Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd

I was doing recent changes patrol here and saw some multiple vandalism on a number of different pages by an IP editor and missed having rollback, as I do on en.wiki. So I asked about getting the privilege here, then noticed that it doesn't seem to be a separate privilege here from admin status. Ottava Rima suggested I request adminship. I was nominated for adminship on Wikipedia, twice (by the same person, actually), second time made it to about 50% with most opposition being based on what was at that time about 1400 edits, low for en.wiki adminship, and I was told to apply later with more edits, I'd be approved. (I now have about 14,000 en.wiki edits, but I doubt I'd be approved now because I've been involved in controversy there, but I never needed admin tools for most of the work I was doing at en.wiki. The problems I had at en.wiki can be anticipated by reading the linked RfA.)

I understand (and have actively supported and promoted on en.wiki) the concept and practice of administrative recusal when involved; I highly doubt that I would be likely to abuse admin tools here. I cannot promise to put in a lot of effort here, but I have already started to try to help keep the place clean, and am very interested in Wikiversity possibilities for collaborative learning -- but I don't need tools for that!. I consider administrators to be, properly, servants of community consensus, not of their own positions and views, and I would use admin tools in that way. If I disagree with community consensus, which can happen, I will not use the tools in service of my own opinion, but only seeking and serving consensus. --Abd 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the Candidate

 * In your response to Ottava below, timestamped 16:04, 28 May 2010, you give administrators who support your Custodianship more power over you than other administrators. Could you explain your motivation behind this?  What will you do if an admin who neither supported nor opposed asks you to suspend usage of administrative tools? While I don't doubt that the contents of this page are accurate, and I think you can offer a lot to the development of this topic on Wikiversity and elsewhere, I am concerned about the creation of a list of experts on Cold fusion that currently includes only yourself.  The contents of that page do not, IMO, adequately meet the definition of an expert.  Have you published in the field, are you often invited to speak at conferences, or do you have what would be considered extensive experience that has been recognised by others in the field? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. It's just an idea and a promise. No prejudice is implied or anticipated against someone who does *not* support or even who opposes. If I were asked to suspend usage by an administrator, I'd probably comply pending formation of consensus, and, in fact, I'd consider doing that for any user unless protecting the wiki required action and no other administrator was available. But with those who have supported, I become obligated to comply, that's all. That, of course, includes my mentor(s). I have, just for myself, tightened up the mentorship rules, only on myself, just a little, in what seems like a harmless way. I find the concept of probationary adminship here quite interesting, and, in effect, I'm trying out a way that might become practical on Wikipedia. Effectively, immediate suspension by those who supported. It doesn't make sense to suspend on the request of someone who was opposed!
 * The "expert" page cited is a subpage of Cold fusion/Experts which explains what it's about. The question is not relevant to this discussion, but I do have a conflict of interest on that topic and would not use tools for anything controversial relating to it. Any discussion of experts or my expertise -- please read the parent page! -- should be in Talk there or otherwise as relevant and appropriate. --Abd 02:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I also use 'have supported' in my en.wp recall pledge, but that was made after obtaining the support of these people, and I ask that five supporters agree.  As your promise is only in effect during the probation period, and Wikiversity is a quieter woods, I see this promise as beneficial to lower the "risk" of supporting you.
 * In regards to the expert page, my concern is not with your ability to avoid the conflict of interest, but with the way you are characterising yourself (in mainspace) as an expert. Wikiversity does not need it's own version of the Essjay controversy.  If you are not using the term "expert" in the appropriate way, now would be a good time to rectify this. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, lowering the risk was a goal. One of the problems with WP adminship is that removing it can be horrifically difficult, and this, then, makes it seem advisable to require supermajority approval, even though it's likely that this simply "elects" administrators who haven't offended yet. Most will be fine, but the exceptions can cause serious long-term difficulties. If an admin is popular even though divisive, perhaps supporting a large faction, the admin can be grossly abusive and still difficult to touch. WP should back up and reconsider the whole process. I like Wikiversity for its use of probationary adminship, and exploring ways to deal with possible abusive adminship efficiently is of interest to me. So I tried putting something in this application about that. It could seem politically conniving, i.e., that I'm doing this to get more approvals, but, then, I'd suggest, this kind of "conniving" is handing power to those who might otherwise disapprove or abstain. If I did not think that this trade-off could benefit the project, I'd not have done it. It is highly unlikely to be of real consequence for me, as I believe is plain from my RfA 2 at Wikipedia. I've been very involved in controversy there, and that wouldn't have changed had I become an admin, because I would not have touched my active admin tools when involved. If I can't get consensus with requests and discussion, I'd simply be manufacturing unnecessary and divisive controversy. I'm much more likely to err toward too much discussion, and that's why I was sanctioned on WP, as far as I can tell.
 * I did not, however, apply for adminship to make some kind of point, and this promise was added as an afterthought when Ottava agreed to mentor, below. I applied because I was doing RCP and realized I needed rollback. In addition, I'd have speedied a couple of pages, and this would have been more efficient than putting up a speedy template, which I did instead. All of these pages were immediately deleted without controversy. This, for a probationary admin system, should be evidence in favor of approval, and I'm just suggesting, now, by my promise, that we might make this even easier and safer, with approval here merely meaning, "Okay, I'm willing to let you try, knowing that I can stop this immediately if I see a problem." I thought of extending this to any editor, not just admins, but am unclear about the consequences of that, which is why I held back. Your recall process is general, it seems. And I like it from what you've said here, I'll read it. I might make it a little more complex but both easier and safer, first thoughts. I declined to accept admin recall in my RfA 2 because of what I saw as severe process problems; yours is better and I might have accepted that, or modified it.
 * As to the expert issue, perhaps "expert" is the wrong word? I suggest discussing it there. I am, in fact, trying to set this up as a model that might be imitated, and "expert" could mean anything from a Nobel prize winner (I might be able to solicit one for the cold fusion topic, he's been active) to some fringe nut case, and with the latter, we'd decide whether or not it was worth the space and time. (This "expert" is expert on his fringe theories.) Our consensus is the leader of the seminar. If the "nut case" is reasonably notable, even informally, as in internet discussion, I'd support it, but would also want to see a neutral sponsor who would regulate it and keep it worth reading. I'm merely an advanced student, so to speak, who is also commercially involved. I'm now well known among many of the scientists in the field, and was just admitted to the private Condensed Matter Nuclear Science list on the nomination of a very prominent cold fusion scientist (a true expert in every sense). Because of my obvious COI, I certainly will avoid any revert warring or the like to preserve my own page there. Admins on small wikis sometimes don't follow this practice and revert war to preserve their own point of view, or even use tools, knowing that there are usually few consequences for an admin. But there is a consequence that can't be avoided: it drives away users, one or a few at a time. And here I go discussing too much.... but I won't delete it unless someone asks me to. WYSIWYG. --Abd 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Custodians willing to mentor
✅ The probationary period has started. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page, I would be willing to mentor. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * During my probation, I consent in advance to any reversal of my administrative actions, by Ottava Rima, and by any other administrator who has supported this nomination. In addition, prior to completion of probation, I will suspend usage of administrative tools in any area of activity upon specific request by any supporting administrator, and, as well, I request that any bureaucrat give speedy consideration to removal of my privileges, upon complaint by any supporting administrator, if I do not abstain as promised, excepting only actual emergency action as considered necessary and approved by the bureaucrat. (However, this promise will not survive removal of the admin flag from a supporting administrator.) Thanks, Ottava, your support is appreciated. I look forward to serving the community and the project, and appreciate the collegial atmosphere here. --Abd 16:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As Ottava has gone to meta and requested termination of my custodianship, I request that another custodian agree to mentor me, pending a possible request for permanent custodianship, and I'm open to discussing that here or on my Talk page or wherever desired by an interested custodian. The above consent is, of course, now revoked as to Ottava. I did not violate the promise, I did not fail to abstain after request. And I still thank Ottava for his prior support, it's unfortunate that it came to this, but duty is duty. My duty was to Wikiversity, not to my mentor. --Abd 03:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are given one thirty day period of mentorship. There isn't anything in the process to start a new mentorship with a new mentor. The proposal below was to give an extension, which is unique. As I said, wait a week and then, if you are up for it, apply for full adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Process isn't necessarily fixed as you imagine. If no custodian offers, it's moot. Cross bridge when met. --Abd 04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima was quite incorrect in his comment about there being nothing "in the process to start a new mentorship with a new mentor. On the contrary, it is explicit:
 * If your mentor evaluates you as unfit for permanent custodianship at any time during your probationary period, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. You may however reapply at a later date.

I was never provided the 48-hour period after notice of withdrawal, and because Ottava argued as above, and I hadn't read that section of the policy, I did not actively seek another mentor immediately. Rather than asking Jtneill to reinstate my custodianship because of the violation, I consider this application suspended, until process deficiencies are corrected. Jtneill could either reverse Ottava's decision, by resysopping, leaving me 48 hours to find a mentor, or simply leave this alone until I find a mentor, there should be no emergency, and then resysop when a qualified mentor appears. Jtneill, if he decides to simply reinstate, could, even without becoming a mentor, set any conditions he finds appropriate for the protection of the community from disruption.

Meanwhile, this request for Custodianship remains open for questions and comments by the community. I have been honest and open in my dealings with the community. Had I been a permanent custodian, I would have blocked Ottava as I did, so to refrain from blocking -- or at least requesting Custodian action, which I considered inappropriate alone because I saw an emergency character to the situation -- would have been, in a way, deceptive. Should I, as a probationary custodian, be on my "best behavior" -- i.e., avoiding all controversy, as clearly happens with those who want to be Wikipedia administrators, and the mask only falls off when they are approved)? No, what you see is what you get. I am standing strongly for improved and more efficient community process, which includes stricter (but gentler!) enforcement of civility policy, as well as establishing clear guidelines for recusal requirements, and better dispute resolution process, particularly when sysops become involved in a dispute. During my active probation, I demonstrated tools for attempting to actually resolve long-term disputes, instead of merely having some kind of weak decision on one side and then having a few sysops enforce it with others opposed, leaving the project, etc. I also did, by the way, substantial routine custodial work, but my long-term wiki interest, beginning on Wikipedia, has been improved wiki process, because dysfunctional process wastes huge amounts of time with little resulting value. To get there will take, however, lots of discussion, and some aren't willing to participate in that, which is fine. But some try to stop it, which is not fine.

