Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill

Moulton ban violation
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion 1
"officially community banned" <-- Where was notice given to the Wikiversity community that there was ever a community discussion about banning Moulton? A decision to ban Moulton was made in secret, off-wiki and imposed on the Wikiversity community. The discussion of a proposed ban was withdrawn. In Wikiversity policy there is only one valid reason for imposing a ban, and that does not apply to Moulton. --JWSchmidt 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not withdrawn. The duplicate at the bottom was withdrawn because it was recognized as a duplicate: "I just noticed that there's the vote above on this page. I'm suspending this until that is resolved; it seems to simply be a duplication for the time being. The Jade Knight". There was no consensus to overturn that on the review of the review of the ban as can be seen here. This pertinent revote of the original vote had 5 supports, 3 opposes, and two of the blocking admin - User:SB Johnny and User:Ottava Rima not voting. User:SB Johnny's statement was about ability and not about not doing it out of theory. My statement there suggests that I would endorse the action, which made the recount vote 6 to 3 with a neutral depending on how you take User:SB Johnny's statement. Two votes with Moulton's ban being reaffirmed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That vote took place on a page called "Moulton's block". Where was notice given to the Wikiversity community that there was ever a community discussion about banning Moulton? Had the community been informed that a ban was being proposed, many people would have joined the discussion. Ottava Rima, did you participate in the off-wiki, secret decision to ban Moulton? --JWSchmidt 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moulton's block" was a technical indef imposed by Jimbo. His ban was the response to the block where we affirmed an indef block as a community ban. It was then challenged in January 2009 and upheld. And did I participate? I was party to both Moulton's communications with others and some of SB Johnny's communications but only those regarding Mikeu. I was not party to his discussions with Jimbo, Salmon of Doubt, KillerChihuahua, or other parties involved. I was, at the time, trying to work out a system for Moulton to be allowed to come back to both Wikipedia and Wikiversity through demonstrating that he could work on a topic without bringing up personal attacks, user names, etc, on his talk page. I was then given the go ahead to continue an attempt after his block through the talk page but this fell apart based on IP editing to other pages and other problematic matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "technical indef" <-- What is a "technical indef"? Ottava Rima, have you ever read Wikiversity policy? Jimbo's infinite duration block of Moulton was a violation of policy, imposed against community consensus and decided upon in secret, off-wiki. "we affirmed an indef block as a community ban" <-- You participated in converting a bad block (violated policy, made against consensus, decided upon in secret) into a "community ban", but the community was never informed about the plan to ban Moulton. The decision to ban Moulton was made in secret, off-wiki. Ottava Rima, did you participate in the off-wiki, secret decision to ban Moulton? Ottava Rima, how did you acting to convert a bad block into a bad ban promote the Mission of Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 19:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As demonstrated in two community votes, your opinion is a minority opinion and does not reflect what the rest of the community stated. However, it is your right to not accept it. It is not a custodian's right to ignore the community discussion and allow a banned/locked user to continue to edit as an IP and encouraging it. And, as I stated before, that is the only participation I had in the actual matter of Jimbo's blocking. I didn't convert any block or ban. There was an indef block made by Jimbo and the upholding of it by the community as a ban. I was not in a speaking relationship with Jimbo at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "what the rest of the community stated" <-- Ottava Rima, you claimed that Moulton was community banned, but what happened was that Moulton was subjected to a bad block, which you helped to convert into a bad ban that was decided upon in secret. The Wikiversity community was never informed that a secret decision had been made to ban Moulton. The block violated Wikiversity policy as did the ban. Moulton was later unblocked and then you imposed another bad block. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. No Custodian should enforce these bad blocks and locks. It is a destructive practice to treat good faith contributions to Wikiversity as if they were vandalism. "I was not in a speaking relationship with Jimbo at the time." <-- Why do you mention Jimbo? Ottava Rima, does your mention of Jimbo mean that Jimbo ordered the ban? "two community votes" <-- Ottava Rima, please link to the two votes you are talking about. --JWSchmidt 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2. A bad block that was affirmed as a ban by the community. Thus, it is a good ban by the community regardless of its origins. I did not support either in those two discussions so you cannot attribute it to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, what I attribute to you is helping to convert a bad block into a bad ban. Moulton was unblocked and then you imposed a bad block by claiming that Moulton is community banned. To support your claim, you have pointed to a discussion of the bad block and discussion that was deceptively called "Status of Moulton". Neither of those discussions was advertised to the community as a community forum for imposing a ban. The calls for Moulton to be banned were all violations of Wikiversity policy, which warns against unjustified calls for blocks and bans. Moulton was subjected to Wikipedia policy while Wikiversity policy was ignored. The "community review" process did not become policy until September 2009, and it was used inappropriately against Moulton as a forum for hiding from the community show trials and on-going policy violations. There is one basis in Wikiversity