Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu

Mu301

This community review is being opened based on two egregious violations of Bureaucratic standards at Wikiversity.Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's not being opened in retaliation for Mu301 requesting the removal of your tools at Meta? The timing is very convenient. Adrignola 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the removal of tools is one of the things he wants to review, one can hardly expect him to have requested it beforehand :-). It's also completely understandable that he would see this issue as something requiring urgent attention. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My tools were removed by Ottava filing a request at meta that was misleading as to Wikiversity policy, noticed by jayvdb, and did not disclose the obvious triggering incident. I did not protest this because a temporary loss of tools is not an emergency, and all I'd have needed to do to get them back, promptly, was to request and obtain another mentor. By policy, I had three days in which to do this after Ottava withdrew. Ottava blatantly misrepresented our policy, as if a mentor could automatically request removal of tools, which was not part of the mentorship agreement.

Ironically, Ottava then claimed he'd not withdrawn as my mentor, attempting to frustrate the intention of the policy, i.e., by allowing him to totally veto my candidacy, as he claimed, instead of substitution, as the policy clearly specifies. It was the first clue I had that Ottava was willing to grossly violate and misrepresent policy because of his personal feelings.

Filing a Community review on a custodian or 'crat without first filing Wikiversity:Custodian feedback, without resolution, is a violation of policy, and I've interpreted that even CF must be preceded by some serious attempt to resolve a conflict, i.e., direct discussion with some time allowed. Emergency processes must be directly with those able to act, and Ottava has due process available here, by appealing for a return of the tools on Wikiversity:Bureaucrat's noticeboard or on the individual Talk pages of the two remaining local 'crats who have not weighed in. Instead, he went to meta with a time-waster and filed this blatantly retaliatory CR. This is a simple continuation of conflict without tools, and it's worrisome. Unless there is some confirmation of the legitimacy of this, and promptly, this should be closed, and that should be done with any abusive CR, CRs can waste huge amounts of time, and with nobody supporting it, there is very little benefit. We should develop safer process that does allow legitimate confrontation of abuse, without demanding huge amounts of time wasted, on all sides, in what is clearly going to be useless. --Abd 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A mentor has the binding right to remove ops at will for any reason. A bureaucrat does not have such ability. A mentee is not a true Custodian and does not have consensus for existing with Custodian rights, so they are far different than actual Custodians. Your inability to differentiate between the two is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that a patronage model is a good one. To my mind, a patronage culture sends the wrong signals. I'd rather see a model that promotes ethical best practices every step of the way. Patronage is notoriously subject to corruption. —Caprice 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it was the only way to have a mentorship program. Obviously, mentorship has failed, especially when some key Bureaucrats keep offering to mentor individuals who have no serious academic background and active academic use here. Salmon of Doubt is not the only example that comes to mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Surely it's not the only way. On NetKnowledge, we have something akin to a mentorship model that differs from the one you have outlined here. —Caprice 16:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sysop/desysop without discussion and consensus

23:40, 11 August 2010 Mu301 (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:SB Johnny from (none) to Custodians and Bureaucrats ‎ (per request)

SB Johnny was desysopped by Jimbo Wales after wheel warring inappropriately and disrupting the community. This desysop was not opposed by the community and discussion can be found here.

When being resysoped, SB Johnny rejected it with sarcasm and incivility, as per statements like this: "Did you actually read my reply above?".

He then asked for his flags removed at Meta. Wikivesity does not allow Custodian status to be granted without a process, nor is it within policy to grant those who "give it up" without discussion. Mu301 granted these to SB Johnny, who left after a major dispute and being desysopped for inappropriate use of ops, without any community discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It probably would have been a good idea to have discussed re-flagging SB Johnny first, but my current understanding is that we don't have particular policy for or against re-flagging a user who resigned the tools. Perhaps one way to deal with this issue is to work on adjusting Wikiversity:Custodianship to reflect how the community would like to handle re-sysoping of a self-resigned custodian or bureaucrat. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Meta's policy is a global policy that says that consensus is needed before an admin could be promoted. We would need to implement a "reflagging policy" to change that. Retroactively making one would not correct a major wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to this "global policy"? I had a quick look and couldn't find this but it does sound familiar. Adambro 13:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of tools at meta, or by 'crats on a project, is routine when the tools were voluntarily resigned "without a cloud." The point is, in fact, to avoid unnecessary and disruptive discussion, and thus to encourage voluntary resignation when tools are not needed. "Promotion" refers to original promotion, not to restoration after voluntary relinquishment. Restoration is merely a return to status quo ante, not a truly new action. Precedent is clear on this, many examples could be asserted and I am aware of no exceptions. If this project did not have a 'crat, the restoration would be routinely done at meta.

SB_Johnny was desysopped by Jimbo as cited by Ottava, and, after discussion, was resysopped. "Wheel warring" consisted of a routine indpendent decision to unblock, and was only called "wheel warring" by Jimbo because it was his decision to block, and reverting a steward action has been called "wheel warring," even though that is not the ordinary use of the term. By the ordinary use, it was Jimbo who wheel-warred. (I'm not claiming Jimbo's action was improper, that is quite a different question. However, consensus became that Jimbo was not to do this kind of thing again, and he resigned the tools that enabled it.) SBJ, like many people, was offended by Jimbo's interference in Wikiversity, and so SBJ resigned. It was a voluntary resignation and SBJ was not facing any impending consideration of removal. This was discussed at User talk:Mu301. In addition to that original protest, Ottava raised this claim many times without support. To file this CR is another example of retaliatory CR, due to an action or expressed option that Ottava disagreed with, see Wikiversity:Custodian_feedback/Archive#Ottava_Rima, Wikiversity:Community_Review/Ottava_Rima#Abd:'Other 'bullying' Summary and Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill.