I do not need custodial tools for my major work here, however. It's up to the community to decide if Wikiversity is better one way or another. --Abd 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You agreed to be terminated at any time per request. 2. Your mentorship period is 30 days as per policy: "During your mentorship period of four weeks". Selectively reading things like that is unbecoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for new mentor
Per Custodianship policy, I am requesting a new mentor to replace the resigned Ottava Rima. Any custodian considering mentorship may request that I agree to any restriction, or may ask questions prior to agreeing, here or on my Talk page or by email; if I don't like the restriction, I may decline the invitation, but I will appreciate all offers. Thanks. --Abd 19:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your mentorship period is only 30 days and ended over 2 weeks ago. There is no new mentor. "During your mentorship period of four weeks" is bolded in the policy for a reason. No one else in the community thought you were fit enough to extend the mentorship, which is not allowed within policy regardless. Ottava Rima (talk)  20:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is nuts. "Four weeks" is a rough positive statement. My mentorship was extended because Ottava requested it and nobody opposed. That's standard. Why, Ottava, are you attempting to prohibit a new mentor from appearing, when the policy is extremely clear otherwise? I don't have tools now, because Ottava prematurely yanked them, misrepresenting WV policy to the stewards at meta. Policy would have provided for a 48 hour period for me to find another mentor, before tools are lifted. The process for removal is explicit: Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 hour period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. This is really moot unless I find a mentor, but the point here, for me, is Ottava's willingness to tendentiously argue self-serving interpretations of policy and conditions, just as he did to justify his revision deletion of the block record, and his desysop request without providing opportunity for a replacement mentor. It looks to me like those who wrote that policy did, in fact, anticipate that some problem could arise between a mentor and the mentored custodian, so they provided a fair remedy to cover that. Further, there was no risk of continued (alleged) "abuse" of tools, because my personal agreement did provide for immediate emergency desysopping upon a showing of continued use of tools in spite of a request to stop from my mentor. Ottava could have shown that to any steward. But he did not, because the steward would have seen no continued action after a request to stop, hence Ottava, instead, relied upon the alleged 30 day limit. Wikiversity has a custodian who is dangerously ready to pursue his personal gain and opinions over following policy and serving the community, and he has not acknowledged the error, so it is almost certain to repeat. --Abd 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ottava requested it and nobody opposed. " That isn't how things work. You need consensus, not lack of opposition. You are getting to the point that the only thing that would stop your endless nonsense is a ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentor's recommendation for extended probationary custodian status
I believe that Abd's probationary period should be extended in a manner similar to Diego Grez as proposed by Jtneill.

As per Jtneill's statements about Diego Grez, it would be good if other editors sharde feedback or questions here about Abd's probationary custodianship. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ottava. My Talk page has always been open to questions about my actions as a custodian, but I don't actually recall any custodial actions of mine that have been questioned except for a few clumsy errors at the beginning. Conflict that has arisen has been shallow, except for one obvious case, where I haven't used tools at all. I assume that before permanent custodianship is considered, all objections will be considered and will have received due response from me. Thanks for the extension of time, I believe that it has been useful for me to have tools and learn to use them, and I remain open to recall or suspension of my tool use as provided in my candidacy, or otherwise. --Abd 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Today, Ottava requested termination of my access to tools, and it was routinely granted. This was in contradiction to the above recommendation, and the reason is obvious. I blocked Ottava for incivility, which, I assume, will be subject to review. Ottava had the right, I assume, to so terminate my mentorship, he is not required to give a reason, but his citing of routine expiration was a bit disengenuous, given the above suggestion. If another custodian wants to offer mentorship, that's okay with me, the promise I made with my candidacy would be the same. It was rather awkward, to say the least, to discover a necessity to block my mentor! It was not a hasty action. He'd have done better by honoring it, he had only a few minutes to wait before it expired when he unblocked himself. The real shame is that no other custodian intervened, a sign of how understaffed this place is. --Abd 02:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read, the above was a proposal. No one agreed to it. Instead, you had two people question your access. You only kept it for those 15 more days because I turned my back and didn't post anything more about it. You could have used the time to help your case but instead you acted inappropriately, blocked to make a point, and made a claim about civility which was completely blown out of portion. That isn't good. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is moot, Ottava. Eh, who questioned my access besides JWSchmidt, who is questioning every custodian -- and who had previously threatened to oppose my custodianship if I dared to criticize him? I could say more, but I'm not about to get into an extended debate about this. If it's important, someone else will chime in. I'm quite willing to answer questions from others. --Abd 04:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there are any custodians that would be prepared to act as mentor to Abd, I would suggest it would be better to not reinstate Abd's custodian rights at this time. I think we need to take time to calm the situation down and mop up any mess that has recently been created. I suppose that since Abd had had longer than the specified probationary custodianship period we might have to consider whether it would be necessary to start another probationary period before discussing whether or not to grant permanent custodianship. However, even in that case, I still think it would be better to leave the idea of custodianship for Abd for a while. Rightly or wrongly, it is my impression that Abd and to some degree Diego, have reopened old wounds, albeit with good intentions, and I think we need a period of time now to reflect on what has gone on and deal with any remaining issues. Adambro 10:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's merely a possibility. There is no emergency now. I used the tools because I had them, and any custodian, including Ottava, could have asked me to refrain, or could have reversed the action, that was openly allowed. It was just a bad idea for Ottava to do it himself, for all the classic reasons. As to old wounds, they were festering, badly, regardless of actions of mine. I attempted to lance the boil, and for all I know, there has been some success. There has been progress: what was easily seen as intervention from meta or Jimbo is now firmly established as local action, taken by two responsible custodians, thus reversible locally, by as little as a single custodian deciding to act, and all the way up to a formation of a community consensus. That's progress. Other benefits have been established, as I intend to show in the coming period. It doesn't involve or require my use of ops. There is no sign of impending doom from thunderbolts from on high. This community is responsible for its own affairs. But if it does not develop means of responding efficiently and effectively to crisis, it's possible that outside intervention could resume. I understand that the Taliban debated the wisdom of allowing Osama bin Laden to operate in Afghanistan. But they could not find consensus.... --Abd 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From JWSchmidt
I've long believed that Custodians qualify for Custodianship by their constructive activity in main namespace learning projects. Is this candidate more interested in wiki drama or learning? Speedy deletion is for vandalism. Can either Ottava Rima or Abd describe how Abd has been mentored? I get the feeling that Abd wants to apply Wikipedia policy to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ,, , etc are the sources for the copy and paste found in the School of Extended Studies at Portland State University. The Wikiversity page is a compilation of about 20 different pages on their website. At least 50% of the page is direct copy and paste. It has been deleted as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JWS, for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. This, however, was not an action involving use of tools, what I did could have been done by any editor. It was not a "speedy deletion," and when I placed the deletion tag, the edit summary was (tag for deletion, not a learning resource, not useful here.)
 * Strange, but I thought I saw "speedy deletion" on the deletion template, similar to what is shown in this image:

Does this show that you support the speedy deletion of non-vandalism pages? --JWSchmidt 07:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a custodian, I started patrolling relevant pages to assist in normal custodial cleanup. However, the particular page mentioned I did not find that way. There was a report on the Colloquium asking about School spam. I looked at a page cited there and agreed that there was a problem with the page. So, to begin the process, I placed a deletion tag on the page. The reason given was this page is not a learning resource, but a general description of a school, not useful here. I also placed a notice on the talk page of the editor, which I'd prefer be read.
 * The page itself was deleted by Ottava two weeks later, today, and Ottava notified the author of that. Later, the author asked for advice, and if someone doesn't beat me to it, I will undelete and userfy the page so that this user may access it to work on the Wikipedia article apparently intended.
 * I'll admit to being proud of how I handled this, and it was, until now, completely drama-free. The claim that deletion tags are only for vandalism is simply not true. They are used, here, for any proposed deletion that does not seem to require a Requests for Deletion discussion, which would needlessly distract editors. This was a non-oppositional and cooperative process, and doesn't resemble Wikipedia speedy deletion, which is complicated, abrupt, and often inconsiderate. It's more like Wikipedia PROD. There were no charges at all of vandalism. Is there some policy or guideline I've overlooked? --Abd 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The claim that deletion tags are only for vandalism is simply not true." <-- Who made that claim? Do you agree with this: "Deletion of pages that are obvious vandalism, obvious copyright violations, or have other content that is obviously harming Wikiversity and where the reason is self-explanatory can be deleted by custodians at any time without discussion (speedy deletion). Any non-obvious cases or cases that may require further explanation should be discussed at Requests for Deletion."? --JWSchmidt 07:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird. Who made the claim? Basically, you, JWS, above. True, you did not write "only," but the context of your question implied it. What JWS then quotes allows deletion of vandalism, etc., immediately, with no delay. That is true "speedy deletion," but the use of a tag asking for review for consideration of deletion isn't necessarily "speedy," it is just an ad hoc process for efficiency, for deletions which may not need to be discussed at length. Such deletions should always be readily reversible unless they were done for strong reasons. In the case cited, I came across a page where another editor had mentioned it as improper for Wikiversity. I judged that to be correct, but instead of immediately deleting it myself (true "speedy"), I placed a deletion tag, and also notified the author, something which I found was often overlooked with other deletion tags I'd been reviewing. I considered the case obvious, thus it fell into the cracks between the two cases cited in the policy. I followed an intermediate process between true speedy deletion (simple administrative decision, whether direct or upon some request), and RfD, which was simply to tag it and wait for a second opinion, as well as response by the author. As noted, this worked perfectly, apparently. As to whether or not I 'agree' with the guideline cited, I largely agree with it, and also consider that it can be improved. It can be read as requiring a deletion discussion for other than "obvious vandalism, copyright violations, or obvious harm." That is, quite simply, overkill and highly inefficient. Rather, the process I used is easily reversible if an error is made, and the notification of the author ensured that it would not simply pass without notice. JWS, the key principle of wiki effective process is efficient cooperation, which includes and requires trust that errors can be fixed. Please get that straight. --Abd 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "the context of your question implied it" <-- The context of my comment implied that speedy deletion had been used for the wrong purpose, which has been a problem since the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008. We now have sysops that specialize in destroying Wikiversity content rather than collaboratively improving Wikiversity. "It can be read as requiring a deletion discussion for other than "obvious vandalism, copyright violations, or obvious harm." That is, quite simply, overkill and highly inefficient." <-- Not by the standards of Wikiversity, where we welcome every participant and help them improve the pages they create. If you don't have the time or the temperament to welcome and help Wikiversity participants then you should not be a Custodian. If you want to apply the standards of Wikipedia, go become a sysop at that project. "Please get that straight" <-- The Wikiversity standard of cooperation is to allow community discussion at Requests for Deletion. I still don't understand why you voiced support for speedy deletion here, but I can't see what was on the page. It seems to me that if you had doubts about the page then it was not a candidate for speedy deletion and the community should have discussed it. --JWSchmidt 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm asking others to stop fruitless debate with JWS <-- In this case, Adambro created a mysterious thread at Request custodian action where Abd complained about my "reprehensible" behavior then walked away complaining about "fruitless debate". Is it constructive for a Custodian to label as "fruitless debate" a discussion where he does not hear unanimous agreement with his point of view? Abd wrote: "I have plenty else to do!". Maybe Abd is too busy to be a Custodian. --JWSchmidt 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments were as a user, I did not use or threaten the use of custodian tools there. I do think that my views there do or will enjoy consensus, but not necessarily unanimous agreement, apparently. The edit involved was one reverting myself, JWS perhaps has overlooked that? Here was the full edit summary; JWS incompletely quoted it: (Undo revision 583695 by Abd (talk)I'm asking others to stop fruitless debate with JWS, so I'm undoing my own comment.) Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this, apparently, JWS, you misunderstood what was written. --Abd 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "apparently, JWS, you misunderstood what was written" <-- How is that apparent? This is an example (one of many) where you have tried to apply rules from another community to Wikiversity and in so doing you felt justified to condemn my actions. A Custodian should not disrupt Wikiversity by imposing rules from other websites. A probationary Custodian should be happy to discuss their failure to appreciate how things are done at Wikiversity, not rudely dismiss the views of long-time Wikiversity participants. Once again you have demonstrated that you should not be a Custodian. --JWSchmidt 06:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Second try. Abd, what do you think qualifies someone to be a Custodian? When you come to Wikiversity are you more interested in participating in generating Wikipedia-style wiki drama or learning? Can either Ottava Rima or Abd describe how Abd has been mentored? --JWSchmidt 07:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS - I proposed that his mentorship period is extended. You have enough time to worry about such an examination later. :) But to answer your question - I showed both Diego and Abd how to use the various tools to help them with mechanical aspects. I have also talked to them personally about various issues on site and off site (emal, IRC, messageboard, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Qualification. On Wikiversity, the consent of the community is required to a trial with the tools, providing a mentor custodian or bureaucrat exists who is willing to train and restrain the new custodian (and request a steward desysop if necessary). No special qualification other than that is needed, because the custodian can learn on the job. The person should have sufficient good sense and wiki experience to not knock the pillars out from under the roof, but even that could be fixed. It is a wiki. If I went too far astray, Ottava would quickly stop me and if I didn't "learn my lesson," my tools would be yanked with no further ado.
 * My interest. I stopped beating my wife years ago. I simply wanted to have rollback so I could deal with vandalism in Recent Changes patrol. Turned out that wasn't separable on Wikiversity from the rest of the custodial tools, so Ottava suggested I request custodianship and offered to mentor me. He had quite a bit of experience with observing me on Wikipedia and elsewhere; interestingly, I'd been a fairly severe critic of some of his actions elsewhere, and his support and suggestion here shows how this community can sometimes allow users to set aside conflicts elsewhere. I have found the active custodians here to be highly collaborative, and tolerant of some possibly controversial actions, such as attempts I've made to begin reversing, where possible, some of the damage from the past. Funny that none of those attempts are mentioned by JWS....
 * How mentored? This is a wiki. Every action is visible. Everyone has helped me, when I needed help. And so far, I don't seem to have knocked over any pillars, there is only one user here who has been complaining, about anything and everything, and he's been complaining for two years. Is there a problem with how I've used tools? Have I used them outside of community norms? Where? When I requested custodianship, I specifically stated that I'd stop using tools on the request of anyone who supported the request. There are teeth behind that. But I've received no request to stop, no request to recuse from anyone, much less one of those specially qualified (as my mentor, for example.) I'm aware that I'm involved in some controversy now, but I'm extremely sensitive to community consensus and would stop at any hint that there is more than isolated complaint. Even one complaint will cause me to become very careful. But right now we have extensive IP disruption going on and a shortage of administrators, which creates extraordinary conditions. --Abd 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "No special qualification other than that is needed, because the custodian can learn on the job." <-- I don't agree. Some people are not suited for Custodianship. For example, a sysop must be a trusted member of the community. Does someone demonstrate that they can be trusted to help the Wikiversity project if they erroneously try to apply the rules of Wikipedia to the needs of Wikiversity, as you frequently do? "attempts I've made" <-- please describe these "attempts". "Is there a problem with how I've used tools?" <-- Just off hand, there are two examples under community review of how you falsified log entries. Also under community review. Why do you think this is an acceptable way to participate in a community review? "wasted way too much time" <-- Abd if you don't respond to a review of your Probationary Custodianship actions at community review then you should not be a Custodian. --JWSchmidt 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS, I will respond to a specific review of my actions, and one question at a time, but, see below, only if two Wikiversitans agree I should. But I'll now answer two points picked from the above, starting with an allegation that I'm applying "the rules of Wikipedia to the needs of Wikiversity." Nothing could be further from the truth. The "rules of Wikipedia" are largely derived from the natural needs of all wikis, including this one, which is not as unique as some might think. There are indeed unique policies here, compared to Wikipedia, such as the allowance of original research, but issues around civility and consensus, important to both projects, are not so different, it is merely that matters can become both easier and more difficult due to the small scale of Wikiversity. So sometimes what I assert as "policy" is what I more carefully call "common-law policy," being how wikis have almost all been administered since the beginning. Beyond that, we'd have to get very specific. And one other serious allegation:
 * falsified log entries. Frequently JWS makes it difficult to track down his allegations. Here, instead of simply linking to a relevant log, and as he's done many times, he uses a huge, visually disruptive image file. But what is behind this? What were the alleged "falsified log entries?" "Falsified" implies not merely something erroneous, but which is deliberately concealing the truth. It is a clear allegation of bad faith, not merely of error or inappropriate action.
 * log for Request custodian action, page history. Log summary: ‎(IP revert warring, blocked user). What was incorrect about this, let alone "falsified"? There was IP revert warring, that is, we had these edits:, , , . Note that in the last diff, Moulton claims that the edits were constructive. I could agree. I did not call these edits "vandalism," only that there was revert warring, defined as repeated insertion of content. It could be argued that Adambro was also revert warring; however, Adambro had a proper reason, on the face, for removal of the content, which I mentioned: the user was blocked (at that time). Many times, I pointed out to JWS that, if he was willing to take responsibility for the edits, he could revert them back in, and then Adambro would have had no basis for reverting, it would have been revert warring itself, without the simple justification of block enforcement. But, until recently, JWS did not do this, from which I draw my own conclusions. It is utterly beyond me to guess what JWS considers "falsified," here, and, I'd suggest, he really should apologize for making such a blatantly incorrect charge.
 * There are not two examples of my behavior in the section cited.
 * Now, there went a perfectly good two hours, writing this. The charge to which I responded was utterly false, and caution and care by JWS could easily have avoided this. JWS, however, demands that all questions be answered. See Candidates_for_Custodianship/Adambro, where JWS also asked a long series of questions at once, Adambro did not refuse to answer the questions, but only such a long list asked at once, and he requested that JWS pick out, perhaps, a few of the most important questions. JWS did not do this, but then added the sole opposition expressed to adminship for Adambro, based explicitly on "failure to answer questions." So this practice of throwing up many questions, often tinged with an appearance, at least, of hostility (it is not civil to accuse someone of "falsification," it is quite the same as accusing someone of "lying"), and then faulting the person for not answering them, when classic wiki advice is to ignore hostility, is an old tactic of his. Accordingly, I will not answer further questions from JWS unless I personally consider the work involved to be of value for the community, yet I will make an important exception, that uses a device from standard deliberative process:
 * As a candidate for custodianship, I have a special responsibility to answer questions from the community, but to some extent, this responsibility exists for all custodians. When it has become apparent to me, now or as a custodian, that the effort involved in responding to questions damages my ability to contribute to Wikiversity, I will respond, but only with a requirement that a specific question be seconded as needing an answer, by another Wikiversitan. While circumstances could exist where I'd need more (such as a second by a custodian), I consider it relatively unlikely, and will detail further conditions if they become necessary. Otherwise my responses simply compound the disruption being created by JWS, with far too little benefit.
 * And I hope that JWS can return to being a net positive contributor to this community. The paradox about his questions of Adambro is that some of them probably deserved answer, and some participants voiced general support for that (Jtneill, SBJohnny) but did not, themselves, pick out specific questions for answer. It is not impossible that a more collaborative and less confrontational approach to asking questions would have resulted in a better decision! Or the decision would be the same, I have not studied the situation at that time to adequately predict the result. --Abd 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

From SB_Johnny
Abd, my questions are from the perspective of a "retired" Wikiversitan (I don't even have my watchlist bookmarked anymore, but I do follow links from WR), so YMMV. --SB_Johnny talk 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You seem to me to be a very well-meaning and earnest person. If you become a Custodian, do you think you can really make a difference here?
 * 2) Rumor has it that Erik Moeller (WMF guy) said that Wikiversity has no future because it is run by trolls (or something to that effect). Do you agree? If you do, do you think you can out-shout the trolls? If not, what will you do to help improve Wikiversity's reputation?
 * 3) There's a delicate balance that needs to be kept between what the "foundation" wants Wikiversity to be, and what the "native WV people" want it to be. I don't think that balance has been found. What are your thoughts on that?


 * do you think you can really make a difference here? It's not clear that custodial tools would make a big difference in what I can do here. I've recently been involved in controversy and Ottava has, by email, yanked my probationary custodianship, but the controversy was not generally over use of tools, but simply over expressed opinions. (With one notable exception, I blocked my mentor for gross and blatant incivility, requesting immediate review by other custodians.) I don't need tools to express my opinions and plans and suggestions, and I do have lots of suggestions, based on over twenty years experience with on-line cooperative activity, including three years of heavy involvement with administrative issues on Wikipedia. What is not terribly clear is if anything can make a difference here, if the damage is not already too deep. I won't know if I don't try.


 * Erik Moeller (rumored): Wikiversity has no future because it is run by trolls. Do you agree? There are two statements there, I'll answer them separately. Run by trolls? Maybe, but I haven't concluded that. "Trolling" would be deliberate provocation. Never ascribe to deliberate provocation what may simply be inattention or lack of care or, even, some necessity. Moulton trolls, for sure, as part of his "educational program." I made one trolling edit on Wikipedia. It got a sysop desysopped because of his response. It was also a necessity, because that's what it took to get ArbComm to take the situation seriously. And the edit itself was legitimate, it was simply what I'd have done without the threat from the sysop. And then, does Wikiversity have no future as a result? I can't tell, my crystal ball is broken. I certainly see some serious danger, and I'm currently holding off bringing in new users because of the apparent inability of this community to deal with crises as they arise. Even the most blatant disruption simply leads to discussion and more discussion and discussion about the discussion and objection to the discussion and generally no action. And then action is taken that was not discussed nor based on discussion, leading to more protest and discussion ad nauseum. There are fixes. Do I need admin tools to demonstrate them? Well, maybe I can help. I provided some examples as a probationary custodian, which I'll present for review.


 * The balance between what the WMF wants WV to be and what the "natives" want it to be. My thoughts? WV will be what those who edit it want it to be, as long as this doesn't stray outside of what the WMF requires. In fact, if the volunteers here want it to be something that the WMF doesn't want to permit, the volunteers can simply move that activity elsewhere. As, you know, some are doing this already, perhaps they will be successful, there are now some heavy hitters behind that effort. But I think what the WMF requires hasn't been well-understood here, nor has it been well-articulated by the WMF or its representatives. There are solutions to possible conflicts between the WMF and the WV community, and they mostly involve WV becoming, itself, coherent. Right now it is incoherent, so dealing with WV, from a WMF point of view, is a bit like trying to negotiate with a schizophrenic who is incapable of making efficient decisions that will stick and can be relied upon. There are classic solutions to this problem and there are innovative solutions which I know about, and right now, neither are operative. I can say this: the status quo on Wikiversity will continue to function at a low level, being ineffective when there is conflict and controversy, thus risking interference and serious disruption and further loss of participation.

Thanks for asking. --Abd 02:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

End of Probation - Mentor's statement
Per policy, probation ends at 30 days. Then per policy: "If your mentor evaluates you fit for permanent custodianship, a request for comments will be submitted at Candidates for Custodianship for a period of five days.".

Ottava Rima, mentor of Abd, does not find him fit. As such, this process is now terminated. Abd's tendentious actions regarding other custodians in the past 48 hours plus his selective reading above suggests that his actions are not inline with our standards. He was granted mentorship with little community support and had little history at this community. During his limited stay, he nearly non-stop argued with multiple members of the community, ignored mentor advice provided to him in multiple emails, and repeatedly stated what our standards and policies are (or "should be" according to him) without having a basis or experience to justify such statements.

His temporary sysops were revoked as extending beyond his 30 day period, but his abuse of ops included multiple uses of the block button inappropriately - ignoring consensus, not seeking consensus, unblocking banned individuals without any discussion with full administrators, and other such actions that are clear violations of our community norms and standards. He was told to take some time off, and instead spent even more time arguing and bickering. His statements about other's "civility" are hypocritical in that he has made far greater disruptive statements in far wordier terms and far more often than most people who are in good standing in this community.