policy for imposing a ban, and it does not apply to Moulton. These points were all made (and ignored) at the forum that you cite as evidence of a community ban having been imposed on Moulton. Even during that discussion, other people used Moulton's real name while insisting that Moulton be banned for using real names. Why was Moulton singled out for punishment when he violated no policy and when it was common practice at Wikiversity for people to use real names? How does allowing people from another website to impose rules from another website, and impose them unequally to punish one Wikiversity community member, promote the Mission of Wikiversity? Ottava Rima, why should any Custodian turn away the good faith contributions of Moulton when he was viciously harassed and subjected to blocks and bans that violate Wikiversity policy? --JWSchmidt 00:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please link to the policy that states that the community could not come together and affirm Jimbo's block as a ban and then reaffirm it again? And Moulton violated many policies, as did you. You were desysopped for many violations that you still pretend did not happen. Thus, you are persuadable on the topic. However, you are unable to persuade others to your beliefs. Therefore, there wont be any changes in a manner that you want and you are basically wasting your time. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must of missed where any of this has to do with Jtneill, could someone explain it to me? -- dark lama  02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Please link to the policy that states that the community could not come together and affirm Jimbo's block as a ban" <-- Ottava Rima, there can be no community consensus for anything that damages the Wikiversity community and deflects Wikiversity from its Mission. Jimbo's bad block (of infinite duration) was a violation of policy, imposed against community consensus and decided upon in secret, off-wiki. Jimbo's bad block vastly disrupted Wikiversity and its damaging effects are still being felt. The attempts to turn Jimbo's bad block into a ban were all misguided efforts that also violated policy. Ottava Rima, you claim that Moulton was community banned, but there was never a community discussion called and advertised as being to decide on a community ban. Converting a bad block into a bad ban also damages Wikiversity and there can be no community consensus for a gross injustice that damages Wikiversity and deflects the community from its Mission. "Moulton violated many policies, as did you" <-- Ottava Rima, I dispute your claims. You can list what you view as policy violations at Community Review/Problematic actions/Moulton and Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. Also, remove the bad block that you imposed on Moulton and let him defend himself against your charges. "Sorry I must of missed where any of this has to do with Jtneill, could someone explain it to me?" <-- Darklama, this community review starts with the claim: "officially community banned". Ottava Rima then claimed that, "Jtneill should not endorse the actions of a banned user". Moulton was harassed, subjected to bad blocks and the claim made that Moulton was community banned. Moulton was banned by a few Wikipedians who made the decision in secret, off-wiki. No Custodian should enforce the bad blocks and bad ban that have been imposed on Moulton. Jtneill was correct to welcome the good faith contributions of Moulton. --JWSchmidt 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sure thing. See this diff where Jtneil explicitly welcomes Moulton to come and work on the book. I found this edit highly inappropriate for a custodian (and I said so to him at his talk page.) I would like to write more but don't have time in at the moment, but he should uphold community consensus if he believes there was a consensus, or open a dialog if he thinks there is not. In his final comments to me he explains that the community doesn't have much interest in unlocking Moulton's account, which is what Jtniel would like, so he will allow Moulton to evade the block until such a time as he feels he can gain consensus about this later. To me, WAS sums it up well on that talk page, The person is banned not the account. Thenub314 07:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub314, please explain why any Custodian should enforce bad blocks imposed on a Wikiversity community member and a bad ban that was decided upon, in secret, by a few Wikipedians who acted in violation of Wikiversity policy? --JWSchmidt 07:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing: It is the right thing to do. Ask yourself, if someone is wrongly imprisoned is he released before the trial that proves his innocence? While you (and perhaps Jtneil) may feel his ban was inappropriate, that is just far your opinion and not community consensus.  Just because Jtneil may have that opinion (or may not I don't know) doesn't mean he should encourage Moulton to evade the block.  It is a crime for an innocent man to escape from prison, he must wait to be released until after the trial that proves his innocence.  I feel the same principle applies. Thenub314 13:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, you are missing the trees because someone said "forest!" Jtneill has not "encouraged Moulton to evade the block." Possibly JWS has, but there is no consensus that JWS's "encouragement," in itself, is a policy violation. Nobody except JWS, and certainly not Jtneill, has suggested the "release" of Moulton, but wikitradition is that, again, a user is allowed to participate in process that might block or ban them. If you think your analogy through, you'll see that you have misapplied it. There is no "crime" on a wiki, and wikis do not punish; I'm afraid you do not understand this basic policy. You also have a radically reversed position on what a "trial" is for. In free societies, generally, innocence is presumed until guilt is proven, but you seem to think that a person should be confined until their innocence is proven. Rather, in functional societies, hearings are held to establish a probability of a guilty finding, and thus of danger to the society, and a person may be restricted (perhaps released upon bail and/or a promise to refrain from specific actions or crimes) until that early finding is reversed. To continue your trial analogy, suppose that someone not under trial "encourages" the allegedly guilty person by claiming that something they did was good. Not a crime that they did, per se, but something in itself. Is this a crime in itself? Not in free societies. What is really going on here is that Ottava is attempting to harass Jtneill based on that highly reputable custodian's confirmation that my block of Ottava for incivility was proper. Look at the timing. What was going on just before Ottava filed this? Please, get a clue. --Abd 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me ask, how is "Thanks Barry and Geoff for your willingness and contributions already. Please feel welcome to join in..." not encouraging Moulton to edit the book further? If he edits the book further how can he be expected to do it except by evading the block?  