User talk:Adambro/Archive 3

Thanks.
. I'm learning my way around stuff that I've mostly avoided as an ordinary editor, and I appreciate any comments you can make to help me become educated.... Trying to balance the various interests here, with copyright policy, dealing with editors, assuming good faith, and being efficient, can be a bit of a task.... Thanks. --Abd 16:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiding revisions per DENY
Adam, the revisions that are being hidden are a known vandal that is using histories and diffs in order to gloat about his vandalism. The only way to stop that is to delete pages and clean out histories or, when the page is too long, to hide the diff and name. Otherwise, there is a visible record for him to enjoy and brag about. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * DENY is all well and good but to effectively combat vandalism the community needs to be able to understand what is going on. If we start hiding revisions of vandals all the time then it makes it difficult for everyone to follow what has been happening and so recognise patterns and take appropriate action based on that. We probably need to develop a policy for revision deletion because I think at the moment everyone is using it differently. There's a difficult balance here between not allowing vandals to brag about their exploits whilst also not wasting too much time dealing with it or even making it more difficult to deal with the vandalism. I think revert, block, ignore and possibly hide the diff, edit summary, or username if they're offensive is the way to go rather than more routine use of revision deletion for vandalism. Adambro 15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Something you have demonstrated time and time again is that you don't seem to understand that we are an educational institution. We are not here to demonstrate how vandals can destroy our pages. You lost the confidence of this community when you started abusing your ops cross wiki, now you want to prove that you haven't a clue how to deal with issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure where this sudden outburst has come from but I would hope that whilst we may disagree on some issues, we could both accept that we are here for the same thing, to promote learning. I certainly don't want Wikiversity to be somewhere for vandals to cause trouble and you should be able to recognise from my logs that it is something I've frequently dealt with. I've wouldn't accept that I've ever abused my admin rights but am completely willing to accept that there have been instances where I've made a poor judgement and in hindsight I would have dealt with differently. I wouldn't claim to be perfect and nor should anyone. We all make mistakes. Now, if you have concerns about any of my actions then please raise them with me or the wider community on whichever project is relevant but please try to be more civil towards me. Adambro 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You verified that you were not here for anything educational when you started abusing ops and protecting those who abused ops in order to protect tens of thousands of inappropriate pornographic images without even a verification of age that led to us being blocked by multiple school filters, including Lightspeed. You were warned what would happen and you kept it up anyway to because you were friends with the abusers. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall being much involved with anything to do with protecting tens of thousands of pornographic images. Has there perhaps been a misunderstanding here and you've got me confused with someone else? Adambro 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this. Ottava, it seems to me that you have conflated what Adambro -- or someone else -- may have done on Commons, where the flap about the images came down. I don't think we want these conflicts to spread. I understand Adambro's concern about the revision hiding. It is quite out of the norm to hide revisions due to vandalism, particularly without some special need. Vandalism is routine on all wikis, and is normally handled by ordinary editors who can revert it and who can warn users if appropriate or ask for blocks. I would hope that these issues can be addressed without bringing in "cross-wiki issues." As you know, a perfectly good editor may run into a problem and be blocked or banned on one wiki and be an excellent contributor on another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abd (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Thekohser-2

 * Speaking of "cross-wiki disruption, Adambro, I see that the sock account User:Thekohser-2 was today blocked by you, talk page access prohibited. I agree with blocking that account, in the long run, but would want to open up User talk:Thekohser so that this user, accused of "cross-wiki disruption," can respond, and so that some settlement might be found, if possible. The user was blocked out of process here, originally, and the complex of things that happened at that time later led to an RfC on meta which then led to the resignation of intrusive tools by Jimbo. I'm hoping that we can put all this behind us, and focus on the development of Wikiversity, and I believe that Thekohser may be able to contribute. If not, well, we have normal process for dealing with local problems. Because of the previous controversy, however, I would not unblock Thekohser or undelete that talk page in the presence of sustained objections, after discussion. On the other hand, pending discussion, I prefer that the account Thekohser-2 be allowed to edit the new talk page. The user was (1) clearly cooperative in disclosing identity, and (2) edited only the User and Talk page, with no objectionable content. It seems excessive to prevent this in the absence of actual disruption. I'm going ahead and undeleting the user and user talk pages, setting some conditions, and allowing the user to edit that page. We should not deal with a user like this privately, so that only a very small number of administrators can see what is going on. We are the servants of the community, not the governors of it.


 * And now, as I proceeded to open up the situation, I undeleted User talk:Thekohser-2, but I did not unblock that user; I was writing a note there for the user and others to see. However, as I was editing that, you redeleted the page. Adambro, that is wheel-warring. Please don't do that. Please discuss before re-asserting an administrative action.


 * Ottava, you are my mentor. I remind you that you have veto authority over whatever I do as an admin. I'm not going to wheel-war, myself, in any case, and I would not have undeleted if I had thought Adambro would redelete. I was in the process of writing this post here, but I needed to see what Thekohser-2 had written, and when I saw it was completely harmless, I went ahead and undeleted. Adambro, please don't act so quickly here. What is the emergency requiring that the page be deleted?