The evidence presented above was cherry-picked and presented to preferentially show the original desysopping. The restoration by Jimbo was not mentioned, though it was mentioned deeper into the discussion cited on SB_Johnny talk, nor, similarly, the voluntary resignation, nor the discussion that ensued upon restoration of the bits, as I cited above. This is an abuse of process, over a stale issue, creating more and more waste of time. --Abd 16:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this review was started as retaliation or is perceived as such, I don't see any particular harm in it. I see no reason to believe that Ottava is being deceptive about his level of concern, so this review can serve to inform the rest of the community and find out whether the concern is widely shared, or perhaps even change Ottava's feelings about the issues raised. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of tools must be accepted in community policy and the issue of a "cloud" is decided by the community. There was no allowance of a community discussion and Mikeu was inactive and out of touch with the community during the events that led to SB Johnny's desysopping and later "you can't fire me, I quit". The community sided with Jimbo's desysop and did not ask for a resysopping. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Adambro - Many parts - [1] "For permanent sysopship please provide a link to the local community approval." Related discussions on the need for set minimums and the lack of an authority of a community to put forth a Crat then allow the Crat to sysop whoever they want at will, see: 1 and 2. Only a policy declaration or a community discussion can be seen as a community consented process as is verified on multiple places. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What you've highlighted are a couple of discussions, which obviously cannot be considered "global policy", and the instructions for requesting a steward adds admin rights. I'm yet to be convinced based upon that that there "is a global policy that says that consensus is needed before an admin could be promoted". The instructions at Steward requests/Permissions don't say anything about what a local 'crat can or can't do. In the absence of any global or local policy regarding this situation, I don't think it it too unreasonable for 'crats to make a judgement, even if I'd rather we had a more comprehensive discussion. Adambro 14:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be convinced. The Meta policy is for Stewards acting as Crats. If what I am saying is not true, then any project could have a Crat that adds Custodianship without any consensus. Consensus is the main focus of the WMF. Why is it that you think consensus would not be needed before admins are given ops especially when the Stewards are required to look for it before oping? And you are very mistaken - Wikiversity has Wikiversity:Consensus, which applies to everything. So even if you want to say it is local policy you cannot override the above. So, you are wrong either way. You wont be convinced, but it requires an open mind to be convinced. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Consensus isn't a policy, it is a guideline, so I don't think it is as binding as you suggest. Not only that, it is more about defining what is consensus and how it is judged rather than saying no one can do anything without consensus. It also suggests determining consensus is about ascertaining what the mood of the community. In reinstating SBJ's rights, Mikeu may have judged from the mood of the community that it was the appropriate thing to do. I think what you are really arguing for here is a clearer process for the reinstatement of rights, not that Mikeu has acted completely inappropriately. There is not really a strong policy case for saying that Mikeu did something wrong here. Adambro 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Before using condescending language, please read links first. It was originally a policy, then deemed that "policy" didn't fit what is a -mechanism-. Guideline was put in to fit it in a category but it is a mechanism. Now, CR is done via consensus, as are all of our other policies. None of them say that the matter is not up for consensus.

Now, for your absurd point - Mikeu was not active in the community for 3 months. There was no judging community consensus, nor can a Crat arbitrarily judge without discussion. Why is it that you are so opposed to discussion? Does it have something to do with your willingness to block users like JWS without discussion in extreme and harming ways? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is rather ironic that you accuse me of not reading and being opposed to discussions whilst above in relation to this I've said "I'd rather we had a more comprehensive discussion", and in response to your comments at Wikiversity:Colloquium I've expressed how I'd rather we had discussions in these situations. I am not saying I approve of reinstating rights without discussion, rather that I don't think there is a strong case in terms of policies against Mike acting how he did which means we need to revise the Custodianship policy, not punish Mike as you seem to be focussing on. Adambro 16:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• The "mood of the community" is vague and ill-defined. But more to the point, the "mood of the community" is not a valid criterion upon which to make managerial decisions which call for the highest principles of managerial ethics. SBJ's departure took place under a disgraceful cloud of bullying and threats (to shut down WV) which profoundly undermined the atmosphere of academic integrity, scholarly ethics, and organizational respectability that a project like this one needs to exemplify if it is to fulfill its advertised mission as an authentic learning community. —Moulton (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the "mood of the community" as "vague and ill-defined". The first two sentences would make a good beginning for an essay on how not to abuse consensus with a section heading of "Don't just make assumptions without asking". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have have seen people given the tools without formal discussion before at other projects. I've seen requests from stewards where it was apparently done for small wikis where there were no or maybe only 1 or 2 people with the tools prior to the request and with few contributors. I have seen people ask bureaucrats to give them the tools and it was done. I'm not aware of any formal policy for or against those actions and I'm also not entirely aware of the circumstances in which each was done either. I have no opinion as to whether the right or wrong thing was done in each case either. I do thing some limitations on doing so could make sense, but I'd want to see what the proposed limitations are first. I think mu301 was neither in the right nor the wrong in giving the tools back. I think some guidance in this area for bureaucrats in the future would be helpful.

I think Custodians, Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, and the rest could benefit from some guidance as to what circumstances would warrant removal of tools, what they can expect prior to the removal, what to expect during the review process, etc. I think participants in a review could benefit from some guidance in what is expected of them in terms of proof of wrongdoing or whatever. I think some guidance on how to judge or determine the outcome of a community review would also be helpful.

I think we can all be blamed and be held responsible for the lack of good documented guidance that is agreed on for any wrongdoings that may have happened here. -- darklama  16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Adminship on tiny Wikis is supposed to be done only on a temporary basis if there aren't enough people to discuss the matter. Some Stewards have been removed before for inappropriate action, so finding some bad examples wont really help. And Darklama, Mikeu never bothered to talk to the community before or after, and will most likely ignore this CR, as he stopped interacting with community discussions long ago. That is part of the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Early closing of discussion process

Community Review is a process that follows Wikiversity:Consensus and is discussion based. The Consensus principle says that votes are not how consensus is formed, and it requires policy based discussion.

On November 22, a proposal to desysop a Custodian was initiated without any policy based considerations. After being heavily canvassed (example, Wikipedia Review here) many inactive users made votes before there was any discussion.

