he could have made that disapproval explicit. (But, my view, could not have prevented another 'crat from approving.)
I believe that SBJ has been utterly inadequate as a sysop to help resolve the problems here, but "utterly inadequate" does not establish any abuse, except his unblocking of Ottava might be questioned, given that he set no boundaries and made no attempt to address the problems, beyond the one problem of my perceived conflict of interest, which was obvious and acknowledged. Were he simply an independent 'crat at this point, I'd be protesting his proposed closure here, vigorously. But he's not. He is the approving 'crat, and my opinion is that what he can do, he can undo. In addition, I already gave him permission. I will leave it to Jtneill if he wants to continue the probationary custodianship, it would require another 'crat to approve. SBJ may remove the bit pending. I expect it to do no good at all, except to remove some of the color of reasonableness to Ottava's ravings. Ottava will continue until stopped, I expect.
I do not believe that this discussion demonstrates community consensus. If SBJ rules that consensus has been shown here, I would intend to appeal, but at leisure, there is no emergency over my bit. If I am the Lone Ranger on which Wikiversity would routinely depend, Wikiversity is lost, I could only act ad-hoc and pending review, and given the lack of support, it's all moot. I'd like Wikiversitans to note: one sysop, or even a few sysops, cannot handle disruption if there is no community attention and support. Unless you want to appoint a Chancellor, or set up some very specific and clear process for the routine expression of community consensus, Wikiversity is helpless before the kind of disruption that was seen here in 2008, 2010, and now. The adhocracy is inadequate, as it has been inadequate at Wikipedia and the other wikis. Even meta seems paralyzed, and they have the highest concentration of experienced users of any of the wikis. The inefficiency leads to burnout, which then abandons the field to the most highly and intensely motivated, Bad Idea. --Abd19:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been acting to bring Ottava's disruption -- which is not only about Wikiversity, and he's attacking multiple stewards at meta -- to the attention of the meta community, see m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, and that's enough Drama for now, thank you very much. I will continue to work on improving Wikiversity policy and our ability to respond to situations like this, while preserving, to the maximum extent possible, academic freedom and freedom of speech and action. --Abd19:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "officially" closing the debate now about Abd's status as a custodian. While I do understand and support (to some extent) Jtniell's approach to "stick to them guns" and follow the policies to the letter, the community review policy is clear: a consensus on community review overrides policy where policy has unintended and unwanted consequences. I have looked over the discussion above and there seems to be a fairly clear consensus to end this probationary custodianship rather than letting it run its course.
I do want to make it clear that this is an unusual case, and I hope that CR will not often be used to break up a mentorship relationship. I personally am not at all comfortable interfering with that process. However, the CR policy was specifically designed to override other policies when the community deems it necessary. In closing I'd like that to be perfectly clear: Jtniell is not violating any policy, and I also am following policy overriding his decision.
My next post will be on meta, where I will request that Abd's usergroup will be changed according to our local policies and my reading of the consensus in this Community Review. --SB_Johnnytalk23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It happened at the Midnight Hour:
“
Done. —Pathoschild 23:59:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I was saddened by this response from SBJ. SBJ had choices, and he had them quite a while ago, but instead used this travesty of a Community Review as a cover. SBJ was opposed to my probationary custodianship from the beginning, and he should have refrained from approving it. If he believed it harmful, he should have ended it earlier, and he easily could have.
SBJ is, in fact, not properly qualified to be a bureaucrat, because he's unable to build the bridges, to make compromises to increase consensus. He's a divisive force. He is a shallow thinker with no tolerance for nuance and depth. He came riding in to rescue Wikiversity, believing that we could not handle the situation ourselves, over the unblock/unlock of Thekohser. There, he was indeed serving consensus, but behind it was an attitude that only he could accomplish it. I'd set up the conditions. It would have happened anyway, it just might have taken a little longer. In that little piece I cite above, on SBJ's meta talk page, is a summary. Personal offense. Instead of accomplishing the same goal by respecting my request, he rejected it, contemptuously. That was not the proper behavior of a bureaucrat.