 * I have restored Thekohser's Talk page access, per suggestion from Adambro that Thekohser should communicate through his original Talk page; I agree with that. Let's move forward. --Abd 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem seeing Thekohser unblocked if it is the case that he wants to contribute here for the right reasons. Perhaps you missed what went with Thekohser but regardless of the merits of Jimbo's block, I endorsed it by only changing his block to remove talk page editing and still consider it appropriate. I am however open to being convinced that it is no longer merited but I'm afraid it would take some convincing. This diff explains some of my concerns and since you have a Wikipedia Review account, you may have observed some of his relevant comments on there which do little to demonstrate the current block isn't appropriate. I will await with interest any comment at User talk:Thekohser from him. As for why I did revoke his ability to edit his talk page, I don't recall the exact details I'm afraid but could look into this if necessary. If Thekohser does comment on his talk page then it would probably be appropriate to discuss any unblock at Colloquium to involve the wider community. Adambro 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks, Adambro. You did not state a reason for removing his Talk page access, but only pointed to your meta checkuser request, where you requested confirmation that blatant socks were socks. You did not express concerns other than that. Thekohser wasn't hiding what he was doing, just as his creation of Thekohser-2 wasn't really "evasive" in any but a pure technical sense. You didn't need checkuser to know that any of these accounts were Thekohser. It's a problem when a block which may not be legitimate then becomes the reason for continuing and intensifying the block, because the user evades the block. Ideally, we'd want a person to not evade any block, legitimate or illegitimate, but there is the detail of human nature, and I'm not prepared to reject human nature as being something bad.... In any case, it seems we agree on how to move forward. I'm not ready to propose unblock on the Colloquium, I'd want an agreement with Thekohser first, and, being human with his own sense of personal dignity, he doesn't think, as I recall, that he did anything wrong and therefore he should not have to make any special agreements. While I see his position, I also think that more is involved, and we all need to make compromises from time to time. If Thekohser and I can come to some agreement, I'll propose unblock. If not, someone else still can. There are others who have supported him, they could do it as well. --Abd 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If Thekohser would be unable to accept that what he's done is wrong then I certainly won't be able to support any suggestion that he is unblocked. I am glad you agree that the accounts mentioned in my checkuser request were obviously socks of Thekohser, as I explained in that request I was more wanting confirmation of that to assist in considering his request to be unblocked. As for that checkuser request not explaining some of my concerns I would have thought it would be obvious. As an example though of how he has acted disruptively, I would highlight how he added content to Field and tab and then later claimed I was violating copyright after I reverted another of his socks when he removed the content. He even went to the effort of posting the content on his blog and then falsifying the date he did so to allow him to use it as apparent evidence that his claims of copyright violation were true. I hope you would agree that episode is very concerning, particularly if he can't accept in hindsight it was wrong. Adambro 20:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, I'm concerned about something. Right or wrong, you seem to have become involved in a personal dispute with Thekohser. Now, if there is an emergency, even if you are involved, sometimes you can go ahead and block. But ... what was the emergency? Sure, the episode is concerning, but I'm not examining it now. I assume I will if an unblock discussion arises. Everyone makes mistakes, Adambro, if users are to be blocked because they make some, we'd all be blocked eventually. In any case, I agree that there is a problem if a user -- or an administrator -- cannot admit a clear error. So I assume that all these things will be documented and examined. Sometimes there is some legitimacy to a user's position, and if the user is expected to "eat crow," so to speak, the situation becomes impossible. Rather, what I've long suggested is agreements that will avoid the problem in the future. --Abd 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be helpful to explain some of what leads me to consider the block appropriate. I wouldn't that I have a personal dispute with Thekohser, as I've said I am open to being persuaded that he should be unblocked, though I'm not sure whether he is in the same position. For example, after I upset him by declining his unblock request, he chose to search through every post I've ever made on Wikipedia Review and post an abusive remark about in response. Rightly or wrongly, things like that influence my opinion of him and the appropriateness of his block. Also again because I'm human I do make some mistakes and I've acknowledged a fair few in hindsight over the years I've contributed to WMF projects. I'm yet to consider declining to unblock Thekohser to be a mistake but perhaps one day I will do. I certainly would agree that we should be prepared to accept other users will occasionally make mistakes. My intention in not unblocking Thekohser though wasn't to punish him for making a mistake but to protect Wikiversity from any further disruption. I remain of the view that the block serves a useful purpose. Adambro 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding that this may all be moot, that is, we can block or unblock here and it has no effect, because, quietly, it seems, Thekohser was globally locked again on May 30.. If this is allowed to stand, we have no rights as sysops except as they are allowed by a steward, who can and will overrule whatever we decide, with no consultation or discussion. Thekohser-2 was also, today, globally locked. We are not trusted to handle the situation. --Abd 04:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Two proposed policies need discusson
Please see. I am contacting regulars and admin so we can start going through our proposed policies and establish some. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:JWSchmidt
Hi Adambro, My thoughts here. I'm suggesting review first before blocking in such situations that are not clear-cut. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jtneill is correct. At the very least, absent an emergency, the block should have been preceded by a specific warning that, if the situation were not resolved with, say, a promise to refrain from objectionable behavior pending review, you would block. However, you should not have been the one to place this warning or threaten block, again, unless there was an emergency. Hence for you to act would require that you document a specific emergency need to block.
 * I do not know if the situation with JWS is remediable, but the community and the administrative corps should proceed with extreme caution in indef blocking of a possible good-faith user, and make sure that every reasonable avenue for returning the situation to collaboration is explored. JWS was once an admin here, and put a huge amount of energy into this project. He deserves careful and respectful attention.
 * However, I would not suggest unblock unless there is reason to believe that the objectionable actions will not persist. JWS could offer assurances, if he wants to. Those assurances need not prevent him from addressing the injustices that have so concerned him for the last two years, as well as recently. I've been there, i.e., have been the subject of accusations of disruption, etc. And I knew to immediately promise not to continue objectionable behavior pending review. That's how wikis work. It's how society and brick-and-mortar universities work. The police officer says "Don't stand there," and you either move or they haul you away. If you want to run a civil disobedience action, you don't then attack the police officer for simply doing his or her job. You go to jail, i.e., in this case, you get blocked, and you accept that consequence. It's part of the ethics of the situation.
 * Adambro, I've said this kind of thing to you before: you should not have blocked, for you to do this personally just inflames the situation, making JWS feel justified in his complaints. But, on the other hand, JWS had long been uncivil to you and others, and refused to stop when warned. In a Review, this will come out. As a community, we must intervene. What I suggest for you, Adambro, is that you state that you will not oppose an unblock by any admin, while documenting your reasons for blocking, if you wish, for any admin considering unblock to review. I'm suggesting, essentially, that you recuse and personally use your tools no more for actions with regard to JWS (unless you decide to unblock, of course), outside of short blocks that are based on true emergencies.
 * We should set some of this as a policy: don't block when personally involved, except in an emergency, and if involved and blocking in an emergency, use only a short block, recuse (allow unblock), inform (on the blocked user talk page) as to the specific emergency behind the block, and refer the matter to the community for review. --Abd 02:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comments are noted but I reply to the main points at Request custodian action. Adambro 09:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization of wikiversity
I think I might need a campus map :). My main interests are mainly mathematical, and I would like to help put the book you've just imported for me into a good home so it can can be developed further and be useful.  Unfortunately between Portal:Mathematics, School of Mathematics and School:Mathematics I am not sure which is the best place to add a new curriculum.  My post at the colloquium about being generally lost didn't get a reply. So I figured I would corner a custodian and ask. I imagine some of these resources will be merged, but is there a hope for a standard?  Will in the future it will be all Portal:'s or all School:'s? Thenub314 12:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure I can help you much I'm afraid. You are right that it isn't obvious the relationship between the Portal and School pages, and there are also Topic pages just to make it even more interesting. I've never been able to properly figure it out myself. I'm sure I recall a recent discussion about this somewhere on WV. Namespaces might assist you and it is probably time I try to make sure I fully understand the situation. One of the things I've noticed on Wikiversity is that a lot of different policies and guidelines etc have been written but not really tied together in an organised fashion leaving contradictions and duplication. This is one of the things I'm gradually working on (see User:Adambro/Wikiversity namespace), and I've been working through the Wikiversity namespace to identify where things can be improved but it will take a long time. Adambro 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
Notification: you are part of a community review. --JWSchmidt 11:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware obviously since I have already edited that page. I'll contribute as and when I feel it would be helpful to do so but I suspect that I have already commented on much that will be said there. I would suggest that many of the incidents described there could have been more easily dealt with to your satisfaction if you had raised concerns at the time and in a more civil manner. Adambro 12:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By a strange quirk of fate, it was your block of my editing that led to this community review. I'd have preferred not to have to devote so much time to this distasteful process. Had I not been subjected to an absurdly bad block when the policy for community review was pushed into existence I might have been able to save the Wikiversity community from going through these kinds of things. I prefer to deal with Wikiversity problems in other ways. That is why I keep asking for an honest Custodian to do the right thing and unblock User:Moulton. Sadly, every active Custodian seems to want to do things the hard way. Enjoy! --JWSchmidt 12:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not an "absurdly bad block." I'll note that at least two other custodians were considering blocking. The apparent consensus was that it would have been better if Adambro had not been the one to block, but this is a small community and so sometimes recusal niceties must be set aside momentarily. JWS, as far as I can see, you are still skating on thin ice, every day. When you do that long term, sooner or later the ice breaks. This is, in no way, a personal threat, it is a warning based on years of wiki experience. There are honest custodians, still (actually, as far as I can tell, all currently active custodians are honest and even courageous, which is the necessary quality you failed to mention), and we might get some back, but, JWS, your view of "honesty" is apparently "agrees with me." That's offensive, it's part of the problem, your refusal to see that there are other "honest" views and positions than your own. Get over that, and we can move forward. Don't, you won't. We might move forward anyway. --Abd 17:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * an "absurdly bad block." <-- I can't keep track of them all....which absurdly bad block are you talking about? I was talking about this one. "sometimes recusal niceties must be set aside momentarily" <-- Let's add that information to General disclaimer. "you are still skating on thin ice" <-- I was born in Iowa in January, I was born with ice skates on my feet and I cut my own way out. your view of "honesty" is apparently "agrees with me. <-- Abd, please provide links to my past statements which support your absurdly bad faith assertion. your refusal to see that there are other "honest" views and positions than your own <-- Abd, please provide links to my past statements which support your absurdly bad faith assertion. Get over that, and we can move forward. Don't, you won't. <-- I'll be sure to ask your mentor if he taught you how to give a warning to Wikiversity community members. You failed to cite policy or community consensus to back up your warning and as best I can tell you've warned me to be careful skating. Abd, you can explain your warning to the entire Wikiversity community. --JWSchmidt 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Adambro, do you think it is reasonable for #wikiversity-en channel operatives to state the reasons for their kicks and bans? --JWSchmidt 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't use IRC, but each communication channel, by common law, has its own rules and procedures. If IRC is controlled by WMF appointees, they make their own rules. If the community here is in charge (whether intrinsically or by allowance), then it can make its own rules. With no rules, there is no intrinsic "reasonable" answer. It might be reasonable in some situations and not reasonable (i.e., not necessary) in others. Ideally, off-wiki channels are multiple and independent, and that could easily be set up using mailing lists, which I greatly prefer to IRC, a hot medium, and lists create automatic archives, indeed, it creates multiple independent archives that can't be censored; if we want hot media, we'd want voice, which, then, has much more social restraint because of the far higher bandwidth. Video would be even better, and, of course, face to face is superior to all of them. --Abd 17:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Barry is my friend. Do not delete edits on MY talk page that you think are from him.
Barry is my friend. Do not delete edits on MY talk page that you think are from him. - WAS 4.250 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, this matter is under community review. Adambro, I ask that you participate in the community review. Adambro, please take the words "blatantly unproductive" out of the rollback policy and agree that: "When a custodian reverts an edit that is not obvious vandalism the rollback button shouldn't be used." Adambro, please behave as if Vandalism is an official policy. In particular: please follow the practice described at Dealing with vandalism and Assume Good Faith with respect to all contributions to Wikiversity. Please support the Wikiversity mission by not reverting good faith edits that are made to Wikiversity webpages. Please participate in community discussion of the proposed policy for the #wikiversity-en chat channel. While this is under community review, please remove all bans from the #wikiversity-en chat channel. Thank you. --JWSchmidt 11:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments JWSchmidt although I would suggest linking every instance of my username was a waste of your time. If you're posting on my talk page I think it is safe to assume that if you mention "Adambro" you are referring to me. I'd suggest that Wikiversity talk:Chat might be a better place to discuss your proposed #wikiversity-en policy rather than doing so as part of your wider review of "problematic actions" but I'll be sure to keep an eye on what is said there that is relevent. In relation to Moulton, you might wish to note my recent request for assistance in clarifying the situation. If you believe that Moulton should be allowed to particpate here then there are about 36 people who can properly sort that out. I'd suggest you try to convince them to deal with the global lock on Moulton's account so he can participate here properly if that is what the community desires. In the meantime, I'll continue to revert edits by individuals who are disrespecting what is the apparent view of the community that they shouldn't be allowed to participate by the fact that measures to prevent Moulton editing continue to be in place. I'd suggest that anyone who wishes to engage with Moulton such as WAS 4.250 uses alternative means of communication. Shall I assume you will be requesting a steward or 'crat acts to deal with this issue in the near future? If you can't find anyone to act without being sure of community consensus supporting that action, I'll look forward to participating in a proper discussion about whether Moulton should be allowed to participate here. Adambro 11:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, the reason I put your name in those sentences is that I want there to be no doubt in anyone's mind that I was addressing you. When you fail to respond to questions and requests, I list those questions and requests at the community review. As we discussed yesterday, only one thing is disrupting Moulton's ability to participate as a Wikiversity community member: your personal actions. Your actions are now under community review as deflecting this community from its mission. I oppose your actions that prevent Moulton from participating as a Wikiversity community member. Nobody else is reverting Moulton's edits and disrupting his participation in #wikiversity-en. There is thus no consensus for your disruption of Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. I ask you to stop using your Custodial and channel ops tools in this way. If you want to revert Moulton's edits then you should first demonstrate community consensus for your on-going sysop and channel op actions. Until you demonstrate community consensus for your actions, please stop disrupting my learning goals. --JWSchmidt 12:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of your position here so there is no need to constantly restate it. As to your suggestion that I should establish community consensus for my current actions, those being to enforce a current block, I consider this quite ridiuclous and won't be complying with your request to stop these actions. I think rather there would need to be clear consensus that I shouldn't enforce this block because the idea that I shouldn't bother enforcing a block is so unorthodox. Again, I would suggest you focus your attention on trying to persuade one of the 36 people I've mentioned to properly sort this out assuming consensus can be found to support such an action. Adambro 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, User:Moulton is not blocked, so please stop disrupting his participation at Wikiversity. And please undelete those pages, they are harmless learning resources. What does "ridiuclous" mean? "I shouldn't enforce this block" <-- Adambro, what block are you referring to? --JWSchmidt 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "ridiuclous" means I can't spell. I meant ridiculous. As for the undeletion of those pages, you've already made a request in the appropriate place and that can be discussed there and a custodian will take action as appropriate. Adambro 13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, what block were you referring to? "a custodian will take action as appropriate" <-- It has been more than three days since I made a request for a simple Custodial action. Adambro, do you think this was an "appropriate" response to my learning needs? It was your job to undelete those harmless learning resources. You are disrupting Wikiversity my not helping me with the Music and learning learning project. --JWSchmidt 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the "ping" by Beetlebaum nonsense? Nay, I say. And Beetlebaum says, "Neigh!". Poor Beetlebaum wants to write music and a sysop is in the way of my learning goals. Adambro, please start collaborating with me and stop disrupting Wikiversity by your capricious actions and lack of action. ping. --JWSchmidt 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your block of Moulton IP
You just blocked, today, 129.123.40.0/24, explaining, Repeat disruptive editing of pages: block evasion by User:Moulton Please unblock, because Moulton is currently not blocked. While it is true that Moulton cannot log into the Moulton account, editors may, in general, edit IP, it is not block evasion or improper sock puppetry unless the user is blocked or the sock is specifically abusive. I am not taking a position on whether or not Moulton should be blocked, only that he is not.