In response, a group of regulars passed a unanimous motion to table the whole matter until after discussion because the process was violated.

On 26 November, inactive Bureaucrat Mu301 declares the matter closed and ignores the fact that there was heavy abuse of process, violation of the CR policy, violation of Consensus standards, and the only unanimous decision was that the process was inappropriate and should be stopped. He closed it after 4 days.

4 days is not enough time for an AfD discussion, a Request for Custodianship discussion, an RfC, or any other process. Ignoring the active community's statement to abuse, and ignoring policy standards when making this decision, shows that Mu301 cannot be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

CR policy does not indicate any time limit. The proposal to "slow down" did not indicate any time, so it could be argued either way (that enough time was given or that enough time wasn't given). It's not clear to me that Mikeu was out of order in closing on the proposal to remove rights. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was not to "slow down" but to abide by CR policy which requires a thorough discussion before any decision, which means before any voting. RfC standards across the WMF require at least two weeks. CR should take longer than that. Even Abd said that the page wouldn't close any time soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposal could have been left open for longer. It could have been closed earlier. I think in general it's better to leave things open for longer, but I also respect that others may judge that its better to close on matters where they are clear, so as to move on. I'm not really seeing this as "abusing" the closing process. I'll be interested though to see what others think. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could have been closed earlier? RfCs last for 2 weeks. 4 days is no where even close. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC is a Wikipedian process. Community Reviews aren't exactly the same thing. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RfCs are the process that would be used to desysop. CR does not have the teeth or the process for a community desysop. A desysop would not close earlier than any other discussion process. It would take longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment, and I'm curious what you mean by it. Did you not open a resolution for a desysop of Mikeu on this very page? You seem to be making some rather inconsistent interpretations of policies, even including some policies that aren't actually WV policies. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Custodianship#Problems_with_Custodians describes, for desysopping, direct attempt to resolve a dispute, then WV:Custodian feedback, both without resolution, then a new "seven day community discussion," with bureaucrat close. Inasmuch as the Custodian feedback process is a kind of request for comment, and because Community Review has been the general category for site-wide discussions here (there is no "RfC" page or centralized listing, Wikiversity:Request for comment redirects to Wikiversity:Colloquium, I have assumed that the "community discussion" mentioned is Community Review.) The "community discussion" does have the "teeth," that is provided in the policy. Let's look at the immediate cases:

Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima did follow earlier discussions, plus WV:Custodian feedback on the same issues, it's cited on the page. Technically, it did not request desysopping, but then, a day after the CR was filed, a sysop did add a proposed remedy, desysopping. That could be considered an RfC within a Community review, if we like. It asked a specific question within a larger discussion, with what is almost precisely a yes/no answer (plus comments and evidence and arguments, if the user desires to provide them), quite equivalent to the common polling involved in RfCs. That does not turn it into a vote-bound process, because the policy requires 'crat review, and it's a closing 'crat who makes the actual decision and implements it by going to meta.

Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu was not preceded by WV:Custodian feedback, nor by previous attempt to negotiate a solution. It was immediate and out of process as to any consideration of removal of privileges. A 'crat may decide to ignore procedural niceties, but it is generally not a good idea in itself, there should be some specific justification for it. The remedy for an error is for another 'crat to fix the error, with or without a community discussion. If the error was egregious, then the community may consider removal of the privilege, through the same process as desysopping. Bypassing that process is generally disruptive, absent emergency. --Abd 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• How do you ensure that RfCs do no devolve into an unseemly "Spammish Inquisition" (as they often do on the English Wikipedia)? —Caprice 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep them open for more than 4 days and ensure that only serious offenses are considered. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't it a bit subjective to adjudge what's serious and what's a sham? In the past, sham RfCs were all the rage, while serious offenses were blithely dismissed without review. —Barsoom Tork (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Moulton, Adam probably doesn't care. That is why it is problematic that non-academics were allowed to be in charge. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's hard to know what people do or don't care about. That's why I urge participants here to lay out their interests and objectives on their userspace pages. —Moulton (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think four days was also a bit too short. I know I have gone 4 days without checking in, and it is quite probable that some people who had something pertinent to say missed the whole episode entirely. I am curious how much earlier it could have been closed? One difficulty that arises is that the initial wave of people to initially comment may not accurately represent a consensus, so if you close something the day it is opens there would clearly be a problem. To give the Devil his due, I can understand wanting to bring a quicker conclusion to dramatic events and Mikeu never claimed there was any consensus to remove tools, only that it was clear a large part of the community no longer trusted Ottava with tools. I was a bit surprised the folks at meta accepted this, because my naive understanding was stewards were only meant to act when there was consensus. So if the closing custodian doesn't go so far has to say there is a consensus, I am surprised meta would act. But I suppose that a question best left to them. Thenub314 07:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, closing the discussion in question a bit earlier was probably for the best, given that (a) most of the "usual suspects" had already weighed in, (b) the argument was becoming quite overheated, particularly amongst a couple of the participants, and (c) near the end, "votes" were being made by folks with absolutely no history here at all (which is a recipe for an even larger mess). The discussion was also spilling out onto the colloquium and numerous user talk pages, so one might assume that the discussion was on the point of winding down in any case (and the rest of the discussions on that page seem to have come to a halt since the closure). It's never too late for participants to change their opinion in any case. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Four days does seem short in context, but I'm satisfied with Mikeu's explanation for closing. I'm also not convinced that the resolution to suspend had enough support or momentum to clearly justify overriding the resolution to desysop. We certainly have other active users, and they should be allowed to offer their input; perhaps the discussion should be reopened. However, given the development of the resolution and the CR as a whole, I don't expect a different conclusion, and based on Ottava's comment in the "A note" section, I'm not sure he does either. --Draicone ^(talk) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The resolution to suspend was unanimous. It is also a point of order based on the policy itself. CR is not a vote nor can it be turned into one. It is discussion only. Mikeu has demonstrated a 2 year history of abuse of CR and denying people the necessary discussion function that CR was created for. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"a) most of the "usual suspects" had already weighed in," - None of the usual suspects weighed in - Leigh did not weigh in. Geoff and Darklama did not vote on the matter. La comadreja did not vote. Countrymike did not vote. Etc. However, 6 of the people who did vote to desysop were not regulars in any definition of the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The mere spectacle of having Jtneill, Adambro, JWSchmidt, and myself all supporting the same resolution speaks fairly loudly about where the sense of the community laid. The arrival of Wikipedia admins who had zero edits outside of registering a vote (and a vote based on canvassing, which, again, is not a WV policy) spoke fairly loudly that you had given up on convincing community members to change their minds and were campaigning for votes from outside. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean four people that feel wronged? JWS wants everyone gone, Adambro dislikes anyone but himself, and you, it has already been verified that you have been doing whatever you can to poison the atmosphere here for two years. If you go by that standard, you could easily be desysoped at Wikipedia. Four people is never representative. By the way, thenub, Geoff, Diego, and Darklama did not want my Custodianship removed. That is four people that disagree with you. Then there are many that didn't respond: Countrymike, Cormaggio, Pmlineditor, etc. Your understanding of "community" leaves a lot to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think 4 days is not enough time to discuss issues. Sure most of the regulars might of chimed in by than, but that is a speech or presentation rather than a discussion. Even 2 weeks might not be enough time if people are busy and don't have the time for a proper discussion. I think the problem isn't that the discussion was closed too soon, but the consequences or the affect that closing had. -- darklama  14:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a point where some users protested a speedy close that had not been suggested. There was agreement at that point, not to "snow close" (at that point the support for desysopping was almost unanimous). Later, some comments opposing desysopping appeared, but it is within a 'crat's discretion -- 'crats are not robots, mechanically following policy, and especially not a minority opinion regarding policy -- to determine that no significant arguments opposing desysopping, on the policy-related issues that had been raised (most notably, re civility) had appeared, and to close on obvious merits, confirming the clear majority opinion and avoiding further disruption that would not change the outcome. This was on the fifth day of the Community Review. I'd have been more comfortable with waiting two more days, at least, allowing the full seven days outlined in Custodianship policy, so the close may be, if not justified as an emergency, a technical error. It is possible, then, that all that is involved in the error is a failure to completely explain the action, which is remediable.