I only use a trial analogy because people seem to like to throw around terms like "due process", "recusal", that I thought it might resonate.  I don't need to worry about Ottava's motivations for opening this review. I thought it was a very bad call, and I thought I would take my opportunity to say so.  It seems only appropriate that there is a community review, since it was first suggested by a third party.  And really, "Get a clue"!  For someone so concerned about civility you don't seem very interested in holding yourself up to the standards you expect in others.  Needless to say I am offended. Maybe instead of worrying if I am seeing the forest through the trees you should first consider if your simply seeing red because Ottava is involved. Thenub314 22:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is the right thing to do" <-- Moulton was subjected to blocks and bans that were imposed in violation of Wikiversity policy, imposed by a few Wikipedians acting in secret to decide, and causing vast disruption of Wikiversity. Policy empowers us all to correct mistakes. It is a mistake to treat Moulton's edits as if they were vandalism. Jtneill is correct to encourage Moulton to contribute to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was I one of the Wikipedians acting in secret? If so, why did I not vote in either discussion? We also had a discussion that had four Wikiversity people and no Wikipedian people who all unanimously opposed allowing Moulton to do whatever he wanted as an IP with reverting. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, why do you keep pointing to a show trial, called and run by the sysop who first started imposing bad blocks in violation of Wikiversity policy, a show trial where others were allowed to use Moulton's real name while condemning him for using real names, a show trial where one of the Wikipedians who had harassed Moulton was allowed to vote, a show trial hidden away on a deceptively named page, a page that had no basis in policy for its use for an important community discussion, a show trial where there were repeated policy-violating calls for unjustified blocks and bans, a show trial that took place under conditions where the community was intimidated by policy-violating blocks and a policy-violating desysopping and threats against the continued existence of Wikiversity? Ottava Rima, were you aware in 2008 of off-wiki threats against Wikiversity and demands by Wikipedians to block Moulton? Why should User:Jtneill reject Moulton's good faith contributions to Wikiversity on the basis of a sorry history of unjust harassment and persecution of Moulton from two years ago? --JWSchmidt 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist your personal view overrides the community even though that was one of the reasons you were removed from custodianship? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, please state the "personal view" that you are referring to and please link to an edit where I insisted that my personal view overrides the community. Ottava Rima, were you aware in 2008 of off-wiki threats against Wikiversity and demands by Wikipedians to block Moulton? Ottava Rima, why should Jtneill undo or revert productive edits from a Wikiversity community member rather than welcome and respond collegially to those edits? --JWSchmidt 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "there can be no community consensus for anything that damages the Wikiversity community and deflects Wikiversity from its Mission" - I don't see that policy anywhere. It seems that community consensus can say anything as it is the community's project and the community's rules. But more to the point, you are determining what "damages" and it conflicts what others think. Your interpretations, your overriding of the community, you placing yourself above everyone else, and even making policies without discussion is true damage. You were desysopped for that. It is something Jtneill needs to remember and that his job is to enforce consensus not defy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "You were desysopped for that." <-- Ottava Rima, the decision to desysop me was made in secret, off-wiki, in violation of Wikiversity policy. Ottava Rima, did you take part in that decision? SB Johnny called me on the phone and told me why I had been desysopped, and what he told me does not agree with what you claim. Ottava Rima, do you have chat logs that support your claim? Ottava Rima, you previously claimed to have chat logs that contradict SB Johnny, but I sent you an email asking to see the logs and I never got a reply from you. Ottava Rima, do you have chat logs from 2008 about "puppet admins" and "crushing enemies" and the threat to close Wikiversity if Moulton was not blocked from editing? Ottava Rima, have you ever read Consensus? --JWSchmidt 03:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please link to our desysop policy that you said was violated. And I don't trust you enough with chat logs not to post them especially with your statements refering to IRC which gives you a conflict of interest regarding posting private logs. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "our desysop policy" <-- See: Custodianship. "your statements refering to IRC" <-- Ottava Rima, what statements are you talking about? --JWSchmidt 02:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This entire review was filed by a custodian under review at Custodian feedback over related matters. The charges here are new and have been inadequately discussed. However, discussion has begun, so, to proceed:

Moulton is blocked, that is not in controversy. There have been ban discussions; however, Wikiversity has no ban policy, and editors are free to propose, and even to negotiate, unblock. "Ban" is a red herring. The basic issue here is whether or not a Wikiversity editor or custodian may encourage positive contributions from a blocked editor. On Wikipedia, this is a mostly settled question, and the answer is Yes, but there is an issue of process, i.e., how these contributions are encouraged. It is clear that any editor, reviewing a reverted IP edit of a blocked user, may revert it back in, taking responsibility for that edit; this is, again, settled on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why we should have a more exclusive policy than Wikipedia. That reversion could be considered "encouraging" the blocked editor to evade the block, and this has been used on Wikipedia to attempt to impeach editors, as if it were offensive in itself. These attempts have generally failed.

The goal of blocking is to protect the project from disruptive contributions, not to punish. Certain custodians have been blocking IP, including extensive range blocks, which cause collateral damage, whenever Moulton edits. In my view, this is permitted, though proper discretion should be exercised. Jtneill has not, to my knowledge, attempted to prevent block enforcement, nor have I. As long as the editor is blocked, block evasion may be met with protective action. In addition, the contributions of a blocked editor may be reverted without consideration of content. I agree with the conclusion of the prior review, and I see no sign that Jtneill disagrees. It's basic common-law policy: blocks mean nothing if they cannot be enforced. However, there are limits to "enforcement." What is being specifically prevented by a block is the unreviewed contribution of a blocked editor, and this is continued by automatic reversion. There would be an entirely different and, in my view, superior approach to this, but this is not the place. For the time being, the tool that the community has, through its custodians, is blocking and block enforcement.

The reversion part of block enforcement does not involve custodial tools and, in fact, we should probably discourage custodians from doing it, because it keeps custodians involved in an action, raising their frustration level, and encouraging over-reaction. But custodians have the same rights as all editors, and any editor may revert, on sight, the contribution of a blocked editor. It is not the contribution itself which is excluded, though, it is the unreviewed contribution. Traditionally, if an editor has responded to such a contribution, it will not be removed unless the whole exchange is egregiously disruptive.

There is no practical way to stop the IP contributions of Moulton, and wikis do not punish. The issue for us should always be how to prevent disruption and encourage positive contributions. As long as Moulton is straight-out excluded, he will continue to disrupt. He is not going to lose interest and go away, though his level of activity will rise or fall.