As to disruption other than alleged block evasion, we are seeing massive disruption, in my opinion, from another editor, also not blocked, and some of what we are seeing is really left over from earlier events, never really resolved. Let's be consistent. I have a proposal to topic ban the most disruptive editor, open for discussion and poll now. Anyone could open a discussion to re-block Moulton and I have no idea how it would go at this point, even though I consider Moulton was legitimately blocked previously, as it turns out. Alternatively, any custodian could decide that the welfare of the project requires a block, and take responsibility for it.

Let's take this one step at a time, let's not treat editors who are no longer blocked as if they were block evaders!

If you choose to reblock Moulton -- which I don't advise, absent emergency, because of recusal policy -- then, of course, issuing range blocks as necessary would just be part of that. I also see the present situation as, more or less, emergency conditions, there is so much disruptive discussion going on, but I expect this to be transient, once we have some solid decisions, and I surely intend to facilitate that. Thanks for all your cooperation. --Abd 00:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Class C subnet, 129.123.40.0/24, belongs to the Utah State University School of Journalism, where a close colleague of mine (who occasionally follows these kerfuffles) teaches Mass Media Ethics. —Barry Kort 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he will be more forgiving of you when it is revealed that he lost access to this community because you refuse to agree to the minimum of behavioral standards that would be normal in any academic, and your approach has boiled down to pure childishness instead of one of understanding, rationality, and treating people according to internet norms. Did you forget that it has always been standard on the internet to respect people's handles as their names and not to start using personal information? Obviously so, as you do have so much experience in the field. So stop dissembling. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You should note that User:Moulton wasn't unblocked after it was shown community consensus favoured that action but for the technical reason that the block was "Not needed with global account lock in place". I don't accept what seems to be your suggestion that this unblock suddenly means Moulton should be free to participate. His behaviour here continues to be more about causing drama than actually furthering the mission of Wikiversity and as such he's shown why it is appropriate to continue to prevent him from participating. I can reinstate the block of User:Moulton if it helps. I would suggest, as I have to JWS, that if you don't think I should be enforcing the block of Moulton that you try to find community consensus in favour of allowing him to participate with a view to trying to convince a 'crat or a steward to sort out a proper unblock by dealing with the global lock. You are right though that there are other problems and I will look at your proposals when time permits. Adambro 08:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, I don't think you understand my position. I'm advising you to recuse, not in an attempt to make Moulton "free to participate," in itself, but rather to move away from a situation in which it is perceived by some (possibly by many, overall) that the problem at Wikiversity is abusive custodians, and, for better or worse, you have presented an appearance of excess in enforcing, first, the block, and then, the ... what? the lock? The prior ban decision, if that's what it was?
 * JWS was unblocked after your block because of this perception, and JWS is, in my view, more disruptive than Moulton, though the issues are quite related. So if this were to go to CR on my initiative, it would be over your actions itself, not Moulton's. Moulton's ultimate status as unblocked or blocked would be largely irrelevant, the issue would be possible recusal failure. And it would probably be disruptive, i.e., the process a mess, and for what value? I value your work as a custodian and would greatly dislike seeing it lost.
 * Sure, we may ultimately need a CR on Moulton again, but it is going to be much more useful if it's based on current behavior, not what Moulton did and what others did two years ago. This is my recommendation: back off. Let another custodian make decisions. Let ordinary users make decisions on reversion of Moulton edits. Let them ask for custodial action if they want that. If one or two of us insist on "fixing" this, and because we can directly act, we will more or less prevent the community from addressing it. We are starting to get some actual non-custodial, community response. We need more of that. The mess may cover many pages, for a time, but it will be easy to clean up later without "censorship," stuff just gets archived or mentioned with reference to history, or whatever is appropriate for a particular mess. Notice, please, the positions of Jtneill and Cormaggio. We are starting to see some depth appear. Moulton is now occasionally addressing the real issues, the substance of conflict and differences in understanding of how wikis in general and Wikiversity in particular should operate.