There is no doubt, however, that community policy requires prior efforts to resolve disputes before filing a Community Review, and Ottava has twice, in recent history, violated this policy, with Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill and this one, both hastily filed after the 'crat in question had made a decision seen as adverse (this case), or warned Ottava for incivility (with Jtneill) without a proper attempt to resolve the issue at WV:Custodian feedback, which is what Wikiversity:Custodian#Problems with custodians requires.

There was indeed a "Resolution to Suspend Action and Allow for Full Discussion of the Issues". From the title, all that would be implied would be that no action be taken immediately, but the time for suspension was not specified. The text then proposed "I'm moving that we suspend all the other proposals here for awhile." This looks like a Tabling, which is opposite to postponing action and allowing discussion. (Under standard deliberative process, "action," Robert's Rules, always requires a specific two-thirds vote to close debate and vote, unless it is waived by lack of objection). We have a rather messed-up process, which should be fixed, it would indeed be highly desirable to postpone voting -- decision-making -- until after evidence and arguments have been completed, and my draft CR was designed to do that. However, I didn't file the actual review. Nor did the filer, SB_Johnny, propose the desysopping, it was Adambro.) Tabling does not allow discussion. Most of the alleged unanimous agreement was simply a recommendation that no hasty action be taken, not that discussion cease (tabling) and polling, here, is simply discussion organized by position (and people may also make non-position comments.) There was no close of this "resolution," as there had been with the proposal to undelete a certain file Ottava had deleted. A close would have specified the action to be taken, such as postponing close to a certain date, or would have involved a discussion-closed template being placed, but Ottava has treated this "motion" as if it were a clear and binding resolution limiting 'crat discretion, in the arguments he took to meta. permanent link.

As has been pointed out at meta, and as expected by anyone knowing meta process, the remedy for any problem with this is here on Wikiversity. Any 'crat may resysop Ottava if the 'crat considers the removal abusive and/or contrary to consensus. That is how our process is designed. --Abd 18:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a positive development if Ottava were to persuade those who had made their minds up that he was willing to take the steps necessary to assuage their concerns. However, I think the closure might make it easier to do so, since neither Ottava nor those who are/were concerned about him are "under the gun". Hopefully the tone and language will improve from this point on. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd hoped so, but the arguments presented at meta and the filing of this CR make it appear that this is being treated as some kind of emergency, and certain aspects of this are quite troubling. --Abd 20:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As Moulton would say, you can't persuade a lynch mob once they are gathered. The fact that you brought in 6 people who aren't regulars and started "voting" in direct contradiction to our policy before any discussion shows that the only appropriate thing for this community is to ask for you to leave, as you no longer have care for a safe, educational environment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ottava, are you feeling lynched here? —Caprice 15:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring discussion, voting without concern for the community, interference from outsiders who stack the deck, etc. I'm feeling like you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Most of the time, Moulton feels vexed and perplexed. Is that how you feel, too? —Montana Mouse (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, this woman was given more of a chance to defend herself. Oh, and that community was more unanimous and didn't require canvassing at WR. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposing to contact a user's place of work

On 27 January 2009, Mu301 proposed to contact a user's place of work to file a complaint about that user over his complaining about an inappropriate ban that lacked consensus. Instead of upholding moral and community standards and treating the user with respect, Mu301 issued a proposal to invade that user's privacy and would have lasting negative ramifications unwarranted by any behavior or action by that user.

