Wikiversity:Community Review/Abd: Difference between revisions

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. --Abd 04:49, 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? --Abd 05:23, 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. --Abd 21:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe Abd should be given the opportunity to explain himself at great length, and unabridged. —Moulton 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a compulsive liar? "Jimbo deletes his remarks" - As everyone can clearly see Jimbo did not remove my remarks or even edit after I posted. Jimbo hasn't made any removal of content edits that can be seen. The only removal of content was a mass archiving in November. And banned on Meta? More fantasy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 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.

As to banned at meta, no, he's not banned at meta. Yet. Meta is pretty tolerant, but do see m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, and look at the activity at m:Requests for comment/SB Johnny that Ottava filed there. Fantasy? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

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. --Abd 05:25, 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. --Abd 16:44, 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]

It might be helpful to recall this sage advice from the great Zen poet Seng-Ts'an:

Moulton 17:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These statements have been copied over from this version of the Colloquium].

Original proposal was topic ban, secondary proposal was for desysopping without waiting for standard process to be followed first.

• Support as proposer and support emergency desysop Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm feel disappointed of Abd. The SB Johnny confirmation discussion should have not been closed. Diego Grez 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC) P.D. I support emergency desysop. Sorry.[reply]
• Support, as well as emergency desysop of Abd. Guido den Broeder 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[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." IDangerMouse 20:04, 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 too support an emergency removal of the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 25 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_Johnny ^talk 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Strike the emergency desyssop thing... more than enough drama going on this week. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the what the fuck is going on? Support topic ban and desysop... Just do it. --Anonymous Uploader 21:35, 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? --Abd 18:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Abd, could you expand on that a bit? —Moulton 01:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If needed. Any questions? --Abd 20:59, 27 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. --JWSchmidt 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people prefer to learn the hard way, through the school of hard knocks and through shreklisch real life drama. —Moulton 03:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I copied over everything but I may have missed something as it is a large thread. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 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." --Abd 04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. —Moulton 10:22, 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. --JWSchmidt 13:18, 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. --Abd 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Abd is more likely eliminate a paean than to eliminate a peon. —Moulton 21:45, 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. --Abd 04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Revenge is a dish best served cold. —Moulton 11:13, 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. —Moulton 17:26, 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. --Abd 20:48, 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. --Abd 16:13, 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. --JWSchmidt 00:15, 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. --JWSchmidt 01:28, 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. --JWSchmidt 03:53, 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? --Abd 04:50, 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 after I'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. --Abd 17:26, 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. --Bduke 07:10, 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. --Abd 15:48, 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? --Abd 15:48, 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. --Abd 17:43, 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? —Moulton 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The failure to honor Control-S inevitably results in a buffer overrun followed by Control-D. —Moulton 11:13, 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. --JWSchmidt 13:51, 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]

• Thank you for good-humored sarcasm. —Moulton 16:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome. -- darklama  16:22, 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! --Abd 16:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes. Closely watched train wrecks. —Moulton 16:44, 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. --Abd 18:06, 28 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. ==Abd 17:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]