 * Wikitheory: every block (or, really, other privileged tool use) has a responsible administrator who may reverse it, even if the block was decided after some community discussion. If there was a discussion, the "closing" administrator becomes a standing executive for the "administration" of the block. This isn't widely understood on Wikipedia, and when it is not widely understood, matters become far more complex and difficult to untangle than otherwise. Consider, perhaps there was a contentious, sprawling discussion preceding a block. Is another contentious, sprawling discussion required to reconsider the block? Bad enough that there was one! So, following this theory, a closing administrator becomes familiar with the evidence and arguments and problem and does not merely judge some sort of vote, and an administrator would never close a discussion without personally supporting the conclusion (well, never say never. Usually not.) The admin then represents the community in making further relevant decisions. If that admin makes another decision, it becomes like any other ordinary administrative decision, it may go through dispute resolution process, which starts with straightforward discussion among two people, and only escalates as needed.
 * Now, who is responsible for administering the Moulton block. As I've found, it was decided by a community discussion. The discussion was closed by a custodian. If I'm correct, though, Moulton was already blocked, which creates a dual responsibility, slightly confusing. That confusion is, indeed, related to the fact that this disruption continued, in my opinion. Now that Moulton is unblocked -- and he's unblocked, he actually has, at this point, an open and unrestricted account to use -- we can start to make whatever process ensues happen in a clear and careful and open manner, maximally disconnected from the old history and maximally connected with present behavior. Behavior during a block perceived as unfair and illegitimate is not a good predictor of behavior when unblocked or, alternatively, blocked through a clear and rigorously fair process. (For some users, it may make no difference, some users will respond very negatively to a block no matter what, but others have, shall we say, some sense of shame. They will fight the isolated decision of a few, to the end, but when a community has clearly rejected their participation, they are more likely to go elsewhere, realizing that their efforts are truly doomed, until something changes greatly, if ever. Frankly, though, I hope that Moulton will decide to move into cooperation instead of his disruptive teaching-drama. He'll still use drama, I'm sure, but ... there are more effective forms of drama than what he's been using.)
 * I now see that you have reblocked Caprice. Basis for the block? I recommend reversal, but, your decision, of course. --Abd 21:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your misuse of channel op tools
Adambro, why did you ban me from the chat channel? --JWSchmidt 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Adambro, why did you ban me from the chat channel? --JWSchmidt 02:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Beetlebaum
Adambro, your bad block of Beetlebaum and out-of-process deletion of the developing Music and learning Wikiversity learning resource was a disruption of both the Wikiversity Mission and the Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation and is now the subject of community review. Adambro why are you disrupting progress towards my learning goals and disrupting the Mission of Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Third try
Adambro, why did you fail to respond to my request for an account of how your actions support the Wikiversity project? Adambro, please explain how your violations of Wikiversity policy and misuse of chat channel operator tools and your failure to explain your disruptive actions supports the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 16:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your above comments mostly repeat similar comments elsewhere which I have seen and will respond to, or not, as appropriate. You may rightly suggest that I have a responsibility to discuss use of my custodians rights but I'm afraid that doesn't extend to a right for others to make constant demands for explanations. History has shown that it would be pointless bothering, you've already decided that my actions violated policy or whatever and no amount of explaining seems ever to change that when I try to help you understand why I've taken a particular action. I may be daft at times but I'm not so daft that I'll waste my time with this. Adambro 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

research policy
When Wikiversity was launched in 2006, the Foundation mandated development of research policy. During the first six months of the Wikiversity project, the on-going process of developing research policy was widely advertised to the community and related discussions were held in multiple Wikiversity community forums. Consensus for the policy was developed in the usual way, by discussion and collaborative page editing. The research policy applies to all language versions of Wikiversity. "Could you clarify exactly what were the circumstances which prompted you to label this as an official policy?" <-- The research policy became official in February 2007, as mandated by the Foundation. At a later date, I noticed that some Wikiversity community members were not aware of the research policy, so I made a link to it from the the policy template. --JWSchmidt 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for your assistance with this. Adambro 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for welcoming me. I have been active on wikipedia for years and have also done some work on wikieducator. However, I am not sure how satisfactory that is. Then a gain Wikiversity seems a bit in a mess too. (Maybe there are some really good bits - perhaps you could point me at something?) I have recently got a qualification in teaching adult education in the UK and can see how the wiki format could be really good. Anyway the first thing I have done is put a Navigation tool on World War I and started moving commentary on to the talk page, so that the page itself can function more like a resource. Have any guidelines been produced along these lines?Harrypotter 21:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your block of User:Beetlebaum
Block log Adambro, this is blatant recusal failure, including wheel-warring, see a draft policy on this at How are Custodians expected to act. The block seems purely provocative, and/or punitive, given that the account has not repeated any allegedly offensive or prohibited actions, or made any edits, for more than ten days.

In addition, blocks are of users, not accounts, normally. If Beetlebaum is being disruptive and should be blocked, so should the acknowledged puppet master, JWSchmidt, and if you should personally refrain from blocking JWS, you should just as much be prohibited from blocking Beetlebaum. From your prior interactions with JWS, you should normally recuse, absent emergency, and from the situation here, there was clearly no emergency.

Hence your action was clear recusal failure and wheel-warring, on the face, and even the appearance of recusal failure is harmful, inflaming disputes and making them more difficult to resolve.

Hence I ask you to immediately unblock. If you believe that the Beetlebaum account (and JWS, by logic), you may request that Diego reverse his unblock, he may do so without recusal failure; likewise Diego could block JWS, if he chooses, as he is not involved; but you would have to convince him! On the face of it, Ottava could unblock JWS, thus undoing his most recent unblock. Undoing an action which is still in effect is never recusal failure.... You may also add the Beetlebaum account to the discussion at Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010, where, as you know, a discussion of blocking JWS is under way, with the current !vote being 4:4. You voted for a block, which, alone, should require you to recuse. If you do not unblock, my opinion of the situation would require me to request feedback on the action, recusal failure behind much of the continued disruption at Wikiversity. It's not about being wrong, necessarily, it is about a very important principle and an appearance of bias that can tear a community apart. --Abd 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was more than an appropriate block, and I can tell you that quite a few admin agree with what he did. JWS is constantly trying to provoke and the rest, and he will be shut down before his disruption spreads any further. Abd, your encouraging and behavior surrounding him while simultaneously personally attacking JWS suggests a different kind of disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If "admins" agree with the action, then I'd wish them to say so, openly, so the community can confirm or reject their opinions and hold them responsible, should they have "agreed" with something that is a clear violation of policy. I consider your response as showing a view of human psychology that assumes that people act from either affinity or enmity, hence their actions should be seen as "encouraging" or "personally attacking," whereas a neutral person would see that good behavior is being encouraged, neutral behavior is being allowed and defended, and harmful behavior is being discouraged. You are not neutral, that's clear, all too clear, hence the due process that I'm carefully and patiently following. Adambro, I caution you against aligning yourself with Ottava, he may support you on this or that action, but only where it serves his purposes, for prior experience, it seems very possible that he will turn on you when it serves him, as he has turned on others whom he identifies as frustrating his agenda. So, my recommendation: listen to advise, and carefully consider what is right for yourself to do, for the welfare of the community, and do it. If you are careful, if you consult the community when there is doubt -- see that recusal policy that I've proposed -- I would defend your proper discretion vigorously, and even your right to make mistakes. You might notice that I've been doing that. --Abd 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that Geoff Plourde has "blocked," a little weird, but confirming the block, I suppose. Doing this with no explanation or discussion, no notice on User talk:Beetlebaum or User talk:JWSchmidt is shaky, but at least you now have a confirming custodian. It would have been better for your situation if you had unblocked, frankly. But thems the breaks. Let's see what comes down. --Abd 00:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC) See explanation below from Geoff. --Abd 01:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All I did is change the block settings to allow JWS back in. Geoff Plourde 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a bit of a relief! I'll ding you for not saying this in the block summary, it would have saved me making the comment above. But that is surely minor! Adambro, you are still on the hook, apparently, having also (inadvertently?) blocked JWS because of his IP. --Abd 00:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS was blocked because he was trolling under a second account. He could have his main blocked if he keeps it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the summary and it says "changed the block settings for", not "blocked" Geoff Plourde 02:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Geoff, notice that you left the same block reason in place, which implies you are supporting it. You should have explained, instead, that you were removing the IP autoblock. From what is shown in the block record, what you changed is not visible at all. That is how I became confused. --Abd 02:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