Only those recommended for full custodianship but fail through community vote are allowed to request a new mentorship. There is no provision within policy for a new mentorship when one is not recommended for a vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is wikilawyering, ignoring substance, and is unbecoming of Ottava, as was his incivility, which was far beyond anything that could be derived from my edits. He's free to withdraw his mentorship, but for him to effectively extend it, without objection from the community, as he did above (and paralleling the same process being used for Diego Grez), and then abruptly desysop, not following process, then claim the 30 day period as controlling, is quite offensive. My behavior is subject to review by the community, and Ottava is hardly objective, I am not here addressing the charges of abuse of ops. As of a few days ago, my mentorship period was active without objection from anyone as to its propriety. So, during that period, Ottava was my mentor, with the privilege of reverting any of my admin actions without wheel-warring, though that permission and condition did not allow him to do what policy would otherwise prohibit.
 * Since Ottava has referred to emails, I grant permission for any of my emails to him to be disclosed if he likewise grants such permission. I would redact his name and any other personal information not needed for consideration here. Any extended discussion of what happened, though, should be on a subpage.
 * However, continuing with technicalities, the actual policy:
 * At the end of your mentorship period, you will be evaluated based on how well you used your privileges and how you conducted yourself within Wikiversity. If your mentor evaluates you fit for permanent custodianship, a request for comments will be submitted at Candidates for Custodianship for a period of five days. During that period, other community members can comment on the request and express their support. If your mentor evaluates you as unfit for permanent custodianship at any time during your probationary period, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. You may however reapply at a later date.
 * I would interpret it this way, which seems clear to me: my probationary period was extended, without objection, for an indefinite period. The sentence If your mentor evaluates you as unfit for permanent custodianship at any time during your probationary period, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. You may however reapply at a later date. It is clear that "during my probationary period," as extended, Ottava came to the conclusion that I was "unfit for permanent custodianship," so at that point, I would be granted 48 hours to find a new mentor. The interpretation that the mentor may arbitrarily terminate the mentorship period and therefore obtain a waiver of the 48 hour period would be very bad policy, causing more waste of time. Why should a new custodianship request be required simply because of this? From actual practice (probationary custodianship continues during the 5 day period or otherwise until removal is requested ("After 48 hours") by the mentor.
 * What will happen if this candidacy is terminated, I can predict. I will attempt to identify another mentor. If I find one, policy then allows me to apply for probationary custodianship, for a new term. If I don't find one, I go on my way with a smile. --Abd 22:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

'''If your mentor evaluates you as unfit for permanent custodianship at any time during your probationary period, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. You may however reapply at a later date.''' The "during your probationary period" was clearly not intended to reverse the allowance of 48 hours, nor does it prevent reapplication if a new mentor is found. Controlling policy is not as represented by Ottava. --Abd 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in policy stating you have the right to even edit this page anymore. There is no multiple mentorships unless you failed the vote. You are not given the right to a vote. That is policy. Your claims of "wikilawyering" are exactly wikilawyering. The fact that you think that "during" would apply to over 14 days after the maximum period of time for mentorship is just pure disruption and you -know- it is disruption. Your actions for the past month have been disruptive and tendentious. Stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? All unblocked users have the right to edit this page, at this point. Ottava's arguments are getting more and more bizarre. "Vote"? Who talked about voting? Ottava is claiming that comment showing how preposterous his interpretations are is "disruptive." Okay, there is a user who has been making allegedly disruptive criticisms for two years now, filling process pages with tendentious argument, and he's currently unblocked. Who unblocked him? Ottava. Obviously, it depends on whose ox is being gored. Enough. Policy provides for a basically unlimited number of mentorships and candidacies, though certainly if multiple requests became a problem, that would be addressed. Ottava extended the probationary period by asking for it, which enjoyed the implicit consensus of no opposition (and consistency with Candidates for Custodianship/Diego Grez), now he claims that the probationary period expired at 30 days, allowing him to do what he could not do during the period. It will come out in the wash. Watch.
 * Any uninvolved custodian who considers my comments disruptive may warn me against it, on my Talk page. That has not happened yet. If even an involved custodian provides such a warning, I will respect it, while possibly appealing it according to due process. No longer my mentor, Ottava has no special authority any more. --Abd 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, Abd was not provided with a 48 hour period to find a new mentor before removal of custodian rights. I think such an opportunity should have been provided, as per Custodianship. I also think that it should be allowable for a Wikiversity user to undergo another period of probationary custodianship if a mentor doesn't recommend for custodianship. What do others think? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is what I've been saying. I have filed Custodian_feedback regarding this sequence. Wikiversity already has excellent and clear policy on obtaining custodianship. I'm not rushing about to find a mentor at this point, so there is a good chance that the 48 hours will expire without my finding a new mentor. Policy provides that I may reapply. While I could request that you resysop, because of improper removal, there is no need for that, it could waste Ottava and the steward's time if I don't find a mentor promptly, and less than two day's custodianship isn't worth the trouble.
 * I support the requirement that there be an approving custodian mentor, it is unfortunate that the present candidacy turned out as it did, but it may have been unavoidable, that is, a conflict appeared between what I saw as my duty as a custodian, to the community, and Ottava's position. As mentor, Ottava, I will again affirm, had the right to withdraw his support, unconditionally. He also had, per my prior agreement, the right to immediately request desysopping, but only if I disregarded his request to stop using tools, which he did not request. (I would have complied, it was a clear obligation.) That could become part of policy, a mentor should be able to restrain the probationary custodian by definitive action during the probationary period -- which lasts until the probationary custodian is promoted, or the tools are removed as described in the policy. "Four weeks" is the minimum period, not an arbitrary cutoff when probationary custodianship expires like some kind of pocket veto. I'll address this on the policy page. --Abd 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Minimum? You can' just make up words like that. "During your mentorship period of four weeks" It says "of". Not "of at least". There is no "minimum". It is a final amount. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show an example of a probationary period that was not more than exactly four weeks ("final amount"), from provision of tools to either confirmation or removal. Until removal, a probationary custodian is a custodian, with all custodial privileges, per policy. The idea that at the end of precisely four weeks the "probationary period" ends leads to the preposterous situation that we have a probationary custodian, with the tools, who is not "in the probationary period." There is a anomalous period provided in the policy, where a probationary custodian is still probationary, not permanent and not desysopped, but without a mentor, until the original mentor requests desysopping (after 48 hours if no new mentor has appeared). It's clear, crystal clear, in fact. This is currently under discussion at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship, and there is no support for Ottava's position, except possibly from JWS, who hasn't made it clear exactly what he thinks the policy is, in practical terms, he's just sure that it's not being followed. As usual. --Abd 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My mentorship period started 14 September 2008 and I was nominated 11 October 2008. 27 days and a few hours shy of 28 days. The voting started on the "one month" time exactly, 14 October 2008, but could have started from my acceptance. My mentor, midway through my mentorship, had to be switched. I also had at least 4 other admin offer to be my mentor without my asking. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ottava, for the example, which shows a number of things. First of all, your probationary custodianship was more than the "four weeks" that you have been insisting on. Your probationary period began from 10:23, 14 September 2008 until an unspecified date, since there was no 'crat close, but we can take the 'crat archiving of the discussion as adequate: 23:46, 21 October 2008. !voting was apparently opened 14:30, 11 October 2008, which was, as SBJohnny wrote, early from 30 days, it was actually a day early from four weeks, the actual period established by policy. (policy as it stood then requires a five day period after 4 weeks, which would then terminate on 17 October.) And this shows how rigid adherence to the literal deadlines in policy is not necessarily followed, if there seems to be no clear reason for waiting. That was a technical error, because the "probationary period" is an important aspect of the process, and opening !voting early could prejudice the !vote. But it didn't matter then, you had no opposition and six support !votes plus the replaced mentorship approval of SBJohnny, I wonder what he'd think now! I see now that you were originally mentored by JWSSchmidt. Did that end because he lost his tools, or because he set a condition that you did not want to accept? And you were also supported by Salmon of Doubt, that's an odd couple, though support for the start of mentored probationary custodianship is actually moot. It's not required, the discussion and question page beginning mentorship is an opportunity for the community to oppose and try to convince the mentor not to mentor, but creating a probationary custodian is a privilege, I presume, of a full custodian.
 * !voting from acceptance would be contrary to policy, my opinion. Certainly that's not what the policy provides for. People may comment during the period, though. Voting isn't opened until the time has elapsed.
 * The discussion doesn't show a 'crat close, a technical oversight. Mu301, who I think was a 'crat at that time, archived the discussion, though, on October 21, which suffices. The approval was obvious. Now, I can show many examples of probationary custodianships where the period was longer than four weeks, until removal or confirmation. But let's see what the community says.
 * Ottava, you were a probationary custodian from sysopping at 10:23, 14 September 2008 to close, 23:46, 21 October 2008, that's 37 days. Are you claiming that you were not a probationary custodian, subject to mentorship, between the ending of the four week period and the close? --Abd 17:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC) this section was put up and then edited to correct errors; the edit collided with the edit of Ottava below, so Ottava is responding to the previous version. --Abd 17:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote is not part of the probationary period nor is there any way to construe it as such. Furthermore, the mentor statement was put up while SB Johnny was only one a of a handful of my mentors at the time. Yes, I had multiple ones because of the situation and none of the admin wanted me to go without having a mentor or not meet the full custodian status. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And this matters because? As to "any way," Prior to the close, Ottava was not confirmed as a permanent custodian. If he is not, as he's claiming, a probationary custodian ("a custodian in the probationary period, where tools are held prior to permanent custodianship"), then what kind of custodian is he? It matters. If he is a probationary custodian, he's still under mentorship (or in the anomalous period of 48 hours after withdrawal or rejection by a mentor), and even if the mentor has approved, the mentor could withdraw that approval, and, as I interpret the policy, such a withdrawal would require a mentor substitution, and if there was no substitution, a confirming close would be contrary to policy (but, note, a 'crat could satisfy policy simply by substituting himself or herself as mentor), but, even more to the point, the original mentor could go to meta and request desysop if 48 hours have lapsed, thus terminating the probationary custodianship. That's moot in Ottava's case because he had a mentor who stuck with him through the !voting period. I do think I know why it's so hard for Ottava to understand this. --Abd 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of specific actions, Abd's statement
I have prepared a page with a list of every sysop action I took, and an explanation of what I was doing, my intention. Comments may be added to the page, at User talk:Abd/Custodian actions. --Abd 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Full Custodian Vote
Lets stop cutting hairs and move on. Please share your thoughts below and express your support or opposition to making Abd a full custodian. -- dark lama  17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the nominating statement from the mentor? --JWSchmidt 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't one, JWS. Darklama, if you want to proceed with this, you could volunteer to mentor me, immediately, I accept in advance, it would be within the formal 48 hour period, which would give you the mentor rights I accorded to Ottava. My understanding is that you could then relist this on the Candidates for Custodianship page, where it was prematurely removed. However, the procedure requires an approval from a mentor, before proceeding to vote. If you do not approve of my candidacy, you should remove or close (suspend) this section, it is otherwise premature. Personally, I'd rather take some time, my probationary custodianship period was complex, but I'm open to going ahead if people want to. --Abd 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, does this agreement that you made with your mentor mean that he was able to terminate your Custodianship at any time during your probation? "I will suspend usage of administrative tools in any area" <-- It seems that Ottava suspended your usage of tools in all areas. --JWSchmidt 18:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the agreement did not mean that. It meant what it said, I'd highly recommend reading it. In summary, it allowed Ottava -- or any "supporting administrator," to reverse any of my admin actions (which means that it would not be wheel-warring), and also to require me to suspend tool usage immediately upon specific request, and it provided that such a supporting admin could also request desysop immediately, with my prior consent, if I violated the requirement. I.e., didn't stop. Ottava never issued the prohibition specified, but went directly to a desysop request based on lapse of time, contrary to policy and procedure and not based on the agreement at all. Ottava did not suspend my use of tools, rather Ottava misled the steward as to our policy, which gives me 48 hours before the withdrawing mentor may request desysop, to find a new mentor, thus inducing the steward to remove the tools. You ought to be familiar with that one.... I have not contested it because it would only gain two days, per our policy, unless a new mentor shows up. Not worth the trouble. Just like I didn't revert war to insist upon keeping this listed on the page above, though, by policy, this page is still open today. --Abd 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava seems indecisive in whether he still supports you as a custodian and is your custodian mentor, or not. I think putting the decision to a vote is within policy because of that, and should be done instead of nitpicking on the details of the policy. However if that does not satisfy you I am willing to counter Ottava's indecisiveness with some indecisiveness of my own. I'll be your mentor if there is community support to make you a full custodian. How does that sound? -- dark lama  19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's actually indecisive, he's clearly concluded that I should not be a sysop, though I suppose he could change his mind (greater miracles have occurred), and he's making noises about blocking me or banning me. He's made apparently indecisive statements about whether he is still my mentor or not, but only because, I assume, he thinks that he might be better able to block my candidacy as my mentor. In fact, he's gone too far, he's rejected the candidacy, and if he sticks with that, policy would suggest that this is over in 48 hours. However, you have opened up !voting, Darklama, but nobody has !voted yet, so it's not too late to close this. Once !voting has actually started, my sense of tradition, if not policy, is that it continues. Ragged about the edges, but, after all, this is a wiki. It takes some time to get used to this, some people don't understand it even after years. --Abd 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds circular to me, since determining that condition requires the precedent condition. My interpretation of policy is that this vote cannot proceed without the actual approval of a mentor. My suggestion is that if you actually are willing to approve, provided others approve, that you go ahead and provisionally approve, which you could withdraw for whatever reason. My interpretation is that a 'crat cannot close one of these votes finding for sysopping, without the approval of a mentor, and that approval could be withdrawn. Note that if the community really does support the candidate, and a mentor withdraws, it should be easy to get another mentor. I could seek another mentor, but this is likely to be over soon anyway, if you want to take this through a vote. It's just that the approval of a mentor is clearly required for a vote. Ottava ain't gonna do that, my crystal ball tells me. Your provisional approval would put me under your supervision. Trouble with Ottava didn't arise because he withdrew his support, it was because he did not follow policy about it, in numerous ways, as others have now agreed. It was all set up to be very easy, and it only became disruptive because the obvious intention and language of policy wasn't followed. --Abd 19:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have already been through a mentoring process, and there may be no need to go through it again. A vote can proceed, but it may not count without approval of a mentor. If the community approves you as a full custodian, than I'll be your mentor and approve you as a full custodian too, and jtneill can than proceed with things according to policy. You may consider those my terms and voice whether you accept the terms or not. Consensus can overrule any policy as well, so if people support below than it doesn't really matter what the policy says. -- dark lama  19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's okay with me, I've merely been suggesting that policy is sound here, but, obviously, the community can create policy, so it can overrule it as well. On the other hand, there is supposed to be a decent !voting period, and right now this Candidacy isn't listed on Candidates for Custodianship page. At the least, Ottava's premature removal should be reverted. I tried. He reverted me and threatened to block me for it. He didn't need to, I don't revert war unless I have a Damn Good Reason. Better be really good. It wasn't, since, by policy, without a mentor, it was almost moot. If you have opened voting, it's not moot any more, but I think I shouldn't be the one to change it back. In any case, the procedure you want to follow does concord with the spirit of the policy. If successful the 'crat would be closing a supported candidacy, with a declared mentor at the end, which is what counts. If unsuccessful, that's fine, too, this can just be closed, period, nothing to do. It is not important that I gain tools immediately, if ever, that would be the only difference. --Abd 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is problematic to be having a vote without a mentor nominating for full custodianship. Clearly Ottava Rima terminated the mentor-mentee relationship and had Abd's sysop rights removed. There is some doubt about the procedure that took place here (i.e., not allowing 48 hours to find a new mentor during an extended probationary period). However, I am concerned that a premature vote here risks convoluting the knot even further. Personally, I'd prefer to see us take a couple of steps back and for Abd and any willing mentor to start fresh with a new nomination, probationary period, and nomination for full custodianship if/when the mentor and mentee decide to take that step. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jtneill, it seems to me that the WV custodians and others participating in discussions are thinking and speaking of collaborative learning, in principle, whereas, to the contrary, hopelessly suspicious of disruptive self-righteous behavior, in practice. Put otherwise, they look like having no intention from the beginning of collaboration for problem-solving and trouble-shooting, hence a deadlock with no breakthrough in sight. That is why Colloquium of my initiative has been practically dead, not to mention almost all the other issues at hand.
 * Take this agenda for example. Your previous comment, which should have been taken very seriously to collaborate anyway, was "Abd was not provided with a 48 hour period to find a new mentor before removal of custodian rights. ... What do others think? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)" [my bold face]
 * What was the result? Practically no one has responded to you. Your bureaucratic moderating gesture had been entirely ignored to no effect, I note seriously! Indeed, no one else than Abd and Ottava in question, only lacking in neutrality, has responded. Ottava should have responded to you rather than Abd. So should others, before they did anything else. For this would be the very right way of being colloaborative without being disruptive, as I understand. To me it is the moment the prestigeous burearcrats should show up!
 * BTW, I have only one moral principle, moral reciprocity, such that I do good or evil as you do! Fair enough?
 * -- KYPark [T] 10:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to Jtneill's comments, I oppose the idea of another probationary period. Abd has already had custodian rights for about seven weeks rather than the usual four and so it is unclear what would be gained. I haven't seen much to suggest that Abd would have acted any differently had he been mentored by someone else. The community should be able to adequately judge Abd's use of custodian rights from that period since it isn't like he hasn't been active and we usually feel able to assess a candidate for custodianship after four weeks with the tools. We are in uncharted territory here but I think a bureaucrat should respect the outcome of the vote below since the community can decide to do things differently as they choose and anyone who doesn't think we should do things differently can oppose as JWSchmidt has done. Adambro 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My doubts are two fold. a) Ottava seems not to have been clear in his intent to terminate Abd's custodianship before doing so and give him a chance to find a new mentor, and b) Ottava says he is still Abd's mentor. Both things put together suggest Ottava is indecisive. If Ottava is still Abd's mentor than the time has come to seek if the community is willing to make Abd a full custodian. If Ottava is indecisive, the community should of been deciding whether Abd should be a full custodian as well. The Wikiversity Community may also not feel that Abd needs to go through the probationary period again. In my opinion this vote is a good way to establish where the community stands, and what if anything should happen next. Jtneill, you wanted to know what others think too, surely this is a good way to find that out? -- dark lama  11:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Darklama! Prior to voting, you and others should have responded first to Jtneill's critical question of watershed, What do others think? Procedurally, all of you are duly expected to say anything, whether negative, affirmative, or whatever, but not so expected to say anything anywhere else! Otherwise, all of you are simply helpless and hopeless, I fear indeed.
 * I myself was foolish to take it easy enough to support Abd's full custodianship, as easily misguided by your good will such that "If the community approves you as a full custodian, than I'll be your mentor and approve you as a full custodian too, and jtneill can than proceed with things according to policy." Thus, I seriously ask all the others here to admit as much fault as I admit myself.
 * -- KYPark [T] 13:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * KYP, there is a whole background in wiki common law that is poorly documented but that, in practice, often trumps policy. This can be very confusing to newcomers and even to long-time editors who haven't studied the matter carefully, who have sometimes avoided or missed the edges where policy is inadequate. Darklama is not prohibited by policy from doing what he did. That's key. Unlike what some think, there is a very old basic principle, ancient common law: what is not prohibited is permitted. This flies in the face of what some casually think, that straying from what is permitted is a violation. It is not. We can create ever-more strict and clear guidelines, and straying from them could indeed become disruptive, but absent that, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Darklama, even if he weren't a custodian, would be blocked for this. Now, if this were considered to be disruptive by the community, it would demonstrate that. Disagreeing editors would simply edit the pages. Anyone can close a discussion, it is not a custodial privilege. But someone else might then undo that. At this point, there are common-law rules about revert warring. Repeated assertion of a text state, without discussed agreement, that one created oneself, is revert warring. So at that point the process becomes like a kind of alternating vote between "sides," and if someone votes twice, they can be blocked for revert warring. It's a rough wiki "majority rule." And if this is considered to be going on too long, the page can be protected, in this case, probably, full-protected, freezing this process until the community figures out what to do. But I don't think that will happen. Ottava, my prior mentor, agrees with going to vote, I accept it though I agree that it was out-of-process, and I don't see anyone intervening to stop it, merely to talk about stopping it. Talk is cheap.
 * I agree that people should have responded to Jtneill. But the community is composed of imperfect people, and they don't notice everything. Patience. It comes out in the wash. --Abd 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Abd -- KYPark [T] 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, Abd, I like seeing this case in the wide course of causes. I keep narrowing down what would be the worst causes of the most overriding troubles. Now it almost turn out to be self-evident. Nevertheless, what if custodianship of serious mental disorders, for example? I wonder indeed if it could be self-governed to the utilitarian advantage of the community at large.
 * The ball is now in the custodian court. While I just sit back, regardless of your preference, I like you being free enough to show a far greater power than in custody. According to Taoism, you could not fill up your arsenal with the best arms, without emptying it first. Kicked off, you'll miss practically nothing, I hope, if not earn and learn more. Anyway, we will destroy shamefulness and shamelessness, within and without.