No Custodian or Bureaucrat has the right to harass someone in real life, nor has the authority to contact someone's place of work and knowingly cause harm to that individual. These actions are deemed at the WMF as "harassment" and are potentially stalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The diff is a proposal - anyone can make a proposal. I don't see any problem with making a proposal and asking for community comment. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to stalk a user is not an acceptable proposal to make. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have a wider parameter I think for what I kinds of proposals I see as acceptable. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I think this was only proposed as a last resort since other attempts to stop the user from block invasions had failed, and a way to do less harm to Wikiversity since if it were to work all the blocks that had been placed could safely be lifted. Mu301 also wasn't the only one with the idea or the only one to support it. Additionally the proposal was to contact all the ISPs the user used to invade blocks, one of the ISPs just happens to be also their place of work is all. -- darklama  16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, I was actually the one who put that option out there, but then again I was just listing all of the various options that had come up on wiki, irc, email, and so on. The concern at the time was that the rangeblocks we had in place were blocking an enormous number of IPs, including all or most of MIT, which for obvious reasons was not something people were happy about. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)::

Those same massive range blocks have been in place here for the past three months (including the MIT Media Lab). The last of the 3-month range blocks just expired last week. —Caprice 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ancient history. The proposal was an obvious one, sometimes discussed when there is extreme discussion. It was not aimed at harassment, and no "place of work" contact was suggested. (Moulton does not "work" at M.I.T., I believe, he's retired, and the most this would have earned him would have been some reprimand and probably not actual access denial but rather only that if the problem continued, but the complaint, if filed, would not constitute workplace harassment but would have been about abuse of internet access. It is arguably legitimate to do that, and may be a superior alternative than range-blocking a quarter of a million IPs. But I'm glad it wasn't done. Call this the "nuclear option.)

Mikeu actually did support the proposal, but the complaint here certainly does not point out that the proposal enjoyed majority support (5:2), so Ottava is really complaining about the majority then. This is a remedy for abusive socking that is sometimes proposed on Wikipedia. I've only seen it done for serious vandalism, I think. As the full discussion shows, there was serious discontent with the status quo with Moulton, but quite strong agreement to keep him blocked, at that time (8:1 against unblocking, the only dissent being Moulton himself -- socking, but the !vote left in place. JWS, oddly, did not take a clear position, perhaps protesting against voting. So call it 8:2). Ottava, arguably, reversed this consensus recently with his unblock, but it's relatively harmless, at worst, and can be fixed if there is a serious problem. I believe we are better off with some level of "argument" from Moulton, provided he respects basic policy about such things as "outing," or civility guidelines. Dredging up these old discussions is highly counterproductive, and could lead users to defend their old positions instead of moving on. Indeed, this has been my long-term argument with Moulton, suggesting that he drop his "education program" relating to the old stuff, and start relating to us in a fresh manner that allows new consensus to form. You can't educate people if you keep stuffing them in old closets, so to speak. --Abd 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history is pertinent in showing a long term pattern of harassment and ignoring community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out the community consensus that mu301 ignored here? How was the proposal to file a complaint with a user's ISP harassment? What makes mu301's proposal harassment, and other people's support of that proposal or similar proposals not harassment? -- darklama  15:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This was about harassment, not community consensus. And contacting a user's place of work is not an ISP unless one works at an ISP. And anyone wanting to contact a user's place of work is always harassment. You do not have the right to try and cause someone harm via causing them real life problems with their employer, especially when Moulton never did that to any of us. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Make a formal complaint to Verizon, M.I.T., and any other ISP he uses to access Wikiversity". When MIT was used to access Wikiversity, MIT was their ISP. The proposal was to contact their ISPs as the part I bolded shows. Sure harm can be caused when you contact an ISP and they also work there, but is it unreasonable when you are proposing to report abuse of their Internet Service rather than to contact an employer? I'm not seeing the harassment here because this was about reporting to ISPs and not to employers. -- darklama  16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

MIT was his place of work. To say it is his service provider is misleading at best. You know this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I know for a fact is some IPs that have edits here with his signature resolve to the mit.edu host name. I don't know anything else beyond that. He or she could be a student, could be connected through a sock5 proxy available on the mit.edu host servers, could have unauthorized access to MIT machines, or they could be using some ISP that in theory has gotten a sub license/contract giving them permission to assign some of mit.edu's host names to their IPs. MIT is most likely their service provider in that MIT provides them with the authorized connection needed to use the Internet. It is not misleading to suggest that MIT is his ISP due the likelihood that MIT provides an authorized connection for him to use. Maybe he has been authorized a connection for work related reasons I don't know, and I don't think its really relevant if people thought he abused his MIT connection. -- darklama  17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• This IP (18.85.4.142) resolves to a VPN connecton to the MIT Media Lab. —Moulton (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Darklama - do you think MIT would have been contacted and the name Moulton not mentioned when the proposal was related to Moulton? The words "he uses" denotes that it isn't about a mysterious IP, especially on a page called "Status of Moulton". We all know of his vast expertise and his relationship with MIT, a very prestigious institution. Even the suggestion of such a thing is offensive to academics as a clear petty attempt to cause harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what would have been done. If you look at the discussion, people seemed uncertain how to go about contacting any of the places in question, who to contact, and what to say once that was figured out. I think the discussion suggests there was no formal plan or any attempt to plan ahead at all, rather a question was being asked if people thought contacting Verizon and MIT was a good idea or not. Presumably who to contact would of been found out and than the question of what to say in the message would of been raised next if there was enough consensus for it.