I did not see Jtneill being involved in recent efforts to allow an opening for Moulton. He simply welcomed some contributions. Those contributions could come through IP edits, they could be sent by email, they could be put up on another wiki, such as netknowledge.org, and there is another possibility which I will be discussing in coming weeks, self-reverted edits. Self-reverted edits do not leave a mess for someone to clean up, i.e., contributions to revert. They self-identify, immediately causing the IP of the blocked editor to be revealed without much effort (care should be exercised regarding a possible straw puppet). They are certainly less disruptive than unreverted contributions, and they show cooperation. My view is that such self-reverted edits, absent some special and serious disruptive character, should never be considered block or ban violations, and that it should be routine to either ignore them or revert them back in on the responsibility of the restoring editor.

Jtneill has done nothing wrong in his actions cited. refers to the possibility of contributing, and does not approve of block evasion. Note that I also do not approve of block evasion, and I joined in the block enforcement efforts of Adambro at one point. again does not approve of block evasion. There is not only no violation of block policy here, on the part of Jtneill, but Jtneill should be commended for his efforts to start opening channels of cooperation, which is the only way I see to heal the disruption that began in 2008, and that has not yet ceased.

JWSchmidt will doubtless raise the issue of "bad block." That is irrelevant. Moulton is blocked. In my view, a blocked editor should follow process to obtain unblock before contributing, and I would carve out an exception, self-reverted edits, which do not complicate block enforcement. (The argument against straight contributions is that they then arouse block enforcement, which wastes the valuable time of custodians.) Moulton disagrees with my view, and I understand and respect his position, but do not accept it. I intend to negotiate with Moulton toward the goal of discovering ways for him and the community to cooperate, and I believe that prior efforts were complicated by inadequate understanding of the source of the conflict and possible resolutions. I would never do this against community consensus, but I might try to anticipate consensus and propose something new.

What Ottava Rima is trying to do is convert a block of an allegedly disruptive user into a ban against the entire community from doing anything to "encourage" this user. Jtneill did not use custodial tools at all in this matter. So this complaint is against the ordinary action of an ordinary user. It could have been any of us. --Abd 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I added this comment in its own comment section, along with a reserved space for comment by Jtneill. Ottava reverted that and placed the comment in-line with the existing discussion, and then responded. I propose that having a single, prominent, coherent "charge" section, controlled entirely by the charging user, with only discussion sections below, which cover and conceal the possible response of the charged user, and bury individual comments in back-and-forth, is guaranteed to lead to imbalanced and ineffective discussion. Wiki experience shows that pure threaded discussion is not effective in creating deliberated decisions, except almost accidentally or where consensus is already obvious. I am accordingly separating out this section with a new subheader, and then, to preserve sequence, placing a "continued discussion" sub header below. This is not, in my view, fully satisfactory. Having reserved response (for Jtneill) and individual comment sections (for any editor), followed by threaded discussion, is far superior. In any deliberative process, individuals are allowed to make uninterrupted, unburied comments, that stand on their own. --Abd 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You failed to note does encourage Moulton to continue editing the book, which he cannot do without evading his block. Thenub314 23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The community already stated that allowing him to edit on an IP was inappropriate. Your statements do not reflect consensus, our standards, our policies, or any of our history. They are your own and solely your own disconnected from anything related to Wikiversity. Furthermore, the disruption by Moulton and JWS predates 2008 and only came to a head with them removed from having any power in 2008. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "allowing him to edit on an IP was inappropriate" mean? Did Jtneill "allow" Moulton to edit by IP? How? It appears to me that Moulton can edit by IP pretty much when he pleases, unless we want to block the entire northeastern U.S. and then go into the whole open proxy mess like Wikipedia. Jtneill simply welcomed a positive contribution. It is that simple. Jtneill has not claimed that Moulton should be allowed to edit by IP, nor do I claim that, except, for myself, I am making a proposal that, in general, non-disruptive self-reverted edits not be considered block violations. That's not really relevant here, since Jtneill did not propose that, nor has Moulton self-reverted, thus ordinary block enforcement with Moulton is clearly allowed. Ottava, I'm afraid, has an undeclared agenda here. I urge review of the prior discussion cited by Ottava as if it clearly rejected and prohibited what Jtneill did with his two edits. Ottava is, once again, making up meanings that did not exist. He did it with custodianship policy, and, my guess, that was not the first time. --Abd 15:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ::*Abd is correct. Moulton can pretty much edit as an IP from anywhere on the IPv4 or IPv6 network. Moreover, he's expressly entitled to per WMF Policy. —Albatross 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Edit by blocked editor. Edit was removed by Ottava, and IP was blocked by him. I am restoring the edit, but with strikeout to make very visible that this is the edit of a blocked user and that should be considered by reviewers. In restoring the edit, I take responsibility for it as a positive contribution to the review here. I had already responded to it, twice, with  and, and so it could not simply be rolled back; Ottava should have noticed the responses and left it or struck it as I now have done. The IP block is within discretion according to current practice. Because the edit itself was not disruptive, merely making a point clear -- he edited within minutes of my comment, I did not remove it. I would remove any disruptive edit from any blocked user, and I might remove any edit without review of disruptivenesss, or not, that is within my allowed discretion as an editor; but then any other editor may restore it on their own responsibility. --Abd 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. I encourage Moulton to not evade the block, however, but to work within community policy and consensus to make positive contributions and resolve the issues. The latter I can support, but not the former. --Abd 16:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the substance, the relevant sentence of the WMF policy does not support Moulton's position as to entitlement: Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. The key is not otherwise restricted. Moulton is blocked, and it is the user who is blocked, not the account, by policy. So my "can edit" is not "entitled to edit," but is simply actual fact. Moulton's edits are not illegal, my interpretation. Basically, we can't stop him unless he voluntarily stops. However, some of us possibly prefer to play the game of Whac-a-mole; it is up to the community to decide if this game benefits the wiki. --Abd 16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "the disruption by Moulton and JWS predates 2008" <-- Ottava Rima, please describe the "disruption" that you are talking about. --JWSchmidt 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt has many entries from 2007. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "entries from 2007" <-- Ottava Rima, please indicate the one "entry" that you feel best illustrates "disruption" so that we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 02:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about you, start up something about you. This isn't about you. Why do you want everything to be about you? Do you not like Jtneill and think any attention directed to him is awful because it isn't directed to you? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, it was you who brought accusations against me into this page. I ask that you support your accusations with evidence. "Why do you want everything to be about you?" <-- I don't want everything to be about me. Ottava Rima, if you do not want me to defend myself against your accusations then I suggest that you not make accusations against me. "Do you not like Jtneill and think any attention directed to him is awful because it isn't directed to you?" <-- No. Ottava Rima, please indicate the one "entry" that you feel best illustrates "disruption" so that we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 14:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, it was you who brought up accusations and made it about you. Why not just let Jtneill respond? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this as a point of concern. I would appreciate community guidance on this matter. For the record, here's my current viewpoint: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Statement by Jtneill
 * 1) I have no interest in undoing or reverting productive edits
 * 2) I support improving, undoing or reverting non-productive edits
 * 3) I support community review of blocks/bans of users who are interested in being unblocked/unbanned