Support full custodian

 * Support. Give the guy a chance. I have seen no evidence that would indicate he would abuse the tools. Tisane 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Throughout my virtual reality in WV though no more than the last two months, Abd has impressed me more than any other custodians, apparently remaining wiser, busier, kinder, bolder, sincerer, more constructive, consistent, moderate and persuasive. I am quite sure of his large capacity of problem-consciousness and problem-solving. I would support even Abd's Bureaucratship. Believe me. :) -- KYPark [T] 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose full custodian

 * Oppose - The most important thing to oppose over is that he hasn't shown edits in any of Wikiversity's learning spaces nor has he shown a committment to the project. His level of interaction is related to the same topics of those at Wikipedia Review and are more connected to drama than learning. He has abused the tools on multiple occasions. He stated he wanted adminship for rollbacks. He did not do any of the work he promised to do, and instead got into long fights with members of our community about various issues, such as making claims about policy that he lacked the experience to back up. Furthermore, with arbitrary acts such as unblocking Thekohser without discussion showed a lack of actually relying on community input before using the block feature. He was repeatedly told to stop fighting with JWS and stop being incivil to him through multiple emails and refused to follow through with that. There is plenty more, but I'm not going to make a multi-paragraphed statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The candidate was not nominated for full custodianship by his mentor. This vote for full custodianship was called for in violation of Wikiversity policy. If any bureaucrat is tempted to give the candidate custodial tools on the basis of this illegitimate vote, I want a chance to more fully express my objections to this candidate. A bureaucrat should terminate this illegitimate voting for a candidate who was not nominated by his mentor. --JWSchmidt 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * - I'm agree with Ottava Rima... --Bermanya 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly I must oppose this candidacy. Abd has lost a lot of my respect through actions that indicate to me that he is not qualified to wield the mop at this time. Ultimately, the fact that he did not honor his mentor shows me that we cannot find him worthy of the honor of custodian at this time. This opinion is final and irrevocable. Geoff Plourde 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This conversation has been rolling down hill for a while. Based on it I do not think he is ready. Thenub314 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to full custodianship primarily on procedural grounds i.e., the mentor didn't recommend for full custodianship and a new mentor wasn't found before a discussion and vote about full custodianship was conducted. However, I have been encouraged by Abd's willing engagement and good faith efforts to help and contribute to Wikiversity, his civility, and his transparency in discussing his ideas and actions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. I thank Jtneill for his help and support, and I look forward to future cooperation. I am unopposed to closing this, and considered summarily archiving it, but the arguments for allowing the community to continue comment to the end of the normal period prevailed for me. This has all been useful, in my opinion, and I thank all who commented, either here or on User talk:Abd/Custodian actions or elsewhere on what I have done. All. No exceptions. --Abd 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion full custodian