You might personally be familiar with his vast expertise and his relationship with MIT, but that doesn't mean we all are. I think his expertise and relationship with MIT isn't relevant if people thought he abused his MIT connection too. If a failure to value academics more than anyone else is petty and harmful, please feel free to start a review on the matter so we can all learn what if any special accommodations academics should have. -- darklama  18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"I have no idea what would have been done." It was done, as Moulton shows below, and it was discussed quite regularly on IRC. I tried to tell people that if they were going to file complaints with MIT to at least just have private discussions with Picard first and ask her to privately talk to Moulton about it instead of trying to have the administration act, as bureaucrats tend not to care about context or anything but their own jobs. And expertise and status is always relevant. People with skills and capability do deserve special treatment. Otherwise, society would have no ability to progress. We cannot allow the inept to dominate and take over, yet we have this constantly trying to happen at Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Prior to the phone call noted below, another Wikipedian associated with the Intelligent Design issue contacted the MIT Media Lab in a prolongued campaign of harassment that ultimately led to an investigation by the MIT Police. I was aware of the earlier episode, because I was one of many people at MIT who received messages from this person. All of that took place well before I became an editor on Wikipedia, some three years ago. What's unclear to me is the extent to which that first round of harassing messages set the stage for subsequent ones, including the specific one noted below. —Moulton (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I know of the matter, Mikeu, SB Johnny, and all others who actively encouraged the cross wiki disruption by the people involved in the anti Picard mess should be ashamed of themselves for violating just about every standard there is to be found on the WMF. Anti-academia in its finest. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• See "Guilt, Shame, and Remorse." —Caprice 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't done by mu301 though. Maybe people would have taken up your advice to talk to Picard first if there were consensus for a complaint to be filed, since with whom to file and how hadn't been worked out. We could talk forever about what might have been, could of been, and should of been, but that won't resolve any issues. I suggest you start some new discussion about ways to keep the inept from dominating and taking over Wikiversity if you would like to see that resolved. Can you think of any other reasons why mu301's proposal should be seen as harmful, why action is needed now, and where a new policy or changes to an existing policy wouldn't be enough? -- darklama  19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC made it clear that they were going to do it, and the group discussed has contacted people without permission before. There should be no concerns like this from a Crat, who is supposed to be a neutral determiner of consensus, not a person pushing for desired community sanctioned harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ottava, you make it sound like the actual phone call, noted below, was the result of an off-wiki conspiracy involving people from the Intelligent Design Cabal and others on Wikiversity. Is that what you are alleging? If so, are you prepared to hold everyone in the conspiracy jointly responsible, rather than letting one person be the scapegoat for all of them? —Caprice 21:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

KC was a regular in the room, as was Hipocrite, and SB Johnny has a long history with those people over at Wikipedia. Conspiracy is a harsh word. I prefer "people with the same bad idea". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Um, Moulton has a "long history" with them as well. Most people who argue against "bad ideas" don't last very long, unless they argue very slowly and very gently. Then again, those who are willing to die for a cause might well make better progress. Not that anyone really dies in a cyberspace post-modern theater of the absurd. —Caprice 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good grief, this is ridiculous. I had never hears of the "ID cabal" before Moulton educated me on the subject, and I doubt Mike knows more than the name. Moulton, I appreciate your (herculean) efforts to change the tone, but it's actually getting a bit insulting at this point. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the name, you did have long standing interactions with Hipocrite and KC before and during the incident here. Deflecting in the manner above is unhealthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• See this note on what actually came to pass. —Caprice 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A long history of conflict with JWSchmidt

On 8 October 2008, Mu301 used an inappropriate Community Review lacking discussion and consensus as a way to bully and intimidate JWSchmidt even when the rest of the community recognized that the block was no longer appropriate. This shows a disregard for community process, consensus, and a previous abuse of the Community Review function by disregarding the need for discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: In this discussion, Cormaggio points out how Community Review is supposed to happen: "Emesee, consensus is not based on numbers of votes - it's based on what people say. There is no clear consensus above - though it does seem to lean towards unblocking on condition of developing policies based on what was seen to be problematic in John's behaviour. Cormaggio talk 09:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) "

This is a long standing principle at Wikiversity and has been ignored by Mu301 for over 2 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I searched the cited page for Mikeu and could only find that he voted and commented. I don't see any problem with Mikeu expressing his viewpoint and voting as he did. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look more carefully: "I would like to see more progress on addressing the issues that have been raised." The "has been raised" was to a link that Mikeu put together - he was one of the four that put together a community review against JWS that allowed neither discussion, did not consult with the community, and served as judge, jury, and executioner without any opportunity for discussion or consensus. Then he applied the review to justify further extending disruptive blocks and other inappropriate matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See the quote in the section below verifying that JWS recognized a long history of Mikeu using it to cause him stress and harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to take a look and make comment, but can you add direct links? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a quote, it can be found via "find" or ctrl+f while the page is open. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you attributing this October 7 2008 review to mu301? Emesee started that review hence why Cormaggio's comment is directed at Emesee. mu301 did opposed the unblock in that discussion, but how has mu301 used that review to intimidate and bully JWSchmidt? -- darklama  17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the response to the CR Mikeu wrote that led to four people declaring JWS is desysopped. Emesse, Hillgentleman, etc, were directly opposed to all of the actions, verifying there was no consensus and the violation of desysopping. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion on 22 August 2009 shows a long term pattern by Mu301 against JWSchmidt, including abuse of Community Review processes, abuse of ops, and encouraging a disruptive sock puppet in his harassment of JWSchmidt.

The charge was that Mu301 was one of these: "There are two active bureaucrats who have established a pattern of nominating and supporting policy violators and other questionable Wikiversity participants as custodian candidates."

This charge was never denied nor refuted by Mu301 as the evidence was overwhelmingly correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick review of this page - it seems Mikeu closed it as having no consensus. Could you point to more specific evidence? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The only unanimous motion was this, stating that all voting must be stopped and that discussion must come first, which is the basic function of a CR. By the policy itself, this should have been followed. Even Abd said it would not be closed in a few days, especially when the 4 days it was open was during Thanksgiving break, a time when many people aren't around. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're perhaps confusing the JWS issue with the CR that was closed yesterday? Jtneill's comment seemed to be in reference to the 2009 review (which wasn't over Thanksgiving weekend). --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Darklama merged sections together, so there is no way to distinguish between various, previously separated material. By the way, -all- of the CR's Mikeu was involved in had the same problems, so it wouldn't really matter if they were confused or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SB_Johnny started that review August 21 2009. mu301 did participate in the discussion a little bit, mainly asking JWSchmidt to provide evidence to back up his claims. mu301 closed that review September 13 2009 with "no consensus" as the reason. How was this review abusive? How is mu301 responsible for said abuse? When and Where did mu301 encourage anyone (a sockpuppet or otherwise) to harass JWSchmidt? When and Where did mu301 misuse ops? In that review mu301 asked for evidence. mu301 may have never denied or refuted anything, but if so that is because JWSchmidt never provided any evidence for his accusations for mu301 to examine and either clarify, refute, or correct and apologize for.