Since SBJ had previously warned and blocked Ottava, and Ottava's behavior had degenerated even further, and yet SBJ stood back and did not act, leaving me holding the bag, I believe that he did this precisely to arrange what ensued. He did not want to directly ask for my desysop, because that would reveal, more, his own responsibility. He wanted this procedure to be filed, to have cover. He knew that Ottava was being outrageously uncivil and disruptive. It served his purpose.
Folks, this is not a Greek tragedy. My life does not revolve around being a custodian, "having power." My power is the power of insight and analysis, of passion and expression, and of, in fact, seeking consensus. I did not ask to be a custodian, both times. I was invited by Ottava, first time, and Jtneill, the second. I considered custodianship a duty, not a privilege or reward. I exercised my duty, and, ultimately, the failure here cannot be laid at the doorstep of any individual, though Ottava played the major role in the Drama, with SBJ being behind the scenes. I did not fail, I succeeded, as far as was possible. The true failure is that of the community, the sovereign here. Which was sleeping, as it does, most of the time. When it sleeps, Lilliputians can bind it. --Abd14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last night, on IRC, I wondered aloud why SBJ didn't request that you submit your resignation (as you had suggested to him), and instead proceeded to dismiss you outright. One possibility is that he (like JTN) hadn't caught up with his long queue of reading material to have come across your last-minute suggestion. But it's also possible he considered that and determined he didn't have enough leisure time to read a lengthy and rambling letter of resignation. —Moulton14:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I made a brief request at meta that he rely upon my permission to yank the bits. That's what is diff'd above. He rejected that, and "resented" the offer, even. There was no "letter of resignation" needed, nor was I offering one. I simply made statements in multiple places, even bolded so they'd not be missed, that he had the right to yank the bit without discussion. He could have ended this much sooner, but said that he'd rather not be the judge. Yet that is exactly what he ended up being, but based it on this travesty of a CR.
SBJ has no patience for reading long discussions, which is fatal in a 'crat. It's part of the job. He didn't have to read long discussions elsewhere, but in a CR that's he's planning to close, and where he has already come to a conclusion? Who cares about evidence? That is, indeed, a serious problem with a 'crat. Yanking the bit? Simple. Why didn't he do it, when given the right, purely and simply? I'm coming to hypotheses, based on review of the history.
And now he's blaming Jtneill, at Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill 2, for what he had the easy right to avoid, including, from the beginning, not approving the mentorship. He could have stopped the "threat" from me at any time, and eventually did.
In the approval, he hid under policy, there, i.e., he had the right to approve, by policy. But he wasn't really approving, he was setting up conditions to stop what he'd long said he detested, custodianship for me.
It's all totally foolish, since it's clear that Wikiversity doesn't want to ban "walls of text," which appears to be the core of SBJ's "concern." I've suggested, for long -- and at length! -- how to deal with the legitimate objection to such, but those who are really opposed to the content know that they would lose their cover. JWS, as I've long said, has some legitimate objections behind his own walls of text. So how to tease out and extract what's good from them? It's actually easy, much easier than allowing useless disruption to continue. My long-expressed concern with JWS was that he wasn't being effective, at all. His response? He took it as a threat, and attacked me, before I was ever a sysop. Some people cannot tolerate even constructive criticism, and that would include Ottava and JWS. And, possibly, SBJ. SBJ doesn't become blatantly rude in response, he simply ignores it. He was a very widely-trusted user. In the end, a wimp, when it came to the problems with Jimbo in March, 2010. The boldest wimp, to be sure, at least he acted on principle, and my admiration for that led me to suggest he return. A solution to the Jimbo problem, however, would have required negotiating with Jimbo, respecting Jimbo's concerns, while firmly standing for the community. I've found Jimbo to be responsive to cogent and clear suggestions. He's also responsive to trolls, that's part of the problem! In any case, the community came, pretty much, to the position I anticipated, back then.
I will demonstrate how to appeal something like this CR, nondisruptively. I did this on Wikipedia with my first block, in fact, and it worked. It resolved the underlying dispute, and it was only when I came into conflict with the cabal that things deteriorated. Yes, the cabal, the same one as was originally behind Moulton's problems on Wikipedia -- aside from Moulton's own attack-dog habits. So, if interested, watch my Talk page. I will also set up off-wiki process as a less-abusable alternative to IRC. Watch. One step at a time.