< I don't think JWS has been 'trolling' at all, to be honest - but maybe we have different ideas of what that means? A wise chap recently mentioned to me that ideally people would just move on and find more constructive things to be doing - hopefully we can all (adam, ot, ab, me, uncle charlie and my neighbour betty) take that advice - there's actually very little to administer / curate / custodian in all these silly disputes - I think we should all forsake use of the tools, and either talk a bit more, or just get on with whatever it is we're up for getting on with. To kick off this new spirit of laissez faire, and peace amongst men, I formally promise not to block adam or ottava no matter what naughtiness they get up to :-) Privatemusings 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Privatemusings, you know what trolling is and you enjoy doing it. You know JWS is purposefully acting provocatively and that you are a master of such. JWS already has another website to work at with his friends and where they run the show so he doesn't really need to stick around here anyway. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * you see - I'm not even going to block you for that comment, which I'm sure I can squint into a policy violation if I look at it the right way... the point really is not to do that. On 'trolling'; some people seem to include satire, parody, and large swathes of critical comment into their definition, whereas others feel that it has to be, by definition, in bad faith. Regardless, I generally find it's an unhelpful word. :-) Privatemusings 02:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly surprised you didn't post that under a secondary account. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, Ottava's actions full-protecting the Beetlebaum Talk page, removing the IP unblock template (was IP editing necessary because of your block of Beetlebaum?) took this whole thing way beyond the pale, so I've filed a Request custodian action which is something you should certainly have done yourself. I'd have preferred to wait to give you more time. --Abd 02:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of Dramaturgy
Besides the possible recusal failure involved in this, if there was improper content there, the default least-damaging process, if you are correct that content is disruptive, would be blanking, full or partial, possibly pending a deletion discussion. You should know that this deletion could be controversial, hence policy would require a discussion for full deletion. As it is, deleted, I and other non-custodians cannot review the content to come to our own conclusions about it, and possibly fix it so that it is not offensive. To avoid more discussion of this in a vacuum, please undelete the page and blank it if needed, it is by far best if you are the one to do that. You may also userfy it, if you prefer, to my user space or to that of JWS. If it is in my user space, I would take responsibility for ensuring that no offensive content remains in the current version. I would also not object to you protecting the page as blanked, pending discussion, if there is a convenience link on the blanked page to the prior version in history. Thanks. --Abd 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not need to keep making subheadings whenever you have a new rant. Please stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Separate topics, separate requested responses, separate section, I'd think. I'm not attcking Adambro, for sure, just pointing out that two actions are in violation of policy, and, should this come to review, the community will decide if these are rants or cogent and clear warnings and requests. Please stop making new sections? You think that's worthy of a warning? Adambro, please let me know if I should mash everything I have to say into one section, even if I write them at different times and they represent different actions of yours. Thanks. --Abd 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Welcome
Thanks for welcoming me. Ciao from Italy! —•Trevinci 07:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WV:Request custodian action filed re your block of User:Ethical Accountability
Thought you'd like to know. --Abd 22:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IRC
Hi Adam,

I'm "re-tooled" now... clearly I must be mad!

Anyway, I undid *most* of the blocks on the irc channel (there's a laugh to be had there if you know where to look). Please just leave that be, and don't let yourself be enticed.

Give it a week or two my way. It's certainly less work than your way!

--SB_Johnny talk 03:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, no worries. I can always use /ignore if I want. Adambro 10:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request to me about not restoring edits of blocked users
You have not responded to my comments in response to your request. I believe that my actions have been intended to be and are consistent with the welfare of Wikiversity, and are not prohibited by any guideline or policy. I see no support from the community for the position you are expressing. Accordingly, it is my intention to proceed with this work, though I will wait a few days for you to respond. If you cannot accept this practice from me, can you suggest someone who might mediate this dispute? Otherwise, as a potential block warning, I'd have to take this to Custodian feedback. Please advise. Would you intend to block if I continue with what I've done? What specific actions are the occasion for the request or warning? If there is no block warning intended, there is no need for review, it is simply a disagreement of no great consequence. Thanks. --Abd 00:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Thanks for deleting my user page and subpages, last year, and untagging them today. It was all en:wp:drama, which I'll leave off here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your range block of 68.163.96.0/20
Seems to be excessive for no activity in that range. Yes, I understand that you expect activity might appear, but these range blocks cause collateral damage, as you know. The level of activity from the editor (Moulton) is low enough that no range block is needed at all, and probably no blocks at all. I've been reverting all identifiable Moulton edits on sight, so why the excessive response, a three month extension of a prior one-month range block? Please consider unblocking, the possible damage exceeds the benefit. Thanks. --Abd 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that there is the potential for collateral damage but I think the risk is very low. I'm not sure what you mean regarding it being "excessive for no activity in that range". Moulton has been using IPs in that range just recently and history has shown that blocking a single IP in the range would be ineffective, he'd just reset his router to be allocated another. As I've said, I think the risk of collateral damage is very low and use of the range block is beneficial because it reduces the number of reverts that would otherwise be required and it forces Moulton to edit via open proxies which as a side effect helps us identify IPs which should be blocked per No open proxies. Adambro 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Adambro, it's appreciated. Moulton has many other ways to evade blocks, I won't list them! My opinion is that the damage (the cost of reversion) is so low that a range block does cause more damage and this kind of response (and any kind of excessive response) plays into Moulton's game. I suppose we might need to ask the community about this, but it's low urgency. I looked at the activity and saw only one edit from this range recently. Am I not looking correctly? Can you give me a contributions listing that shows all the activity? Thanks again. --Abd 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock User:Ethical Accountability
As this is an acknowledged alternate account of User:Thekohser, who is now unblocked, there is no reason for your block any more. Users are normally allowed to have acknowledged alternate accounts. I would appreciate it if you would unblock the account. The user cannot request this unblock directly, because the account was globally locked a few days ago. The user has this account at three wikis, but the only one with edits is ours, and, obviously, the global lock was placed because of this account. I'd rather you unblock than have to go through more complicated process, okay? It will help finish cleaning this thing up. Thanks. --Abd 00:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it unless Thekohser wants to use the account it isn't worth the hassle, not simply of unblocking, because that would be ineffective in enabling him to use the account, but then perhaps requiring a crat to start messing about renaming it, twice. Unless Thekohser decides there is a reason for wanting this account I'd suggest we just leave it as is. No point creating extra work for ourselves. Adambro 09:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "extra work" at this point is you simply unblocking. I have already requested a lifting of the global lock at meta, that will take time. Since this is the only account actually affected, where there were edits, it being blocked creates an appearance that the community doesn't want it used. I can ask someone else, Adambro, but it's far cleaner if you do it. Your block, itself, was out-of-process, so you should clean it up with the few seconds it would take, and you have already put more time into this than it would have taken to unblock. So ... why in the world would you refuse? It makes no sense. Please unblock, and we can leave this whole unfortunate incident behind. --Abd 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in unblocking this account for the sake of it. I agree that we should "leave this whole unfortunate incident behind", that is why I suggest you move on and find other things to do. This account was created to get around the global lock and since that issue has been resolved it serves no purpose. If Thekohser decides he wants to use the account then he himself can request it is unblocked. There is no need for you get involved with this now. Thekohser can speak for himself. Adambro 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a volunteer. You are not required to do anything you do not choose to do, though it seems foolish to take more time to argue against it than to simply do it. Given the discussion at RCA, there was quite a bit of sentiment expressed to unblock both accounts, and, procedurally, we do not ordinarily block an alternate account that is not used abusively, and when we do block, we block both accounts. Yes, he can request unblock. However, with the global lock, he can't do that as EA. Chicken and egg problem. If you unblock, it starts unravelling the tangle, and, procedurally, you should have left my unblock in place and I'd not have been asking your for this. I suggest your review that unblock decision by SBJ. It should not require a consensus to unblock, it should require a consensus to block. He's right. And there is and was no consensus.
 * I won't ask you again. This is an opportunity, Adambro, to undo a mess that you helped make. It's simple and would take you a few seconds: Special:Contributions/Ethical Accountability. Otherwise it is tossed on a stack of similar errors. Please, I urge you, don't be unresponsive! If it is wrong, please tell me why. I'll suggest to Thekohser that he ask for unblock, if you want that, procedurally. But he shouldn't have to. He asked for unblock before and I unblocked.
 * I'm asking here because this is direct discussion of a dispute, which is most efficient if the parties want to find consensus, serving larger consensus. If you decline, I may then decide How Important It Is, and may then request action from another custodian. On a matter where the community already made a decision. --Abd 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting everyone's time. There is no need for your to suggest that Thekohser requests unblock. I want to leave it to Thekohser to decide whether he wants that account and he can then make a request if necessary. If Thekohser doesn't want to use the account then there is no point concerning ourselves with this. I'm glad you won't ask me again because I'd rather not be distracted by such pointless requests. Adambro 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thekohser is apparently on vacation, so this is dormant. I'm certainly dropping it for now in the absence of a renewed request from him. --Abd 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked Thekohser and he wants it dropped. So it is. Thanks, Adambro, my request is withdrawn, and the Request custodian action has already been archived because of the basic result (unblock for Thekohser). --Abd 18:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Request you unprotect a page you semiprotected.
This is a request from my private requests page, but I realized I should ask you first, so we can discuss it, before I ask for a review by another custodian, so I yanked it from that page.