That just leaves the closure of your own review, Ottava Rima, which is discussed here elsewhere. -- darklama  17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of Mikeu's encouragement and actions were done in a private room for Mikeu, SB Johnny, and whatever other admin they wanted to involve in their decisions and force to uphold their decisions. Mikeu was forced to close that review with no consensus because, when the community was given a chance to speak they disagreed with Mike. Many other CRs were opened and closed without any discussion, including the one Mikeu wrote that led to JWS being desysoped by a backroom vote of 4 people and no discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SB_Johnny was the one proposing things in the community review you and I linked to, not Mikeu. Are you now referring to the September 14 2008 review started by mu301 and edited only once more by mu301 which was acted on after just 5 day by SB_Johnny in possible response to User:JWSchmidt/Blog/15 September 2008, User:JWSchmidt/Blog/19 October 2008, or User:JWSchmidt/Review and to which JWSchmidt credits McCormack for the September 14 2008 review? -- darklama  15:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Authors of this review: "Mu301 (bureacrat), SB_Johnny (bureaucrat), Cormaggio (bureaucrat), McCormack (custodian)". In my statement, I quoted Mike linking to this CR or "Review of JWSchmidt". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"

I agree with DarkSlatelama. This is again, quite old and no clear abuse involved. What's the point? Take any user active for a period, you can find questionable actions, especially if you are willing to go to extremes in portraying an action as abusive. That's why, normally, communities want to see recent abuse or problems. People change, etc., plus reviewing old actions can take a huge amount of work if most of the participants are no longer available. Evidence can be cherry-picked, etc. That's why wikis prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. If these actions were abusive, the time to confront them would have been when they were fresh. Older evidence can be brought up, sometimes, to document a problem as an extended one, but the "problem" here seems to be on the order of "something that looks like I can make an allegation about," not a specific pattern being shown. --Abd 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mikeu has repeated the action regarding JWS in what he did regarding me, and with anyone else. He has a 3 year history of ignoring consensus, and the desire to harass and other measures show that there is no way to assume that his abuse of ops is done in anyway constructive for the community, thus lacking the minimum of redeeming value. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolutions

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Removal of Mu301's tools

For multiple abuses of trust of the community, enacting sysoping and desysoping in direct contradiction to policy, ignoring the principles of consensus, and active disruption of the community, Mu301 must be removed from Bureaucrat ship. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Currently, I'm not seeing sufficient evidence to support this proposal (see my comments above). I will change my vote if I think this changes. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

CR isn't a vote, so "support" or "opposes" aren't acceptable. If you think that such is too harsh, say so. If not, then say that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, too harsh. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you propose something counter per Wikiversity:Consensus. Discussions are about finding solutions that everyone can accept, not just giving up and voting.Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the removal of Mikeu's tools is a good idea right now. Granted I am not very informed on his history, and I have had very little personal interaction with him on wiki or off. But I think a better resolution would the same resolution that I supported for Ottava: Giving a clear indication of where boundaries were crossed and give a chance to incorporate the feed back. In other words correct the mistakes and educate about the mistakes that have been made (usually in that order). As a general principle it seems to me that someone should lose privileges (editing, sysop, whatever) only after repeating disruptive behavior after the community has given a clear warning. Thenub314 16:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of any apparent consensus that the tools were used in an abusive manner, this resolution seems a bit premature. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Circular argument - you cannot say there is no consensus when trying to say there is no consensus. CR requires policy based discussion, and your answer lacks any reference to policy. CR is not a vote. Please keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is circular about that. You initiated this review, and you brought up a lot of issues that you are clearly concerned about. However, nobody who commented above seems to agree with you that there were any "egregious violations of Bureaucratic standards". There are comments suggesting that we clarify our policies, and comments stating that people would have preferred that some things were done differently, but aside from you there are no comments suggesting that Mike is "out of control" or "dangerous". One person being angry about something does not amount to a community concern, which is why I felt (and still feel) that proposing a resolution to address a community concern was (and still is) premature.

You need to reach out and see if people agree with you before assuming that people agree with you. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that isn't how it works. You don't get a few meat puppets to oppose and then use that as proof something isn't true. Truth is not based on popular opinion. We have policies. They do not suddenly disappear because a tiny handful of people came in. This is a place for discussion, not votes. The discussion above proves that people are taking the charges seriously. Now, you are conflicted, and that conflict of interest makes sense for you to disrupt in such a way. That is why Wikiversity:Consensus says to ignore statements like yours as without merit.

P.S. I talked to people already to see if they agree with me or not. If you want, I can canvass them to "vote" right now, since you enjoy turning discussions into farces. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Who among the people who commented here do you consider to be "meat puppets"? --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. "Oppose" is part of a comment, and is appropriate, sometimes, when a specific proposal is made. In this case, my opposition is based on a lack of showing of any problem rising to the level of a significant offense. The only problem that I can agree with here is that mikeu may have closed a discussion too rapidly, but that is within normal discretion, is reversible, and remediable. Mikeu could (1) explain the closure more completely, which I presume could be easily done. Mike could (2) undo the closure and encourage continued discussion of it. Independently, Mikeu could (3) reset the admin bit if he finds that this would be closer to consensus than otherwise, if he finds that it would not risk damage. (I do not recommend wasting the time of stewards by reversing the action, though, because there is no emergency. Loss of a sysop for a short time, if there really was an error, is not major damage.) We do not expect 'crats or any community servant or editor to be perfect, especially when we have such poorly-defined guidelines in certain areas. When a project has not developed policies that enjoy strong consensus, we depend on discretion of the servants, and we only sanction them if they persist in some problematic behavior, clearly violating policy and/or consensus. For an example of more proper process, the present Community Review was originally founded upon what policy calls for in the case of problems with custodians (and this process would include problems with 'crats, my opinion), a Wikiversity:Custodian feedback, that did not resolve the issue. Unstated in the policy, but clear from general wiki process, preceding any formal process would be an attempt to resolve the issue with direct discussion, which can include off-wiki discussion, but most basically and for transparency, direct user talk page discussion here. That had taken place, many times, with Ottava, and with at least three users recently: myself, when I was a custodian, and later, Jtneill confirming it, and SB_Johnny, both 'crats. Ottava was defiant in all cases. It's odd that Ottava filed this CR on Mikeu, but not on SB_Johnny, when he has continually and explicitly claimed that SB_Johhny has been abusive, and SB_Johnny has warned Ottava that he would block him if he continued the incivility (as he warned me, recently, by the way), and Ottava specifically claimed he would file a CR on SBJ. There was no warning about this CR on Mikeu, and the motivation is blatantly obvious, as was the similarly-filed CR on Jtneill. All this does is demonstrate the reasonableness of Mikeu's closure. --Abd 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