I have no crystal ball. The process I will begin, I cannot predict the outcome. That is generally true of consensus process, the big unknown is who will participate. Permitted by the nature of what I'll do, however, I'll canvass. People will decide to participate or not, and it will start out completely open. It will not necessarily stay that way. The ability of any "committee" to determine its own process is a fundamental principle of deliberative democracy. Committees, by definition, only make recommendations to the sovereign, they do not make decisions, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is misnamed (as to practice.) It's really an executive committee, delegated authority by a sovereign that doesn't want to appear to be in control. Alternatively, it's an elected governing council. We will do something different, something far more compatible with the original wiki vision. A hybrid. --Abd17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, I didn't use this CR as "cover", I just closed it following policy to do so. I expressed before that I felt it inappropriate for you to "put your fate in my hands", because I really didn't want to be responsible for you (I declined to co-mentor you for the same reason). Maybe it would be better if 'crats (or perhaps just any custodian) could simply remove the probationary tools whenever they have a concern, but that's not the policy right now. Finally, I don't think it's fair to the people who have spent the time and effort participating in this CR to not acknowledge this.
I pushed the button to make you a probationary custodian because the current policy makes it clear that you had met the requirements. I made the meta request after looking over the discussion above and seeing that there was a consensus about your usergroup (only you and Jtniell seemed unconcerned). There seemed absolutely no possibility that that was going to change, so it was time to close it and move on.
I know you worked hard, and I know you did what you thought was best. The issue was that almost everyone else was concerned about either what you were doing or how you were doing it, and felt that you weren't seeking guidance when you should have done so. --SB_Johnnytalk15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SBJ, I'm not buying it. You had no obligation to approve a probationary custodianship that you personally disagreed with. The policy, indeed, incorporates 'crat approval as a protection. Either you trusted Jtneill's mentorship or you did not. Yes, I met the requirements, except that the requirements imply 'crat approval. No policy requires any 'crat to act to do anything that they personally disagree with, they may decline, and it is not ever an "egregious violation of policy." But, in spite of your wide experience, you don't understand how wikis really work, which could explain how ineffective you were in early 2010. And how ineffective you were, here. You shot the messenger. You were not obligated to do that. From your prior expressed opinion, you were not a proper closer for this Community Review. If I was the wrong person to block Ottava, so were you, in your last block. You were allowed the right, by me, voluntarily, to remove my ops at any time, precisely to avoid unnecessary disruption. Instead you allowed this travesty of a CR, and then relied upon the outcome, and that is precisely to give yourself cover, you expressly said you did not want to be responsible for the decision. But, in the end, you made yourself, instead, responsible for concluding that consensus was shown, when any sane analysis of the votes here would show something quite different was happening, and that Jtneill's desire to posptone the question to the vote on full custodianship was actually the right course.
You decided this contrary to recusal requirements. The !votes, as they stood, gave you cover. That's all.
Except for one thing. I gave you the right to remove ops so that you could do so on a finding that the process was disrupting the community. That would have required no finding of abuse. You could have, however, at any time, simply issued a warning to me not to use ops in a disruptive way. The problem is that your early comments were vague, and did not replace my action with any protection of the community, leaving me in a quandary. Your unblock of Ottava without a review of my reasons for the block, the basis of my warning, utterly failed to protect the community; he was threatening users with block, preposterously, but some users might believe this. I did respect your request to stop, I did not follow through on my warnings, there was no hazard to the community, except from "walls of text," which aren't at all affected by ops; in fact, having ops caused me to suppress much. Thanks for removing that nuisance. --Abd17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd close it myself, but I can imagine the screams.... SBJ, next time you close a discussion, how about actually closing it? If anyone wants to comment on this, the Talk page will remain open. I may appeal the decision to the community, but not now. (That would have been avoided by simply yanking the bit under the long-expressed permission.) Way too much crap in the air. No rush. Not here. --Abd01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd Lomax is my name, and I rode on the power trip train,
'Til so much rivalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the middle of walls of text, we were rollin', just trollin' for bait.
I took the train to Wiki, that hell, it was a time I remember, oh so well.