 * Unprotect Motivation and emotion/Textbook/Specific emotions. [I would recuse.] Page history. No vandalism, edits by blocked editor, but all IP edits have been reviewed and accepted. Edits by blocked editor are being routinely reverted, then reviewed, with opportunity for comment. Protection will apparently inhibit addition of acceptable content. Please review and unprotect. --Abd 16:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There were no disruptive edits to this page, all were quite acceptable, and all have been reverted back in and are standing at this moment. I understand that you want to enforce the block, but I request that you be careful to also respect a basic goal of the project: the development of educational content. Please don't let enforcing blocks interfere with that. Please use protection where necessary to protect against vandalism and other forms of disruption. These edits were not disruptive. The same blocked user has revert warred with you (and me) against the routine reverting of his edits. That was disruptive. Because of that, I'm not objecting to your protection of the Ethics page. But this page is different. Thanks for considering this. --Abd 01:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've explained, I might be able to tolerate to some degree constructive edits to learning resources by blocked users but, as I also explained, that doesn't mean I will turn a blind eye to the block evasion and facilitate it by knowingly allowing blocked users to evade their block. Whilst a few good edits may sneak through, I'm not prepared to start helping users to evade block regardless of the nature of the edits involved. My concern is that the more edits a blocked user sees reinstated, the more they will work to evade the block. Sure, that initially may only be constructive edits to learning resources but I think it may lead on to them attempting to participate in community discussions which I consider inappropriate. Whilst we may perhaps disagree in this particular case, blocks are unfortunately necessary on a wiki that anyone can edit. For blocks to be effective they must be properly enforced. Whilst a block should prevent whatever disruption prompted it, there is also the useful side-effect that it encourages the user involved to take a break from the project, to reflect on what has gone on and perhaps when they return, alter their behaviour. I am grateful that you raised this with me but I don't feel prepared to turn a blind eye to block evasion as you are requesting because I don't want to encourage further block evasion. Adambro 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * May I second the request for unprotection. There have only been constructive additions to this page as far as I can tell. I realise I can unprotect myself, but would prefer to consult first. I understand your 'slippery slide' / 'zero tolerance' theory, but I suspect it could also be true that cutting off opportunities for productive editing may then fuel disruptive editing. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel very uncomfortable with the suggestion that I should unprotect a page to enable a blocked user to evade their block and edit. It isn't something I am prepared to do. Adambro 12:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Jt here as well. Try just applying the "I", and forget the "RB". RBI hasn't been all that effective for the last 2 years anyway... the pissing out of the tent theory seems applicable. --SB_Johnny talk 12:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jt and SBJ. Adambro, I think I can understand your position. I'm sorry for the length of this, but I don't think I can practically address the issues at this time with less.


 * You don't like the idea that a user is blocked and is allowed to disregard that. I can understand. However, the purpose of a block is protection of the wiki, not punishment or coercion. Those aspects of blocks are an unfortunate side effect rather than the purpose.


 * I've been suggesting we back up and look at what works and what doesn't work with blocking, and what is best for the project, long term. I am not suggesting that Moulton should be unblocked, at least not yet. He is a very independent spirit and does not necessarily consider the opinions of the rest of the community. On the other hand, in my view, he does have a goal of the welfare of this project, he is not doing what he does out of mere pique or spite. What I've been proposing is a middle ground, and this middle ground should be available to all blocked editors. It is not some special deal for Moulton. This describes it, and, in fact, in practice, we've been doing it, only erratically. It is not possible to stop this without doing damage.


 * If an editor is blocked, any editor may revert the edits of that editor without review of the content. The block summary should state that this is a routine revert of a blocked editor. To maintain this allowance, the editor should not revert because the edit is "vandalism" or "destructive," or make any other claim that the edit in itself would be improper. If an editor wishes to revert because of a content issue, that should be stated, and if content is damaging or disruptive, the editor may complain to a custodian and seek a block, which would routinely be granted if the custodian agrees that the content is against policy. (Violating in itself, not just because the user is blocked). To revert a blocked editor, without review, is a right of every editor, allowing all editors to enforce a block. Such reverts are not limited by restrictions on revert warring.


 * Reverted edits, no matter who made them, may be reverted back in by any editor taking responsibility for the content. A revert of a routine revert of a blocked editor will be considered as if a fresh edit, not having been previously been reviewed and rejected for content. However, if the edit was originally reverted not on the basis of a block, but for disruptive or damaging content, then the restoration is possibly revert warring, at least 1RR, depending on circumstances.


 * A blocked editor who revert wars over the removal of his or her edits is engaged in a current violation of policy. The IP of such an editor may be blocked to prevent this, and if there is significant IP-hopping, range blocks may be used with caution.


 * Page protection may also be used if there is revert warring. Occasional edits from a blocked editor should not result in page protection. Edits that were later restored after review, and that remained with apparent consensus to tolerate them, should not be considered evidence of disruptive behavior justifying page protection. That covers the present case, by the way.


 * Self-reverted edits, unless seriously disruptive in themselves, are not block evasion. They are content suggested by an efficient means, one which leaves behind no mess to clean up. The content could also be suggested by email, for example, but is then not only less efficient, but is also less transparent, leading, as I've seen, to charges of meat puppetry, etc.


 * The path of using self-reversion is one which, then, is open to all blocked editors as a path to return to useful contributions. If the editor self-reverts, and if this is not disruption, then there is no need to block the IP of such an editor. It is even possible that an editor could be unblocked, under some circumstances, having shown a history of "self-reversion per block," but remain with some kind of topic ban, which could even extend to every page. This allows, with a cooperating editor, complete flexibility, and a wide range of intermediate sanctions, without actually imposing any censorship at all. I've been blocked, and I can tell you, the worst part of it was not being able to edit my own user space, doing stuff that was not at all disruptive, like archiving.


 * Self-reversion is not a carte blanche. If an editor abuses self-reversion with actual disruptive effect, a custodian remains free to apply IP and range blocks, or to use page protection. But this should not be done unless there is such disruption.


 * I have proposed changes to Blocking policy to cover this; that was just a draft, and, of course, I hope for community participation in reviewing all of this.


 * I understand this is new thinking, and unfamiliar, but when I developed this concept, it was to address the situation of a very popular editor on Wikipedia (in some circles) who had been topic-banned. He was making spelling corrections to articles, and his friends (administrators) considered the idea that he'd be blocked for these "stupid." Another friend was going around reverting all these edits and making complaints to Arbitration Enforcement.


 * Yes. It was a plan to make an admin look stupid for enforcing a ban. And these spelling corrections meant that every edit required review to find out whether it was "harmless" or not. So, I thought of self reversion as a way to handle these spelling corrections without complicating ban enforcement! The editor rejected it, quite angrily, and I was told by admins, his friends, to go away. However, I had cleared this proposal with an arbitrator, who thought it was a good idea.


 * I then suggested this to an editor who had just been topic banned from his favorite topic, and he was an SPA, an expert, in fact. He'd been dejected about it. He took up the idea, and went way beyond spelling corrections. He made a major edit to the article under ban, and reverted "per ban." The edit was reviewed by the very person who had asked for him to be banned, and nearly all of it was accepted. Very easy and very efficient and very effective, creating cooperation between prior opponents. Try to do that with a strict ban!


 * Later, I was page banned myself; the process was abusive (ArbComm largely confirmed that later), but that doesn't matter here. I respected the ban. But one day I saw a formatting error on the article I was banned from, so ... I edited it, trying to fix the problem, and self-reverted "per ban." I was blocked immediately, by the very admin who had earlier claimed it would be "stupid." That was pretty funny, actually. Even he was laughing about it when his prior comment was pointed out to him. One of the editors who had been pushing for me to be banned looked at the edit, and restored it. Really, he should have looked at the permanent version, because it was one of these arcane reference errors so easy to make on Wikipedia, and I hadn't actually fixed it. But still, I'd called attention to it, very efficiently, and so it was immediately fixed by someone else. My action had improved the project. And I didn't care if I was blocked for 24 hours.