CR requires policy based discussion and your comments do not reflect our policies. Please keep tha in mind. And discussions require back and forth, so please limit the size of your posts. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Undoing Mu301's sysop and desysop actions

Any sysop or desysop done at Mu301's behalf without appropriate discussion by the community is to be overturned, as he overstepped any authority within Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment. I think a specific list of which actions are proposed for overturning is needed, so that each could be decided on their merits. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They are already listed above. There is one sysop without appropriate consensus and one declared desysop without appropriate consensus. Since CR is a discussion and not a vote, you could mix and match if you want, or specify your own. I am stating that all that were done without appropriate consensus should be overturned, but that is in accordance with our policies already. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to indicate my view further if you could list each diff below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

List each diff? Sysopping is a logged action and was done without discussion. There is no diff so your demand is impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is impossible. Rights log (local) for SB Johnny; rights log (global/meta) for SB Johnny; rights changes by Mu301. Adrignola 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I did post the log above but Jtneill was asking for a diff. So, that was the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of any apparent consensus that the tools were used in an abusive manner, this resolution seems a bit premature. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tool use when it comes to sysop and desysop requires proof of consensus first, which never existed. The default per policy is that the community trust was remove. You would need to get consensus to rewrite our policies to allow for future abuse, then convince the community that it can be retroactive, which is impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This is a universally-rejected proposal, the automatic undoing of all actions by an allegedly abusive administrator. The problem is that even the most abusive administrators frequently do what the community will clearly support, and they may have done so for strong and supportable reasons. A sensible policy, when abuse is found, would provide some kind of privileged access to review for any user (or page) affected by a sysop found to be abusive. A blanket reversal would be preposterous, and that this is even proposed shows a profound lack of understanding of wiki process. As well, the alleged violations aren't. The "sysop without appropriate consensus" was a restoration of tools after voluntary resignation, which is ordinary process everywhere in WMF wikis, and is done at meta when there is no local 'crat. A person requesting simply points to the resignation, and, unless evidence pops up that it wasn't purely voluntary, i.e., the sysop was facing desysopping procedure, was "under a cloud," it's routine to restore, and there is very good reason for this practice, if anyone doesn't understand it.

There is an obvious possible reason for this proposal: an attempt to have tools removed for SBJ, and this would explain why Ottava hasn't filed a CR on SBJ, when he's been accusing SBJ of abuse for quite some time, and heavily during the last week. He's going for a procedural removal. It won't fly. As to the other incident, "desysop without appropriate consensus," there is, again, only one of which I'm aware, and desysopping is not done by 'crats, it is done by stewards on request, and the stewards will look (perhaps briefly) at a cited discussion, or a 'crat -- or anyone! -- may request it directly at meta. I've seen them grant it promptly on a showing of one or two abusive actions.

Complicating this is that Ottava purported to be resigning, causing much of the discussion on the CR to cease. Nobody wants to kick someone when they are down. Since he has now requested reversal of the desysopping at meta, he's clearly not resigned, he was just posturing or just acting erratically. The fast remedy would not be the community, and it would not be at meta, they will almost certainly refuse, it will be with any 'crat willing to reverse the action.

There are five 'crats: three have explicitly supported the desysopping at the CR, two by explicit supports as part of the discussion, and those two would ordinarily recuse because of that, and then the third, Mikeu, who obviously considered the arguments conclusive, and did not close based on !vote. Many of the oppose !votes actually confirmed the arguments for desysopping, but asserted irrelevancies, such as Ottava's good intentions. Precedent is very clear that good intentions are not adequate for maintaining sysop privileges, the crucial consideration is the continued confidence of the community, and that would be what a 'crat would be most centrally considering.

Desysopping is not a punishment, and so "policy violation" is not strictly necessary, especially where there are common-law policies involved. I've long argued, on Wikipedia, for "suspension" of sysop privileges, or ready "injunction" against usage of tools in some area, narrowly or broadly defined, upon the appearance of credible allegations of abuse. (If ArbComm accepts a case, it is confirming that the allegations are credible, without deciding that they are true or worthy of desysopping, but to preserve community confidence, ad interim, ArbComm could issue certain bans, and violation of the bans could result in immediate desysopping. The bans would establish no guilt and require no guilt to establish. My opinion is that any 'crat here could do the same, and this, immediately, could make some processes less contentious and rushed.)

Of the two other 'crats, one has edited recently, Cormaggio, responding in the RfC over desysopping for inactivity, the other, sebmol, last acted in July, 2010. Probably available by email or even a Talk page edit. Ottava is completely free to request review by them, that's just two 'crats, that isn't broadcast enough to be "canvassing," particularly if it is done neutrally, "please review." Better done by someone else, probably. As I recall, he'd threatened to request Mikeu to review the CR! But I haven't found the diff. Anyone know where it was? Or was I mistaken? --Abd 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No one mentioned all actions - there are two specific out of process and abusive actions. Mikeu has proven since 2007 that he abuses his ops and ignores consensus. Why you would defend him, who knows. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)