The Night They Drove Abd Lomax Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Abd Lomax Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah
Back with James at Epiphany, and one day he said to me,
"Abd, quick, come see, a-there goes Adambro on a spree!"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if El Jefe's no good.
Just take what ya need and efface the rest,
But they should never have wiped out the very best.
The Night They Drove Abd Lomax Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Abd Lomax Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah
Like Jed Rothwell before me, I'm a working man,
And like Ed Storms before me, I took a rebel stand.
Well, he was just pissed off, proud and brave,
But SBJ laid him in his grave,
I swear by the verse below my feet,
You can't raise the Lomax back up when he's in defeat.
The Night They Drove Abd Lomax Down, and all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Abd Lomax Down, and all the people were stingin'.
They went
Na,
Na, na, na, na, na,
Blah, blah, buh blah,
Buh blah blah, blah blah
CopyClef 2007-2011 Joan Baez and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All songs reused.
Title: El Jefe Fit the Battle of Abd, Go!
Artist: The Ottavan Empire
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Abd, Go! Abd, Go!
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Walls of text came tumbling down.
You may talk about your clowns of Cold Fusion,
You may talk about your trolls with gall
But there's none like good old El Jefe
At the battle of Abd, Go!
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Abd, Go! Abd, Go!
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Walls of text came tumbling down.
Now the Lord commanded El Jefe;
"I command thee, now engage you must;
Just wade right into those numpty walls,
Walls of text will turn to dust."
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Abd, Go! Abd, Go!
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Walls of text came tumbling down.
Straight up to the drama with Abd, Go!
He charged with banhammer in hand,
"Go jump into a lake," El Jefe cried,
"For the battle is in my land.
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Abd, Go! Abd, Go!
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Walls of text came tumbling down.
Abd's walls of text began to feud,
And the music began to sound,
And El Jefe commanded, "Yo! Takedown, d00d!"
Walls of text came tumbling down.
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Abd, Go! Abd, Go!
El Jefe fit the battle of Abd, Go!
Walls of text came tumbling down.
CopyClef 2011 Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused.
Proposal to remove all current Bureaucrats[edit source]
Proposal. It is clear that Abd has in the past and will in the future violate Wikiversity policy. Abd fails to follow the policy on Custodianship that restricts the behavior of Custodians. Abd has a sad history of calling for unjustified blocks and bans and imposing bad blocks on Wikiversity community members. Calling for unjustified blocks and bans is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. The source of the problem is that since the Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity there is no way to put an end to the madness of giving tools to abusive sysops like Abd. I propose that all of the current bureaucrats resign and that User:Erkan Yilmaz be given back his tools. --JWSchmidt15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of all current Bureaucrats and Support restoration of Erkan Yilmaz and JWSchmidt to Bureaucrat status. I am not making a statement on giving Custodianship but only Bureaucratship status at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheerleading. Moar Sturm und Drang! Moar Angst! Moar Po-Mo Theater of the Absurd! —Albatross 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't currently have time for special user rights. Also, I was given Custodianship at the start of Wikiversity without any community discussion. I was glad to serve and do a bunch of boring page imports and other Custodial tasks, but I refused to become a bureaucrat because of a fundamental defect in the rules for probationary Custodianship (the mentor should be able to instantly terminate a probationary Custodian's access to tools). That problem still exists. Erkan would be adequate for the small amount of 'crat work that needs to be done, but it might also be possible to bring back User:Sebmol. --JWSchmidt16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sebmol was one of the four Crats who decided to remove your ops without consensus, and he is also one of our long standing inactive Custodians. I would rather not allow him to have the ops as he is no longer part of our community by his own choosing. And I agree that a mentor should be able to terminate the mentorship and I will work up a proposal for the Probationary Custodianship policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if Sebmol ever misused his Custodial tools or gave any support to those who have performed emergency desysops when no emergency exited. As far as I know, he just became less active here when he took on an important position at the German Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was my mistake. I remembered seeing that "4 crats" determined your removal but on looking, it was 3 crats and McCormack. Sebmol was the Crat not on board with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is definitely not the existing 'crats. They haven't been harassing users, filing process after process, going to meta and lying about local policy and conditions, and, indeed, driving away users. This proposal has no place on this page, but I'll leave it, because it helps anyone looking at this to see what is going on. --Abd19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no procedural grounds. The title of a CR does not limit the scope of a community review. the Bureaucrats were involved in giving ops to Abd without consensus and refuse to act. Therefore, it is clearly within the scope even in your limited perspective. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adrignola is correct. A proposal like this is huge. If it is going to be considered, it should be in the site message. Yet putting this piece of provocation in the site message is wildly inappropriate, that's why this CR wasn't there already. My view is that for any process to be in the site message, a sysop should agree that it is worthy of wide community attention. Properly understood, that sets a requirement for admin approval, at least one admin, of any site-announced discussion, avoiding spending too much general community time on frivolous proposals. I intend to make this explicit in policy, if the community approves. Before, Ottava created CRs and put them in the message himself, as a sysop. That was use of tools under a recusal situation. If I'd wanted to take up the community time with this CR, I could have put it in the site message, I certainly considered it, because I know that I'm very popular among certain users who have seen and understood my work. But I'm involved, and so I refrained. And it's not an emergency.