 * Question Could you clarify the status of your relationship with Moulton? Have you met with him in real life or arranged to do so? Adambro 17:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I attempted to meet with him once when I was in Boston for a colloquium, it fell through. There is no current arrangement to meet, but I do hope to meet with him relatively soon. My goal is to negotiate some settlement with him that would be acceptable both to him and to the Wikiversity community. I don't know if that's possible, but we will never know if we don't try, and I'm willing to put personal time into it. The result could save a whole boatload of disruption. If it fails, things won't be worse! Thanks for asking. --Abd 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I know you feel strongly about avoiding conflict of interests and so it seemed relevent since you've been involved to some degree with dealing with Moulton on-wiki and I became aware of a suggestion that you two might have arranged to meet. Regarding Moulton, my view is that he has shown he isn't really interested in negotiating and so I don't think we should keep trying, I don't think it is necessarily true that more failed attempts won't make things worse. As far as I am aware, Diego was mostly responsible for inviting Moulton to create the account Caprice and as far as I can tell, that effort provided a further demonstration of why his block is appropriate. However, it also seemed to reignite the Moulton situation and prompt him to make sustained attempts to evade his block and involve himself in community discussions. As I understand it, Moulton wasn't very active in evading his block recently before Diego's involvement. I'd suggest that Diego's failed attempts to negotiate with Moulton have caused disruption. I would therefore suggest that we shouldn't keep trying to negotiate if nothing seems to change and it would have been preferable to have had a proper community discussion about Moulton before these attempts to negotiate with Moulton were commenced. Adambro 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adambro. My work with Moulton does not depend on my being a custodian. --Abd 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You might notice that I also blocked Caprice at one point, and assisted you in reverting Moulton IP for a time. I disagree with your opinion about the wisdom of negotiation, and your attitude and approach, if continued, is pretty much guaranteed to continue disruption as an institution. I don't think I used tools outside of a reasonable effort to test the waters, and, if you will look at what actually happened during the brief unblock period that you terminated without any misbehavior after unblock, Moulton was relatively cooperative and civil. However, there had been no unblock agreement, so "failure" at that point was quite a reasonable possibility, so I was watching closely. The problem with Diego's unblock is that it was unconditional, apparently, and thus predictably failed. Against this, Adambro, is the fact that maintaining the block against a determined and experienced user takes constant effort, maintained, possibly, over years, and, involving range blocks and page protections, causes collateral damage. A little test, closely watched, is nothing compared to that. Obviously, I cannot make any agreement with Moulton as a representative of the community, but only individually, whether I'm a custodian or not, unless I'm authorized by the community, which I'm not. I'm an "ad hoc representative" of an "imputed or anticipated consensus" that may not exist yet. I would bring any agreement here for community approval. You also have to see that from Moulton's POV, being blocked is not a bad thing, it allows him to toy with you, taunt you, play cat and mouse games, and demonstrate abusive sysopping by tempting you to become excessive. Definitely a problem, Adambro, but the question is how to resolve it. Punishment doesn't work, period.
 * The situation of Moulton is quite complex, to truly examine it would take a lot of words. The situation of Thekohser (alternate account: Ethical Accountability is simpler; there, you have been blocking based on what community consensus? I've asked you, you only came up with vague off-wiki claims. I unblocked directly, after making sure that Thekohser was willing to try to cooperate, and was reversed by you, again without actual misbehavior and, indeed, the reverse. You have also blocked Thekohser IP without disruption appearing from that IP, nothing requiring sysop action (that's the whole idea of personally identified, self-reverted edits, no blocking necessary to keep unreviewed comment out from a blocked editor). I consider that you are in violation of policy in some of the blocks, but, hey, one thing at a time. I've also seen you as flexible, willing to consider other ways, and I hope that can continue. The real problem here is the lack of effective community supervision and guidance of custodians. --Abd 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - This deleted page in your user space. Did you create that? Did Moulton or someone else create that? For what purpose was it created? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I'm supposed to remember? It's deleted, Ottava, I can't read it, courtesy of your premature desysop. However, I might have been testing the ability of a logged out editor to create a user subpage, since you were asking Thekohser to do this. How about undeleting it so I can see? If it's something else, I'll respond! --Abd 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral I have seen many times Abd all around the wiki, but I can't support or oppose. He has done a good job, but I don't know what were the circumstances that Ottava Rima abandoned the mentoring of him. Diego Grez 02:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And @Adambro, I suggested Moulton to create that account with good intentions, I came here to help as a volunteer, just like the rest of you. Nobody is perfect and if I don't do something right, I won't get angry if someone changes it. :P Diego Grez 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Diego, your action was fine, as a test of the waters, and you did watch the account (Caprice) and you did reblock when there was an apparent problem. Recent matters have been brought to my attention that reveal more of the depth behind all this, confirming a little of what JWS has been noisily proclaiming, but now and here isn't the place to bring that out. We need a new and careful community review of the whole situation with Moulton, there are ways, I believe, to actually resolve this without damage, but it will take time, and I don't need custodial tools to do it. You tried to do something good, and that's all that is expected of custodians. You have my approval for full custodianship, precisely because you "won't get angry if someone changes it," which means that there is no risk from your mistakes, if they are mistakes, you'd have to be making lots of them for it to be a problem, and you don't. Weird, isn't it? Ottava went to meta to claim that routine practice would be to terminate custodianship because more than four weeks had elapsed, in order to induce a steward to yank the tools outside of actual process, but .... how long has it been with you? --Abd 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * to JWS - Terra's RfA had a mentor who opposed. I have no problem with Darklama's calling for a vote, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to be able to agree on something again (it used to be common). In general once commenting has begun, even out of process, and with all processes, it is the norm to complete the comments. The closing bureaucrat can still review the whole thing and decide based on arguments and the presence or absence of any necessary elements, such as an approving or at least consenting mentor, and could even waive that if there was sufficient basis in community consensus and sound argument. Bureaucrats are servants of community consensus, and of policy only insofar as that reflects actual consensus. Where a contrary consensus is clear, and the arguments are sound, a bureaucrat is free to set aside the technical requirements of policy. --Abd 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What has been done can't or won't be undone. -- KYPark [T] 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Darklama's calling for a vote" <-- It is clear that there are a few sysops who "have no problem" violating policy. --JWSchmidt 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See : Community_Review/Problematic_actions -- KYPark [T] 12:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Point of order. While the mentoring process was set up as a means to help us get enough custodians to run the site in the early phase of wikiversity, there wasn't any discussion of making it the only means.  It is a good system, but community consensus is the actual requirement.  The current system has its share of problems. In fact I have seen controversial candidates ushered in by unsuspecting and often well-meaning mentors, even against community objections.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 10:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I pointed out before that the WMF requires community consensus for someone to be an admin to ensure that crats do not just appoint whoever they want. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Community consensus is still community consensus even when established beforehand. Theoretically at least, there could be a community consensus that crats can appoint whoever they want as an admin, and that could last as long as no new community consensus isn't opposed to doing things that way. -- dark lama  13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The WMF requires -specific- community consensus on a -specific- individual. They require it to be done through a vote like system. There have been instances where a crat started randomly appointing people because they wanted to and they were removed. Small wikis are also denied a crat just for that reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you highlight where this policy is documented? I've had a quick look around Meta and couldn't find anything. Cheers. Adambro 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it is off the top of my head, but things like "For permanent sysopship please provide a link to the local community approval. For temporary sysopship please state for how long and for which tasks you need it, and link to a local announcement." are part of long term consensus on the matter and how the WMF handles it. Otherwise, a local project could be taken over by a crat and a handful of friends who are all admin and they shut out everyone else. Problems like that happened at ru.wiki with meta being used to remove various people involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When Wikiversity launched, Cormaggio was given bureaucrat tools and he appointed a few sysops to deal with immediate tasks like protecting the wiki from vandals and doing page imports of existing Wikiversity pages. There were soon requests for sysop tools coming from people who Cormaggio did not know. As shown in this chat log, Cormaggio suggested that Wikiversity, "have some sort of nomination system and not voting system for choosing admins". Sebmol set up such a system and by the next day the first probationary custodian was created, see History of Wikiversity/Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JWS. There is good wikitheory behind the Wikiversity probationary custodianship system. I would not have suggested bypassing it, but there is also wikitheory behind keeping the vote open here, once some people voted. Bottom line, if the closing 'crat decides to promote, and there is a community discussion to point to showing adequate support from the community, it is highly likely that a steward will not nitpick the 'crat decision. Bureaucrats are specifically trusted to make the decisions in gray areas. Otherwise the 'crat would be superfluous. Because emergency desysop is always possible (this can be abused, but it requires a high-level functionary to sign on to it, which is a minor level of protection), local 'crats are given the ability to award but not to yank admin tools. If they could yank the tools, it would be like the 'crat was every custodian's mentor, and the WMF consensus is that it is dangerous to create such a dictator, making unilateral decisions. Our mentorship system allows this kind of supervision, by a single mentor for a single probationary custodian, and the mentor is responsible for errors of the mentored probationary custodian. So, basically, the more Ottava claims that I was being disruptive, the more he impeaches himself.... What he's done is to go back, now, and complain about actions that didn't receive a reprimand or reversal from him at the time, it's clear why he made his decision, and, shall we say, he was involved, it was personal. In fact, I wasn't disruptive with tools, unless blocking Ottava for incivility after an ignored warning was disruptive, which the community should decide, and the only prior complaints from Ottava (by email) were about discussion with JWS, which I could certainly continue regardless of tool status. He apparently thought I should just ignore JWS.
 * Yet Ottava is supporting an indef block for JWS. The fact is that Ottava unblocked JWS with conditions, and has not enforced the conditions; Ottava could reblock at any time without warning, my judgment. Basic principle: any custodian can undo what the custodian has done. Always. I proposed a topic ban for JWS, to address the actual disruption, and providing for ways that JWS could still engage in criticism under restrictions designed to avoid the sprawling useless discussion we have seen for two years. Those who support the block did not support the ban, which makes no sense unless what is really desired is to get rid of the guy who has been criticizing them. Tangled mess. I did not create it. I've also, at the same time, only responded to a fraction of JWS's questions of me, and JWS is complaining about my lack of response.
 * You can't please everyone, but it seems that if I aim for the middle, the extremes are pissed. Bad situation. If the middle doesn't show up and support moderate but effective action, this thing is sunk. Hint: this is how Wikipedia was largely taken over by extremists. They would show up to !vote, and the middle was disgusted by the whole process and all the flame wars, and stayed away. --Abd 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You were told that your unilateral unblock of Thekohser was problematic multiple times. In the above multi-paragraph statement, you pretend that you were not told it was problematic and an abuse. This is very problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My unblock was one action. How many times was I told and by how many? Diffs? I'm not "pretending I was not told," I certainly knew that Adambro disagreed, he (properly) commented on my Talk page. A disagreement with an action is not the same as a claim that it is an abuse. I did not wheel-war. I do intend to start a community discussion as he was saying was necessary. I don't agree that it was necessary, but his reblock does make it necessary. That's how a wiki works.