James, please take note of Moulton's earlier statement.
 * Statement from Moulton

—Montana Mouse 14:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC0 Blocked editor, edit partially restored as relevant by Abd 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC), all but quoted text from.

''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Dinosaur
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion 2
Wikiversity should have a Dinosaur page. If there were any problems with the page they should have been fixed by editing, not by page deletion. --JWSchmidt 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having pages with a few sentences and poor content diminishes Wikiversity's overall reputation by adding more pages to our total and making the majority of pages of low quality. That discourages new users and those of an academic persuasion from taking Wikiversity seriously. We also do not accept test pages, copyviolations, or the rest. Wikiversity's scope is also educational based, and one line with a factual inaccuracy cannot be considered educational. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, do you have any idea how Wikipedia grew? Small pages were started and people added to them. Deleting small pages is disruptive and inhibits the development of Wikiversity. Small pages should be welcomed. "factual inaccuracy" <-- such problems are fixed by using the edit button, not by page deletion. --JWSchmidt 19:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This page should have gone through a request for undeletion so people could comment. Or at least disscussed first with the deleting custodians. Thenub314 07:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are all directed by policy to correct mistakes. The Dinosaur page should never have been deleted. Restoring the page was correcting a mistake and in the best interest of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 07:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are directed by policy to delete test edits. He even posted c:/ on the page verifying that it was a test. You went to war against multiple people for appropriately deleting bad material. It was one reason why you were desysopped. You abused your status and defied our rules to push a fringe view on pages that was 100% damaging to Wikiversity and our reputation. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "We are directed by policy to delete test edits." <-- Ottava Rima, please link to the policy that directs Custodians to delete test edits. "push a fringe view" <-- Ottava Rima, what "fringe view" are you talking about? --JWSchmidt 03:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A fringe view would be one that believes putting up gibberish is "educational", and putting up bad html and factual errors is gibberish, especially when its by an IP with no other edits ever. WV:Scope#Teaching: "The Wikiversity should become a premier source for accurate teaching materials" (emphasis added). Vandalism and the rest is also deleted as part of our system. Would you like it if User:Salmon of Doubt started posting pages that were factually inaccurate? How about if he started editing stuff that was on the Dinosaur page onto your pages? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, please provide an example of a fringe view that I pushed. Ottava Rima, please link to the policy that directs Custodians to delete test edits. "Would you like it if User:Salmon of Doubt started posting pages that were factually inaccurate?" <-- I had long discussions about what he posted on his user page. Eventually he removed it. "your pages" <-- Ottava Rima, wha do you mean by "your pages"? --JWSchmidt 02:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "please provide an example of a fringe view that I pushed." I will provide a few thousand in one simple link. Done. By the way: "please link to the policy that directs Custodians to delete test edits". Ahaha. What a hilarious joke. JWS, you are a comic genius. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia grew because of people like me who created over 200 high quality pages. This was a page that lacked a page before, even though it is one of the top 10 English poems. I created that page -because- it lacked a page. No one fixed that page or this page for many years and were left as really crappy stubs. They embarrassed Wikipedia until I fixed them. Stubs are an embarrassment. They discourage editors and experts. They ruin our reputation. Having no information is a superior state to having bad information. Wikiversity is no different except that we need experts and experts wont come if we are filled with pages like "dinosaur". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comment makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about Wikibooks, with its many stub books, then. Adrignola 13:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you notice, they've been purging a lot of the excess - look at the "how to" books that were removed, including the bong book that got shoved onto us. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottava is going to waste the time of the community with this petty charge? This is not the place to discuss deletion/undeletion decisions, there is a page for that, and the page undeleted by Jtneill was promptly improved, at least to some degree, and Ottava is free to request deletion, like any other user. We are going to haul a custodian before Community Review because of a disagreement like this? Ottava will quite certainly be up for community review if he does not change his course, but his deletion of Dinosaur would not be one of the charges. His bringing of this bullocks here quite likely will be. --Abd 15:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this closely, I start to become outraged. From Ottava's charge:

It was undeleted by User:Jtneill without any discussion and without him reading the history to see that he undeleted a copyvio, that he thought that patently false information was good for "learning", and without following any process for undeletion or even asking about it first.

This implies, does it not, that Jtneill undeleted a copyvio. It implies that Jtneill undeleted "patently false information. It also implies that speedy deletion may not be reversed without a deletion discussion, which is the opposite of policy. Speedy deletions are generally reverted on request, without discussion.

The page log.

This is what was deleted as copyvio.

this is what the IP "recreated." It was immediately improved by Jtneill, such that this is what Ottava deleted. Is there copyvio there? Now, suppose that the (primitive) information in this stub is incorrect. Notice that Jtneill added an improvement template. Wikiversity tradition is to attempt to improve pages before deleting them, but Ottava bypassed this.

Fine. Ottava could delete, though, at this point, deletion was getting much shakier. What Ottava deleted was not at all what one custodian had tagged and the other had deleted, so Ottava's deletion cannot be seen as supported by the earlier one, unlike what he implies.

Jtneill did undelete, and this was, in fact, a technical violation of what I propose as recusal policy. He apologized. And that should have been the end of it. Should he have redeleted? No, because undeletion was at that point what could be predicted to be a community decision to keep the page. Nor did Ottava or anyone else redelete, nor did Ottava propose the page for deletion. If this page was actually and clearly inappropriate, why not? And if it had any shred of importance or value, even as a stub, our policy requires a deletion discussion, and it is Ottava who failed to discuss as required. Not Jtneill.