That a discussion is focused on a single issue is a basic piece of parliamentary procedure. If we allow any discussion to spin out and come up with something initially irrelevant, that would mean that all users would have to pay attention to every discussion, ongoing, not just look at it once. I will be paying attention to our guidelines and policies to bring in the experience of centuries of deliberative process, it's been largely missing from the wikis, and those who understood it and who tried to bring it in have often been blocked and banned, on Wikipedia! They "don't understand wikis." In fact, they understand them all too well! There is a reason why Wikipedia keeps bleeding experienced users. --Abd19:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
neutral Obviously, I'm affected by this. If the community of this project wants me to give up my bureaucratship, so be it. I am, however, in general able and willing to help out where needed. It's true that I haven't been active on this project in a long time, somewhat due to conflicting priorities on German Wikipedia, but mostly due to my involvement as Wikimedia Germany president and member of a few other (offline) Wikimedia committees and projects. I'll leave the decision to the community as to what it wishes to be done. sebmol?22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of bureaucrats, oppose giving authority to anybody else. All this time spent on policy and bickering is time that would be better spent developing WV and other wikis. Don't hate me 134.29.231.1122:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On request, evidence will be provided for any statement I make below, or will correct errors if they are pointed out.
Ottava was my mentor. However, I came across him calling SB_Johnny, at that time mostly inactive here, a "liar." There was no need for this, as to Wikiversity process or issues needing resolution. Therefore I warned Ottava. His response was, essentially, but he is a liar. So I blocked him for two hours, knowing that this would be the end of my probationary custodianship. Ottava didn't just withdraw as my mentor, he started a long rampage.
When Jtneill confirmed that my block had been within reasonable discretion, and warned Ottava as well, Ottava immediately started Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill with hastily-tossed together charges. Eventually, Ottava was uncivil in too many ways, and he was desysopped. He argued tendentiously at meta over what was, there, a routine removal. He filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu over technical shortcomings of the close, even though the cause for desyopping was totally obvious.
At the beginning of this month, I was offered probationary custodianship by Jtneill. I accepted, and SB_Johnny assigned the bit, which was routine, by policy. Ottava protested vigorously, went to meta and again created a huge flap at the Permissions page, asking meta to yank SBJ's 'crat bit, and filing a Request for comment there on SBJ -- all of which is disruptive at meta.
I asked for independent custodian review of the situation on [[Wikiversity:Request custodian action]. No response appeared. Ottava amped up the pressure, and repeatedly threatened that there were two custodians waiting to "come on" and block me and others, including all the 'crats, for disruption, and attacking independent comment that disagreed with him.
So I warned Ottava about the threats and disruption. Ottava then filed a proposed topic ban on Wikiversity space, and a friend of his quickly added "emergency desysop" to it. Now, I was already under a recusal requirement, my interpretation, but the situation was quickly spinning out, involving meta, etc., so I again requested custodial review, with notice of my intention to block if no warning to avoid this appeared from a custodian, and authorizing that I could evenbe short-blocked if needed to avert the action. No response appeared. So I blocked, and since this was a long-term situation, with several short blocks already having been of no effect, I made it a year, knowing, though, that this would be quickly reviewed.