 * Look, I knew that the action was "problematic," i.e, that it wasn't what you and Adambro wanted to do, but not "disruptive," and not likely to cause harm. It caused no harm, in fact, and my actions with Thekohser in general created some good content. More harm has been caused by the reblock. Adambro did not have the right to wheel-war with me, but I did not raise a stink. You had the right to undo any tool use, and to prohibit me from further action, specifically or generally. I don't see that you did that. And that's my point. If I was as disruptive as you are now claiming, you could have given me clear instructions, all the way up to prohibiting all use of tools, or only allowing a certain class of tool uses. You did not do that.


 * Instead, when I blocked you, and I fully knew you could, if you believed it necessary, unblock yourself instead of waiting for the 2-hour block to expire, you did not respond with supervision, you responded with an immediate request for desysop at meta, presenting a deceptive interpretation of policy, allowing you to bypass the policy-required 48 hour period to substitute a mentor. That the request wasn't routine as you pretended was noticed at meta, by the way, by jayvdb. The stewards don't want discussion there, for good reasons, and if Jtneill had wanted to, he could have reversed your action, but I advised against it.


 * I am aiming as I have always aimed, when it comes up, to interdict administrative abuse, which generally means recusal failure. This I would not do except as an ordinary user, I wouldn't (and didn't) wheel-war over actions I disagreed with. Abuse is not the same thing as error, but it can create situations where error becomes entrenched. I'm seeing many examples now where Ottava is using tools based on his personal feelings and opinions for policy and consensus, it's becoming routine, it seems. That's not really a discussion for here, but readers should know that Ottava is far from a neutral mentor making a sober decision that I abused the tools while I had them. I urge readers to look at User talk:Abd/Custodian actions for a list of all my custodial actions and my comments on them. Others are welcome to add comments there. And I've started Custodian feedback to examine Ottava's recent actions.


 * Still, I'll raise the pot calling the kettle black argument. Supposedly I abused the tools. I'm claiming that both Ottava and Adambro abused the tools, but Ottava's actions were more serious, Adambro's are not so clearly outside of consensus, just a little. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a comparative list of actions for Ottava and myself? For the period? For myself, what do we have that's controversial? Let's see: I unblocked Caprice to match the existing unblock for Moulton, as a closely-watched trial. I unblocked Thekohser after he'd made a series of highly cooperative edits, it takes real cooperation for an editor who was blocked without process to revert himself "per block." And I blocked Ottava for what I saw as blatant incivility continued after warning. It's documented in the Custodian feedback report, and in pages linked from there. If I was more concerned about my own custodianship than the welfare of this wiki, I could easily have not done the latter, or even the former, I could simply have waited a bit for the full custodianship. But WYSIWYG, that's always been my personal policy.


 * Now, as to Ottava, a partial list would be misrepresentation of status and policy at meta to have me desysopped, and the revision deletion of his own block log entries. (The unblock itself was technically permitted by my mentorship agreement, but he'd have been far wiser to leave it alone, but nobody supported the revision deletion.) He revert warred with me on Candidates for Custodian, which is ordinary editor abuse, but then followed up with a threat to block me if I reverted him, which is equivalent to blocking while involved. He also threatened a block or ban if I continued to explain the policy in the way that seems to be a consensus for everyone else. Those are serious abuses of ops. If my unblock of Caprice was a problem, though it allowed no abusive edits, then what about his unblock of JWSchmidt, which created hosts of distruptive and highly distracting edits, so much so that Ottava is not supporting an indef block for JWS. (I oppose that, I proposed a far less damaging remedy of a topic ban, with specific allowances for continued criticism, contained. No support from Ottava for that. Apparently, he prefers blocks to the negotiation of limits, filtering out disruption from legitimate criticism.) If the community allows this, I'd say it's over for Wikiversity. Never mind whether I'm a custodian or not, my custodianship is, in itself, a minor thing. One more broom on the floor. But watch out for custodians who use that broom to beat up participants and to shoo them out the door, without necessity. They will wreck the place.


 * Ottava could have, more simply, commented on my actions on the list of actions page I have referenced. Nope. He does not want to be specific. He does not diff the supposed claim of abuse, and he conflates a claim or warning of abuse with a disagreement with an action, i..e, "problematic," so that he has cover. What policy or settled consensus was violated by the unblock of Thekohser? Here is how it looks to me: these are the techniques of someone who has come to consider himself above policy and consensus, he's learned that if he avoids getting specific, he can get away with misrepresentation. Alternatively, he's incompetent. Both would be problems with a custodian. He was forced to defend, here, his indefensible position on the 48-hour period for me to find another mentor, in order to show that he had misrepresented policy at meta "in good faith," i.e., he really believed the preposterous interpretation he was promoting. It's a tangled web of hasty actions followed by rationalizations, with no emergency justifying hasty action. He had process available to him to immediately stop my use of tools (or, indeed, immediate desysop if I ignored his prohibition). Why didn't he do this? That may be an unanswerable question, but there is an obvious speculation: he was angry. Nothing wrong with getting angry, but sysops, when angry, should set down the tools! It's important. Is there any place in my history here where I used tools in anger? Every action was aimed at serving known consensus or anticipated consensus (so far, no consensus has appeared against any of my actions, and already Ottava has been reversed on the block log matter, with consensus), and at finding ways to resolve the conflicts that have torn this community apart and caused many to leave. SBJohnny would be one of those, and why did I block Ottava? For calling SBJ a "liar" or "lying" (The diffs can be found on the feedback page or linked from there). It's not important whether or not Ottava was right, though I think it highly unlikely that he was right. We don't allow that on-wiki. Or do we when the editor's name is Ottava? You know, it's tempting to use his real name, once I looked at what JWS has revealed about Ottava claiming to be the prime mover at Wikiversity, under his real name, explicitly also signing as Ottava Rima, that name, on the foundation-l mailing list. Ottava clearly doesn't care about the revelation of his true name, but what was used to justify the rapid blocking of Caprice? "Outing." In the end, the whole thing stinks, badly. --Abd 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Summary: Ottava is an abusive sysop, and he realized that I was a threat to that, though, in fact, I would not again use tools touching him, it would be clear recusal failure. I don't do recusal failure. --Abd 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "It caused no harm" is exactly why you should not be granted the custodian tools. You attempted to unblock a globally locked user without consensus and claim that it would cause no harm. That is a severe lack of judgment. The rest is all dissimilation and distraction from your own faults. This is about you, not me. So far, you have taken no responsibility for any of your actions nor have you attempted to be part of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll stick with the statement that it caused no harm. Ottava is speculating that it might have caused harm. No contradiction. Simple. Ottava can't read accurately, he sees what he expects to see. As to unblocking a globally locked user, there is no consensus here against doing that, and there was plenty of discussion about how to do it, with no strong opposition. This is some kind of "major abuse" that Ottava has made up out of his sense that if he doesn't valiantly keep Thekohser out of here, the gods will descend tossing thunderbolts around. They won't. They aren't out for revenge against Thekohser. The only discussed consensus at meta was that local wikis should make the decision. I'll note that Ottava offered to unblock Moulton, as Caprice, if Moulton would promise not to out users. If what I did was offensive and problematic, what Ottava did was clearly quite as offensive (promise something that he now considers abusive). No, it is quite obvious. When I blocked him, Ottava went back and regurgitated everything he hadn't liked but was not willing to oppose openly at the time. He had not complained that I was abusing tools, he only didn't like that I was "arguing with JWSchmidt." Which didn't involve use of tools. He could have asked me to stop using tools, in whole or in part, at any time. He didn't. But when I blocked him for blatant incivility, repeated after warning, which I understand to be completely within policy, it was minutes for him to go to meta and request a "routine" -- unprecedented and contrary to clear policy -- desysop. The block would not have been repeated, or I'd be making a mockery of everything I've written about recusal failure. Look, this process here is about me, but I don't really care about that. I do care very much about the ownership of this project by Ottava. A negative !vote just opposed because I didn't "respect" my mentor. I'd like people to think about what a probationary custodian should do if he discovers that his mentor is seriously damaging the project. Where should his loyalty be? To the mentor or to the project? The mentor had the unrestricted power to stop any custodial action of mine, but not to stop me from expressing my opinions. Demanding "respect" for a mentor may be some kind of good advice, for someone who desires to gain the mentor's recommendation, but it's not good advice for the welfare of the community, and that !vote calls my attention to a serious attitude problem. By process, I should not have been immediately desysopped unless I used tools against Ottava's permission (that was the due "respect," in fact), I should have had 48 hours to find a mentor, and if I didn't, then this process should have been close with immediate desysop. Simple. Ottava made it very complicated by his out-of-process actions, leading then, to other out-of-process actions, such as the opening of the vote by Darklama. Don't do that again!--Abd 22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions of KYPark
Did Ottava say that seriously or jokingly? -- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava did not say that, it was not a quote. That is a slightly sarcastic summary (sarcasm can be effective for a brief summary) of what I know of Ottava's motivations from what he's written in many places, including off-wiki. He believes, I infer, that he is protecting the wiki from outside interference, up to and including a feared closing of Wikiversity. --Abd 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe Ottava would keep his promise 100% to unblock Moulton if Moulton promises not to use Ottava's real name? -- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not the requested promise. It was not "out users," in general, though the specific example that Moulton then created was using Ottava's real name. Moulton's position is that this real name is well-known, it's not a secret, and has been used, openly, by Ottava off-wiki in promoting his association with Wikiversity. I believe that Ottava would have kept his promise, which was partly my point. Ottava promised to do what he later considered improper for me to do, that is, unblock without a prior community discussion. --Abd 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the main reason why he didn't like you arguing with JWS? -- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the same reason I don't like arguing with JWSchmidt. It usually goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, so I've confined it to a few exceptional cases. I think there are others, particularly Darklama, but not limited to him, who also have "argued with" JWSchmidt. --Abd 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds extremely funny that the the main reason for the main cause of the trouble, as you see, is unclear! Was Ottava such an authoritative mentor? Almost always? As if the owner of this project? -- KYPark [T] 00:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not describing "the main cause." No, Ottava wasn't an "authoritarian" mentor (I think that is the word you intended.) He was quite laissez-faire, until I blocked him for incivility. Not toward me. Toward someone else. --Abd 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds a striking allegation. The community should know about his ownership. Could you let it do so? -- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I can substantiate it, but that is really, in the end, irrelevant here, beyond a suggestion as to why Ottava might be biased in his recommendation and arguments. I have started with Custodian feedback which is where a dispute with a custodian that can't be resolved by direct discussion should go. But that's a narrow report, the full issues would be considered in Community Review/Ottava, which would be premature, and I hope we don't have to go there. I'll note that if there is not substantial community comment on the Custodian feedback page, leading to a resolution of the issues, it is quite possible that a Community Review will be necessary. Only a Community Review, absent emergency, can desysop a permanent custodian. --Abd 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that "Only a Community Review, absent emergency, can desysop a permanent custodian"? Adambro 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, only a steward can desysop any custodian. If anyone can convince a steward, it will happen. Normally, though, the steward will want to see a community consensus, absent emergency. The steward may or may not be careful about following WV policy. What the policy requires is a new seven day community discussion, with a local close by a 'crat, and if the 'crat decides on desysopping, the 'crat requests it from the steward's noticeboard. While the policy doesn't exactly specify a Community Review, what else would it be? Under Obscure discussions/Nothing to see here? Eh... seriously, wherever it is, there should be substantial notice of it in places likely to be seen, perhaps upon some kind of condition so that not just any Community Review gets widely noticed. Desysopping is a drastic measure. But without it available, there aren't any teeth behind policies restricting custodial actions. --Abd 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How seriously did he damage the project? -- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is as yet unclear; the incivility repeated after warning was the justification for the block, and this is particularly egregious when it is a custodian who is being uncivil. The immediate harm would be a continued opinion by the attacked editor that Wikiversity is unlikely to recover from the serious and ongoing dysfunction, but there are other harms from incivility that is tolerated. I have addressed this in detail in a response to Jtneill on User talk:Abd/Custodian actions. --Abd 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Few others than Jtneill attended to this injustice, the resolution of which must be much simpler than voting. Why didn't you insist on the simpler? -- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I did not want to seek a mentor under rushed conditions, so I considered it likely that one would not offer. Had one offered, within the 48 hours (and, probably, even after, maybe with an additional formality), there would have been a basis for immediate resysop, but I was not willing to request that Jtneill resysop just to gain a few hours of probationary custodianship, and Ottava could easily have prohibited all tool use, if he cared to, thus making it completely useless. (That promise, as written and intended, survived his mentorship withdrawal, if that's interpreted to have taken place, he never made it clear.) I would have left this candidacy in place for 48 hours, then it could have been closed if no mentor appeared. Simple. It was only Darklama who made it a bit more complicated by opening voting; I asked him to reverse that, but he declined. When actual voting started, I accepted it according to wiki tradition.