 * Blocks and bans never improve the project, they can only do two things: prevent damage, or waste time enforcing them with possible collateral damage from IP and range blocks. So they should be used judiciously. It is clear that this community dislikes blocking, but it did review the Moulton block (with a considerable sense of frustration, and without unity) and confirmed it, which should stand until reversed. But that does not mean that draconian means should be applied to enforce the block. Moulton may not edit freely. Anyone can revert his edits. If that seems like work to you, Adambro, please realize that I've been doing that work entirely except when, less commonly, you or Ottava get there first. If Moulton self-reverts, and he seems to have been willing to try it, I ask that you refrain from blocking that IP. What have you got to lose? Because you blocked the IP anyway, when he tried it, I'm sure that he told himself "Why should I bother self-reverting? He's going to block me anyway, and it will just waste some of the short time I have before he blocks me."


 * Please consider this, and please consider the opinions of two of our bureaucrats, and, in fact, much of the expressed opinion of this community, including myself. If you want to continue what you have been doing, that's your privilege, but I came here to ask you nicely, instead of requesting independent custodian review, or going beyond that to some kind of Request custodian feedback or a Community Review. That's because I have confidence in your ability, approached with respect, to expand your understanding of the issues and possible responses, and to revise some of your opinions. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity. --Abd 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. - WAS 4.250 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Abd, tl;dr. As I've said, I would not be comfortable unprotecting this page. Please make a request at RCA or wherever you feel is appropriate. Adambro 07:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read your above comment now and looked at recent changes from overnight and seen the mess that has been created. I remain of the opinion that you are, by reinstating his edits, inadvertently encouraging him. Please try to avoid doing so. He may make a few useful contributions but this is far outweighed by his inappropriate behaviour. Before Diego decided to copy what you'd done with Thekohser and invited Moulton to evade his block and use an alternative account my impression is that he hadn't been very active on the project for a while. You suggest that he may not cooperate with self-reverting or whatever if he thinks he's just going to be blocked anyway but I don't believe that. He showed with Caprice that he wasn't willing to cooperate with the community despite some efforts from myself to facilitate those negotiations by various means. The more time we waste concerning ourselves with him the more I suspect he'll disrupt the project. I do not wish to discuss this any further, I don't want to waste my time writing about Moulton and I don't think the project should be distracted by him either. Nevertheless, as I've said, if you wish for the page concerned here to be unprotected then please find someone else prepared to do it. I'm not. Adambro 09:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Adambro, I will follow what you suggest, assuming that you do not object to another custodian reviewing the situation, and making a decision de novo, as it appears from your comment. I certainly don't want you to waste your time. The issue here, though, is not Moulton, it is Wikiversity policy, practice, and consensus. Please understand that. And thank you for responding to the requests at User:Abd/Request custodian action. This page is an experiment in a more efficient process for handling custodian requests. I will place a request there for unprotection of the page involved. Because few, if any, other sysops will be watching that page, I will wait a little while before moving a reference to the page to the regular RCA page, and next time I do this, it will be in a way that doesn't create a new section there each time. --Abd 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adambro and Abd. I've requested further discussion about unprotection on request custodian action: . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not "editing by proxy."
, your summary: (Undo revision 603783 by Abd (talk) rv, blocked user shouldn't edit by proxy). This is not editing by proxy. I have received no instructions from Moulton, and, indeed, Moulton is angry about my work, because I've been routinely reverting his edits, on sight, as a blocked editor. I have then been independently reviewing all edits identified as being by him (as I would for other blocked users other than pure vandals).

This was an edit to a Talk page for Jtneill student, a test account of Jtneill himself, and Jtneill has welcomed Moulton participation. I note that the edit referred to Pet mice, and that Jtneill, shortly before Pet mice was deleted, added a link to it, showing that he had read the note and had probably looked at Pet mice as well. My conclusion was that this edit was welcome in situ and not disruptive. Please revert it back, and please do not revert my good faith edits without discussion, and, especially, please do not accuse me of "proxying." Thanks. --Abd 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked users evading their block is disruptive. You encouraging them to do so by reinstating their edits is also disruptive. Please discontinue this practice which seems likely to encourage blocked users to evade their block. Adambro 18:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) This as well. In this case, you also removed my note. Is the comment offensive? How? Basic principle: editors are blocked, not content. You are removing content based on first origin, and not as block enforcement, because you are removing comment that I restored (and/or added) on my own responsibility. Please stop. I prefer that you revert yourself; if you do not, I will pursue alternatives. Thanks. --Abd 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Adambro, what I'm doing does "encourage" blocked users, but it encourages them only to make positive contributions or engage in harmless behavior, rather than the behavior that got them blocked and that could continued to justify their block. It discourages them from making harmful contributions, because they will not be restored, and if they start making more harmful contributions than useful ones, if they are a net energy drain, I, and any others which do this work, will stop doing it. Very few of Moulton's contributions have actually been harmful in themselves, as the record of my work shows. Yes, there is a harm from "block evasion itself," but that harm is the work involved in finding the edits and reverting them and, if needed, blocking IP. I've been doing that work, and when the behavior became disruptive on one day, I requested blocks. The IP blocks were longer than needed, but that's the breaks....

Moulton is an expert in his field, which is a field important to the long-term mission of Wikiversity. I'm fully aware of why his participation is problematic, but I'm also aware of the potential value, which apparently you are not. I'm setting up conditions where we can gain the value without the problems, or without much problem.