SBJ, however, reacting quickly to the appearance of conflict of interest, unblocked, allowing the situation to continue.
Ottava continued to escalate, requesting desysop for me at meta and again tendentiously arguing, attacking the steward, etc., for routinely denying the request. Ottava, last night, filed two more Community Reviews, seeking removal of the two other active bureaucrats. Ottava had already filed reviews on them both, which had not led to any action, so these were second reviews. All filed by the same person within a relatively short period of time. All because the 'crats had made decisions that Ottava had disagreed with.
Ottava appears to have filed CRs and proposals, to then prevent a sysop warning him from acting. It's a well-known wikilawyering tactic, and it can work if people only look at the surface. "Look, criticism of the sysop, and the sysop blocks!" With the new CRs, Ottava had pending CRs on all active 'crats, apparently hoping that he could then, with all 'crats recused, go to meta and request steward action, apparently believing that he can then get a review there, and possibly having a steward waiting in the wings to assist him, he's claimed that stewards have promised support.
Politically, some of the stewards have been unhappy with Wikiversity, because, after all, we unblocked both Thekohser and Moulton, both major critics of the WMF. It might indeed be true that there is a steward waiting for an excuse to act. Ottava is literally trying to destroy Wikiversity, angry that it allowed him to be desysopped, and he doesn't seem to care how much damage he causes.
Any 'crat or custodian can, in fact, stop me, but I do caution: if you stop me, you are then responsible for what I might have prevented. I will not wheel-war, but SBJ's action was under one context, and another context has appeared, a frontal and clear assault on the entire administrative structure at Wikiversity. So if what I'm doing or might do is extreme, too much, unwise, etc., then, please, demonstrate your own wisdom. Be careful.
The pattern is clear. Cross Ottava, you are in trouble. This must stop. I am under recusal requirement, but I have the tools, still, as long as Jtneill, my mentor, permits it, he may request removal at any time at meta. I have also permitted SB_Johnny to request this. I now extend that to any Wikiversity 'crat finding that my activity is harming the wiki, my tools may be lifted without discussion by simple request at meta. I serve the community, not myself, and, for very practical reasons, "the community" is represented by the bureaucrats.
I will also desist from using tools in relation to this on the request of any other custodian who agrees to review and handle the situation, or who simply requests that I stop and wait.
I know that Wikiversity is being damaged, I have email that at least one potentially valuable user has decided not to participate here -- he's a sysop and 'crat elsewhere -- because of Ottava being allowed to continue on this rampage, and JWS was also mentioned. Both of them are similar in a way. If they can't get their way, nobody can, they will attack and disrupt until someone stops them, screaming all the while that they are being "suppressed."
Therefore I reserve the right to use the tools to protect the wiki. I will warn users on their Talk page if there is any risk that I would block them. I have closed and protected the new CRs on Jtneill and Mikeu. Again, that may be reversed by any custodian willing to take responsibility for the results. --Abd19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in collapse above, the pattern is clear. Cross Ottava, you are in trouble, the pattern goes way back. This must stop. I am under recusal requirement, but I have the tools, still, as long as Jtneill, my mentor, permits it, he may request removal at any time at meta. I have also permitted SB_Johnny to request this. I now extend that to any Wikiversity 'crat finding that my activity is harming the wiki, my tools may be lifted without discussion by simple 'crat request at meta. I serve the community, not myself, and, for very practical reasons, "the community" is represented by the bureaucrats.
I will also desist from using tools in relation to this on the request of any custodian or 'crat who agrees to review and handle the situation, or will stop and wait from a simple custodial request on my Talk page. My Talk page remains open to all users with concerns.