Who mentioned the vote first?-- KYPark [T] 13:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without checking, I believe it was Darklama. That was also an out-of-process action, though of a different character than those of Ottava. Not all out-of-process actions are a problem. --Abd 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Summing up, thank you so much for answering my distracted questions in the distressed situation, Abd. You have proved yourself to be far sincerer than I as a mere newcomer would have expected from others, say, Jtneill, Ottava, and JWSchmidt (as in case of Community Review/Problematic actions). I am sure your answers would greatly help this community better judge the current situation of extreme disruption. Cheers. -- KYPark [T] 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KYP, but we share some philosophical background that some others might not have. This medicine might be too strong for the patient just yet. Maybe they need a more skilled physician than I. Or maybe they don't want to get well. I can't tell yet. --Abd 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Full Custodian Vote, motion to close
It's fairly clear that this "vote" will not resolve in a consensus to promote Abd, so the vote should be closed.
 * Support, as proposer. While I know Darklama's motivations for starting this poll were both creative and well-intentioned, I'm afraid it's actually backfired and inflated the tensions surrounding this situation. I encourage Abd to find another mentor with whom he can form a more egalitarian relationship, as this would have the additional benefit of giving him a month to absorb what's happened and come at things freshly next time. --SB_Johnny talk 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Thenub314 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral I initially opposed the opening of voting here as an unnecessary deviation from policy. However, once it was opened, I accepted that it should be allowed to continue because it allows the community to express approval/disapproval of my actions, thus, even if it closes with inadequate support for promotion, it will provide some level of guidance for a future candidacy. I'm finding it valuable. But I'm not opposed to closing, it's really up to what the community wants, and I have a great deal of respect for SB_Johnny. I don't think that closing it will relieve the "tensions," though, and I'd urge looking at what tensions are caused by the actual voting here, and what are caused by underlying problems. Did, for example, Thenub's opposing vote cause additional tension? I don't think so. Rather, it discloses to me that there is some view that I should consider in the future, perhaps to be discussed. This is how problems are solved, not by sweeping them under the carpet. --Abd 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, I agree that it's an opportunity to learn. I just don't think learning necessarily entails stomping on sore nerves, which is what seems to be happening here. A month to cool off would (IMO) bring a bit of (much needed) maturity and wisdom to the discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's why my comment was "neutral," not "oppose." --Abd 18:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Let's give this nomination the mercy it deserves and humanely kill it. Geoff Plourde 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Following Custodianship for how long discussion for full Custodianship should be open for, this should be closed in 2 more days anyways. How much longer do you think consensus to close this would take? Seems like it would take longer to reach consensus for the motion to close this than just following how long full Custodianship discussion should be open for. -- dark lama  19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a 'crat decision. There is enough support for close to justify it at this point, unless opposition appears, but ... the argument for leaving it open for two days is also cogent. As I've written, I personally find this valuable, and I don't think it's actually inflaming any dispute that doesn't already exist independently. There are questions being asked that probably should be asked and answered, and that might be asked anyway, with or without a close. So ... whatever you think, 'crats, 'sfine with me. --Abd 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree when to close is a bureaucrat's decision. I was trying to put this discussion into a normal context, granted though this isn't a normal situation. Like jtneill, I think discussing the motion to close distracts from discussing and considering key issues that may affect support or opposition to full Custodianship. The moment I proposed this discussion I was prepared to step back and let jtneill and any other bureaucrat decide what should happen next, like Custodianship says. I can even agree with describing what I did as cutting corners, since that may be part of the end result, although I also consider the situation is be a gray area not covered by any policy yet, and this seemed like the best way to deal with that particular gray area. -- dark lama  14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I am concerned that corners were already cut - not giving Abd 48 hours to find a new mentor and bringing to vote without a mentor recommendation. So, I think we should let it run for 5 days. I'm also not convinced that some key issues have been discussed i.e., those described at User talk:Abd/Custodian actions are what I imagine a mentor might have brought forward for consideration. In particular, arguably the key one was Abd's block of Ottava - some further discussion about what the community would like to see happen in such situations could be helpful for us all. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * support closing. According to policy, community discussions of candidates for full custodianship are initiated by the mentor, not some random onlooker, as was done on this page. There is no probationary custodian to make into a full custodian. The probation was terminated by a Steward according to the terms of an agreement made by Abd with the mentor. This is not the correct forum for discussing "such situations", Wikiversity talk:Custodianship is the place for such discussions. --JWSchmidt 05:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above comment by JWSchmidt contains a blatant error, I ask him to correct it. The probationary custodianship was not terminated "according to the terms of an agreement made by" me. Period. It was closed out of process, through a deceptive request by Ottava, claiming it was "routine," that was functionally unnecessary because the actual agreement provided that Ottava could, in his sole discretion, prohibit me from using tools, partially or wholly, and it only provided for steward removal of tools if I violated that prohibition, which I did not, because none was issued. If this poll was improper, then any editor, including JWS, could have stopped it. I supported stopping it, but could not personally stop it for rather obvious political reasons, I'd have been accused of trying to avoid allowing the community to give me its opinion. Once it was open and !votes had been made, I supported continuing it to the normal conclusion, thus still hewing reasonably closely to policy. I agree completely with Jtneill's comment. Largely, the community is wasting this opportunity. That's not Ottava's fault, though he can be faulted for not discussing the elephant in the living room, my blocking him, and it's obvious why he has focused instead on quite minor stuff. He does not want that block discussed, because it was based in policy enforcement, neutrally applied. Does anyone think I was itching to block my mentor? Take responsibility, you who actually have the power here. Will you express yourselves and do what needs to be done, or will you sit back and make shallow comments, mere unconsidered opinions, and see what results you obtain? If you like the status quo, what you do is what you get. --Abd 13:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "a blatant error" <-- Abd, I assume that the Steward who terminated your sysop status read this statement that was made by you. Any Steward reading that would take note of the fact that you expressed the idea that a bureaucrat might terminate your sysop status, while such decisions are made by Stewards. Abd, you wrote, "In addition, prior to completion of probation, I will suspend usage of administrative tools in any area of activity upon specific request by any supporting administrator, and, as well, I request that any bureaucrat give speedy consideration to removal of my privileges, upon complaint by any supporting administrator, if I do not abstain as promised, excepting only actual emergency action as considered necessary and approved by the bureaucrat", which any Steward is likely to interpret as you having granted permission to terminate your probationary custodianship upon request of the mentor. --JWSchmidt 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS, a far more frequently correct assumption would be that the steward would read the request only, and if an error in it was not recognized, the steward would simply act, and that is quite what the record shows. There was no reference to my statement, and I'd not expect a steward to read it unless the steward had extra time and was interested. Yes, technically, the comment about 'crat rather than steward was an error. So? The substance was clear; further, 'crat requests for termination of sysop status will routinely be respected without question, unless it appears there is some serious controversy. Stewards will assume that if there is a problem, that another 'crat, if there is more than one, will simply restore the bit, or that if there is only one, someone will complain about the misrepresentation. Because a 'crat was not involved, here, the steward would assume that if this was improper, a local 'crat could reverse it by restoring the bit. Ottava threatened Jtneill with a complaint at meta if he restored the bit, which was pretty outrageous, but I suggested that Jtneill not restore it anyway. At that point, I did not anticipate that anyone would start voting here, so it would have meant only two days' access to tools at best, until policy would require the removal of the bit. Not worth it. And not needed, I have another completely open path to obtain the bit again, if it's considered useful to the community. Please read my agreement carefully. It only allows immediately desysop if I violate the agreement, not simply at the whim of the mentor. If a steward interprets that as allowing immediate desysop, they are reading no more carefully than you. Your interpretation is quite opposite to the actual agreement. And the actual agreement was not mentioned in the report, which, for some odd reason, you never cite. Here it is. Laaknor confirmed the desysop as being in accord with "local policy," but we know it was not, and you know that, too, JWS, so what in the world are you arguing? I doubt very much that Laaknor reviewed local policy, i.e., looked at Custodianship and reviewed it. I know how stewards work, you apparently do not. Laaknor properly stated that if the removal was wrong, it could be fixed. The steward was working on AGF, which is normal.
 * And all this is diversion. What you wrote was that "The probation was terminated by a Steward according to the terms of an agreement made by Abd with the mentor," when the plain text of the removal record is that it was according to representation that the requested removal was routine. Jay Vandenburg, a former Wikipedia arbitrator, correctly noted that it was far from routine. But stewards (properly) don't want debate there. If it was wrong, any 'crat could fix it. The stewards were within discretion, given what they had in front of them, to remove it, and the problem here is that Ottava self-servingly misrepresented WV policy. What you wrote was plainly incorrect, but you have not corrected it. You are complaining, elsewhere, about others who allegedly "falsify" edit summaries, but when a clear falsehood from yourself is shown -- and it's obvious! -- you just repeat it in a different way, not acknowledging your error. That means that, by your own definitions, you are disruptive, a "rogue editor." Rogue custodians should be desysopped. What should be done with rogue editors? Should they be talked to death? Or is there some other remedy available? --Abd 17:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "a clear falsehood from yourself" <-- Abd, please help me out. Please write a single sentence of the form: "X, a statement by JWSchmidt, is a clear falsehood." Replace "X" by quoting something I wrote. --JWSchmidt 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. The above comment, now bolded in my quotation of it, a statement by JWSschmidt, is a clear falsehood. It is possible to quibble with this. After all, suppose the steward did read all that text on the candidacy page, did read the agreement, and did consider it. But that is a supposition in contradiction to the plain text of the record cited and the confirmation from Laaknor that this was simply local policy that was being followed (i.e., what Ottava had presented as routine.) In an example that JWS previously cited, regarding my behavior, JWS claimed that my edit summary protecting a page was "falsification," when it simply stated facts not subject to interpretation. I.e., for example, Moulton was blocked at the time, that's a fact and not a claim that the block is proper or other matter of opinion. --Abd 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Closure
Closed as unsuccessful per the principle of SNOW and comments from the candidate and others. Per Custodianship, the discussion of a candidate for custodianship is to run for five days before being closed by a bureaucrat. The discussion here has now been open for more than four days and it seems extremely unlikely that consensus to make Abd a custodian will emerge. Abd has also said "I am unopposed to closing this". It is important to note that whilst some of those opposing did so on the basis of their opinion of Abd's contributions, others were concerned about the unconventional process. The lack of a mentor was clearly a major problem. The time has come now to move on. I'd strongly suggest that Abd puts aside any aspirations to be a custodian for a while to allow time for things to settle down. I think there are porobably other issues that need sorting out first. Adambro 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)