But what I'm doing with him could be done with any blocked editor. It is a solution to certain long-term WMF problems. At this point, your block enforcement is doing more harm than good. How about doing something more useful? You have the right to revert contributions of blocked editors, and to block IP as necessary, but that doesn't make it wise, necessary. And you don't have such a right to revert me, as to my edits that are not contrary to policy. It's very simple, Adambro, please try to understand it. . --Abd 19:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what rights you may suggest I do or don't have, I have a duty to do what I can to enforce blocks and protect Wikiversity from disruption. I will continue to do so but thanks for the feedback. Adambro 19:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do be aware, Adambro, that while you have tools that I don't have, you have no superiority of rights over content, and how you use those tools is properly quite limited. You will notice that I have not challenged your right to enforce a block, but you do not have, in fact, a "duty" to enforce. You have choice and discretion. Use it wisely. There can come to be situations where enforcing a block causes more disruption than leaving it, and, in fact, you do have a duty to protect the project, not as a positive duty, i.e., something that you must do, but as a negative one, i.e., what you must not do. You must not damage the project by your actions. So be careful, please. Thanks. --Abd 19:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Note
Here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your note is noted, thanks. I am grateful that you have clarified the situation regarding permission. I am perfectly comfortable with the comments I made on IRC which are documented on that page. If I wasn't then I wouldn't have posted them on WV nor made them in the first place. Adambro 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Email
- Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it might please you to see that Thekohser agrees with you on the community review. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, right? Adambro 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Recusal re Moulton or Caprice
Adambro, please recuse from acting as a custodian with respect to Moulton or Caprice, absent emergency. If there is an emergency, please report it to a noticeboard, either the Colloquium, or request review at Request custodian action. Thanks. --Abd 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that you have re-blocked both Moulton and Caprice. These are both wheel-warring actions, asserting your personal opinion, reversing the actions of other custodians, reinstating your personally preferred state, without having found confirming consensus that the specific action is proper. That is intolerable and incompatible with continued sysop privilege. Please undo your actions and allow the other sysops to determine what stands until the community considers the matter. --Abd 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your actions were spot on IMO, please disrepair the above warning and keep up the good work. From my point of view, there was no consensus to reach to unblock, but there was a previous consensus to block.  A consensus would first have to be reached to unblock.  And I am sure if it were you would abide by it.  I just wanted to let you know that the warning above doesn't represent everyone's opinions.  Normally I would keep my nose out of it, but it was so strongly worded it might as well have said "Or else." Thenub314 02:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, you are encouraging Adambro to wheel-war, and he is apparently continuing. That's disruptive. This is what you would do if you want him to lose his sysop bit. The issue is not whether or not Caprice or Moulton should be blocked. The issue is administrative recusal. You are not aware of the long history here of Adambro's actions here, I presume. You are right the above doesn't represent your opinion. That's noted. But what, exactly, were you disagreeing with? Do you believe that wheel-warring is "good work"? How should custodians conduct themselves?
 * Adambro, the above was indeed a strong warning. Because you have disregarded it and the previous suggestions, you have not even responded other than by defiant action, I have no alternative left but to take this to the community. I'll be busy today, there is still plenty of opportunity to head this off, but administrative recusal is more important than any particular block or particular custodian or particular user. It is essential for a long-term collaborative community. If you do not understand that, and respect it, you should not be a custodian. --Abd 15:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth are you demanding that I unblock a long term disruptive individual who shows little interest in editing Wikiversity other than to make snide remarks? Do you not understand how daft that looks? There is an ongoing discussion about Moulton's global lock situation and I will respect the outcome of that, just as I've respected the decision on Thekohser. In the absence of clear consensus that Moulton should be allowed to return though, I'm not going to stand aside and watch him getting back to his usual antics just because one custodian has decided as he quits WV that he wanted to wash his hands of the situation. At the moment I'm struggling to understand why my position is as unreasonable as you seem to be suggesting. I would welcome your assistance in understanding this. Adambro 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is about making snide remarks, you would be indeffed right now. You were only supported by Darklama and myself. I am for letting Moulton back and Darklama recuses himself. You are off on your own now. You had no authority to undo the block nor do you have consensus to act in that way. You want to use blocks to harm others, then find some other project. You are a hypocrite and accuse me of things you did far, far worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it that has prompted this sudden change of your position? Why do you want Moulton back on Wikiversity? Adambro 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sudden change? Moulton was my best friend. Why do you think I ever wanted him gone? The Foundation made it clear they no longer care about globally banned users, so there is no legitimate justification for keeping him out. I enforced Jimbo's will against every single personal desire. Unlike you, I didn't use blocks out of personal vengeance. I cried when I had to block Moulton. You probably laugh with glee when you block people. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that fit with the block log entry on 21 July in which you said: "User was banned by the community and this was reaffirmed regardless of lock, Jimbo, or the rest - block stays until Moulton gives up his attacks on others". You recognised then that, "regardless of lock, Jimbo, or the rest", Moulton "was banned by the community and this was reaffirmed". So, why does it matter whether the Foundation care about "globally banned users" and why does them not doing suddenly mean there is "no legitimate justification for keeping him out"? If, as you said on 21 July, Moulton "was banned by the community and this was reaffirmed", isn't it inappropriate for you to decide on your own to unblock him without first consulting the wider community? Also, is it really the case that Moulton has given up his attacks on others? I remain puzzled as to why you decided to unblock him and why you want him to return. Adambro 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With both my change and Darklama's change, there is no more community consent. The lock then would be the only thing preventing Moulton, but that was made clear to no longer matter. You are off on your own on this one, and your use of blocks to harm others will be coming to an end. What goes around comes around, and you were our worse offender for a very long time. P.S. I consulted 5 people on the matter before hand, three of which were opposed to allowing Moulton before. There were no opposes to my action. Ottava Rima (talk)  16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still struggling to understand why you've suddenly decided Moulton should return. You don't really seem to have addressed the apparent disparity between your position now and your position in July. I've not seen some comprehensive community discussion about whether Moulton should return and so how did you consult five other users? If this was via IRC, do you really think that is an appropriate way of gauging community consensus? Not everyone uses IRC, there are poor/no records of what goes on, and there is no opportunity for anyone not present to make comments which may influence others. I note you again refer to how the lock situation apparently no longer matters to the Foundation but not explained why, despite your comments in the block log, it should make any difference what the Foundation's view on global locks is. Adambro 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you that oblivious to think that I didn't try to do whatever I could to help my friends Moulton or JWS? Who do you think even brought me into Wikiversity? And you consulted others via IRC and used it to bully others, so you have some nerve trying to throw up that standard. You started the desysop process because you are a bully. You wanted to have no one get in your way as you use blocks as vengeance tools against others. It was far better when you went inactive. Wikiversity isn't a play toy. It is an academic community, and you never once contributed in any way but to cause harm to those academics. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're getting anywhere here. I would like to try to understand why Moulton should be allowed to return but it doesn't seem you are interested in helping. Adambro 16:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One could say the same about you regarding your history from the beginning. You haven't provided anything of valuable here yet make actions that directly contradict what is best for this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You could help by explaining why it is in the interests of the project that Moulton returns? Adambro 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not in the interest of the project to have a form of governance based on revenge, which you continue to support and push. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is my position on this issue, that I will respect the outcome of any community discussion regarding Moulton, really so unreasonable that my insistence that he remain blocked until such a community discussion has taken place can be described as revenge? It isn't me that seems to consider both SBJ and Thekohser second rate citizens. If I am clear that there is consensus that Moulton should return then I won't stand in the way of him doing so, just as I haven't interfered with Thekohser. Adambro 17:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Claims that you will accept community discussions while doing whatever you can to fight for your side, using politics and opportune actions to bump out any who stood in your way and the rest, is not a set of compatible actions. You are self-serving as your actions showed. You even pushed for my desysop without any chance of defense, without any verification the charges were right, etc, because I stood up against your bullying of JWS through use of ops. You don't care about what the community thinks so don't even attempt to claim you do. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, whatever, I think we're done here. Adambro 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is far simpler. It's not about whether Moulton should be blocked or not. That's a detail, and the community will resolve it, I assume. But that takes time. What happens in the meantime? Wikis, for immediate decisions, depend on sysop neutrality, and, almost as much, on the appearance of neutrality. Whenever one sysop becomes the sole enforcer of "consensus," it almost certainly is not real consensus, because other sysops would help. Please see Recusal. For you to continue as a sysop, Adambro, I'm suggesting, you are going to need to understand this. All or most of the other sysops do understand it, they practice it, for the most part, except when there simply is no other way, in which case they are careful to bring the matter to the community for confirmation. Ottava is biased, but correct, and his actions were not wheel-warring. Yours were. He'd be wheel-warring if he reversed you.

So why should you undo your actions? Because you will then avoid censure for wheel-warring, by showing recognition of the error. If Moulton should be blocked, another sysop will do it. Please, however, do not solicit such privately. Use Request custodian action if you believe Moulton's account(s) should be blocked, for transparency.

Normally, there would be an emergency bypass, if you read the proposed policy. However, there was no emergency, the edits of Moulton, as before, were not sufficiently disruptive (in most cases). In an emergency, even if there were the appearance of bias, you could block and report it for review. But you have not claimed emergency and you have not reported and requested review. You are in blatant violation of common-law recusal policy. On Wikipedia, you'd be desysopped in a flash, even with the relatively primitive recusal policy they have, because of the wheel-warring. --Abd 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst I still consider Moulton being unblocked to not be in the interests of the project, you are right that, if there is consensus that he shouldn't edit then someone else will block him soon enough. I won't rule out blocking him again though. Adambro 17:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's deeply appreciated, and removes all of my concerns, you are to be commended, it takes courage to back down and acknowledge a problem, and people who can do this are quite valuable. Everyone makes mistakes. --Abd 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, recusal policy does not require that you abstain from emergency action. If someone with whom you have had a conflict started massively vandalizing the project, the proper response would be to block, even range block, and report it as an emergency action taken in spite of a recusal requirement. You'd be protected, as long as the declaration of emergency was at all reasonable. But a few uncivil comments, for example, given that some users have been massively uncivil with no consenquence, cannot be considered an emergency, and would typically, at most -- if there is fear that a user will be permanently driven away, for example, creating a possible emergency -- be a short block until the community could review it. I just want to make it clear that your hands are not tied by recusal policy, you need not watch helplessly while massive damage is done! It's about transparency and avoiding the appearance of bias, and I do believe that your argument that you were enforcing consensus was sincere, whether accurate or not. Good luck. Please continue to help develop recusal policy, it is designed to protect admins as well as the community. --Abd 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
that was awful. It must have been that migraine headache.... Thanks for fixing it. --Abd 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock Ottava Rima immediately
Adambro, the mild level of criticism involved in Ottava's recent edits was utterly unblockworthy. Please unblock him immediately, and please avoid blocking Ottava for any non-emergency situation, or anyone where you might appear to have been involved in conflict, but take issues to Request Custodian Action like any other user. --Abd 12:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could provide me with a list of which users I am authorised to deal with using my custodian rights? It seems any block you disagree with is automatically a recusal failure or whatever. What has disqualified me in this case? As for the block itself, I'm not currently inclined to overturn it. Ottava' latest edits, whilst you might suggest are "utterly unblockworthy", are the latest in a recent downward spiral of civility rather than an isolated incident that could be ignore. Civility issues have been ignored here too long. May I suggest in future if you disagree with a block that you don't turn up on the talk page of the custodian responsible and immediately demand they unblock. You might find it more productive to offer your view of why you feel a block was unnecessary rather than simply declaring the custodian was wrong. As for apologising on behalf of the community, well, again I don't think you're doing your cause any favours. Adambro 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)