I am not resigning because that would leave the wiki completely helpless before the assault from Ottava and friends, and Ottava was threatening and bullying. I've seen such resignations "to avoid disruption" before, and the end wasn't good. What I've done, inviting immediate review and independent support for protecting the wiki, is adequate for all reasonable concerns. --Abd19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this affair, one factor stands out for me, the utter lack of support from the community -- excepting only Jtneill -- for a probationary custodian faced with blatant disruption, threats, bullying, and massive filing of process against the whole active bureaucratic corps, almost certainly in an attempt to create recusal requirements, as was done with me (I warned Ottava, he then filed the proposal that was then copied here, abusively, creating the impression that the subsequent block was retaliation.) Classic wikilawyering). There were several custodians aware of the situation, and they did nothing, and SBJ did less than nothing, he undid the only sensible response to the same blatant disruptive incivility that he's blocked for before. This means that the WV core is burned out, not paying attention, disgusted with the long fighting and unwilling to make the effort to figure out what is going on. A pox on all of them, I can easily imagine them saying. If anyone was watching. Too bad. It seemed like such a great idea. I'll continue certain work here, but being careful to keep off-line copies, I no longer consider Wikiversity a safe place, and I absolutely can't invite others here, as I'd started to do again. Ottava is running a scorched-earth plan. Watch. --Abd01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed discussion of desysop shown above was started as a topic ban and received some !votes that way, then there were some later revisions, without the revisions being noted, and the discussion of the topic ban, under that heading at the Colloquium -- and still there -- was only partly copied here by Ottava (about one-fourth), thus taking !votes out of context and eliminating many subsequent comments that might give a different impression. This should never again be allowed. Sometimes moving an entire page to a new location, or an entire discussion, is appropriate, but not comments taken out of context, selectively, by a party to a dispute. Someone, for example, may have seen the topic ban discussion, and, early on, concluded that it didn't have a prayer of being approved, so they did not comment. Did they see the subsequent Community Review? It's clear that some people commented in the Colloquium discussion who did not comment in the Community Review, and the comments that they had made were not moved. That's grossly defective, and I was shocked that SBJ would rely upon this travesty for his conclusion. If he believed that the community was best served by the lifting of my bit, that was already allowed by me, I'd given my full consent to it, long before.
But using this discussion provided an appearance of a community consensus, even though there was never a site message about this, as was done with Ottava's desysop, nor did I use my tools to create one, nor did I do one shred of canvassing. Unlike, very obviously, Ottava. Notice that the first comment from Diego Grez appeared within five minutes after Ottava filed. The filing came after I'd warned Ottava for disruption, and the reason for that warning and block can be seen at: [12]. That, by the way, is part of what wasn't copied to the Community Review. (Discussion continued on the Colloquium, one consequence of the partial copy instead of a total move. Ottava thus warped the participation, quite skilfully.)
I'm not contesting the bit removal. Regardless of why, it was disruptive for me to continue as custodian with the appearances presented. I would have resigned, but there were important reasons why I did not, why I, instead, granted my mentor and SB_Johnny, and, toward the end, any 'crat, the right to yank the bit on a personal determination that the welfare of the wiki required it, without needing to determine consensus or cause. If I had it to do over, I might have extended that to any custodian.
However, using this CR as if it actually represented a consensus of the community, given how hopelessly defective it was from the beginning, is not acceptable. SB_Johnny easily could still have yanked the bit and closed this CR without a finding of consensus, as moot. He, instead, and contrary to my request at meta, relied upon this. That taught me a great deal about SB_Johnny, in the way that he "resented" my suggestion. It caused me to review and rethink everything I knew about him, to notice what I'd been overlooking and more or less laughing off. SBJ is indeed a problem. And for that reason, I've changed my support to his being "confirmed," in WV:Community Review/SB_Johnny to a support for his losing the privileges. I'm quite aware that this can look vindictive, but it's actually a sober judgment. He could very easily have avoided this, trivially, and that he did not care to do so, nor give it any consideration, shows a continued risk to the community, and how he used his tools during the disruption shows something other than care for the community, and protection of it.
In the end, it's all up to the community. The problem is how long it can take to figure it all out, and sometimes, as Moulton has written, mistakes are never fixed, and the damage is simply buried. --Abd22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ottava has entered a request on meta to remove Abd's permissions. Just FYI, as he doesn't seem to have announced that anywhere here on WV. --SB_Johnny talk 10:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment The proposal of an emergency desysop was, however, not made by Ottava Rima, so all the evil planning you think to see can logically not exist. As for the heat, I am capable of absorbing any amount and of doing that without producing a multi-volume litany or building a castle of blocks. Guido den Broeder 17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Even in this discussion user perpetuated the same disruptive behaviour ad nauseam. Someone, please act. Guido den Broeder 03:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)