Jtneill and Thenub314 then worked on the page, and this is the current version. I prefer the earlier version by Jtneill. A course may ask unanswerable questions, and looking at them is a very important part of the educational process. This is not Wikipedia, and the questions are ones likely to be of interest to students, and the answers would review the meaning of the questions. So I plan to revert that when I finish here. My opinion. --Abd 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this as a point of concern. For community consideration, here's my experience: I started improving the Dinosaur page after it had been recreated in a different way to the original Wikipedia content paste (which had been deleted). I assumed good faith - that an anonymous IP was making a second genuine attempt to create a page about Dinosaurs. So, I welcomed the IP's talk page, wikified the page with a stub tag, made some copyedits and was in the process of building additional content. The page was then deleted without notification or discussion and apparently without any consideration or acknowledgement of the efforts I was making to improve the page. I then undeleted the page and continued to improve it. Alternatively, at this point, I could have requested undelete and this is probably what I would do next time. The situation could have been prevented by encouraging custodians to check editing history before deleting (if this had been done, the issue may not have arisen in the first place). My previous efforts in developing Crocodile I hope are indicative of kind of learning resource quality that I envisage are possible with Dinosaur over time and that one reasonable possibility is that it could become an interesting way to introduce younger people to Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Statement by Jtneill

''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }

Candidates for Custodianship/Abd
{|cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 {|width=100% style="background-color:#f8f8ff;"

Discussion 3
"the only other time a mentor did not recommend" <-- Ottava Rima, who was your mentor? --JWSchmidt 18:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, you were first my mentor until your adminship and Cratship were removed following and . SB Johnny, McCormack, and to a lesser extent, Mikeu and some others, served as mentor for the rest of the period with McCormack serving as the main mentor. I had a total of 2 true mentors, one more than partial mentor, and 3 partial mentors. My mentorship ended at the 28th day and I was quickly approved by the community for being a neutral person between two conflicting parties during the Moulton matter. Ottava Rima (talk)  18:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, I was your mentor and I never nominated you for full custodianship. Ottava Rima, are you sure that you are actually a Custodian? --JWSchmidt 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated, McCormack and SB Johnny took over when you were no longer able to be my mentor from your desysopping. If you look, I switched over: "A number of mentors have offered themselves as replacements. Ottava - when you're ready to switch mentors, please state your choice below. No hurry. --McCormack 08:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)" and "I would like to accept McCormack's kind offer... Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The mentor is selected before probationary custodianship begins and then a bureaucrat initiates the probationary period. In this case, User:SB Johnny violated Wikiversity policy and removed my Custodianship by emergency desysop when no emergency existed. You are claiming that McCormack was your mentor, but that relationship was never approved by a bureaucrat. If McCormack was your mentor, then he should have nominated you for full custodianship, which he did not do. Ottava Rima, are you sure that you are actually a Custodian? --JWSchmidt 22:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, I had 5 mentors. SB Johnny was one of them. Please see my agreement to have multiple mentors and User:SB Johnny's statement "In practice, mentoring has always been a village job" as reinforcement of my multi mentor acceptance. This statement makes it clear that both User:McCormack and User:SB Johnny were co-mentoring me in a direct way. User:SB Johnny wrote the mentor recommendation. Prior to them both signing up, I made this statement expressing my feelings on the matter. SB Johnny's original offer to mentor me. My statement on the Colloquium accepting it and multiple mentors. Jade Knight acknowledging that SB Johnny was my new mentor. I made sure that there were multiple redundancies, community consensus, and offered my own custodianship status up if there were any problems. User:SB Johnny was a bureaucrat and approved of it at the time. After the vote, bureaucrat User:Mu301 verified it all as correct and closed it as approved. - Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I had 5 mentors" <-- Ottava Rima, where was User:SB Johnny confirmed as your mentor? Ottava Rima, if it is true that "mentoring has always been a village job", then wasn't User:Darklama the mentor of User:Abd and so wasn't User:Darklama able to nominate User:Abd for full custodianship? --JWSchmidt 03:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I already linked above where SB Johnny was confirmed as my mentor. You saw it. If you repeat the question, then you are disrupting. And no one said that the mentorship was truly a "village job", I was an exception because my original mentor abused his ops and position, harassed multiple users, caused wide spread disruption to Wikiversity, and put me into a horribly embarassing situation. And yet I am still a sucker who bends over backwards to accommodate him and ensure that he is still able to use the place. Go figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The mentorship substitution was not documented on the candidacy page, an oversight. It's now moot. When JWS accepted mentorship, the probationary period began. The probationary period does not end until permanent custodianship is confirmed or the tools are removed, no matter what happens to the mentor; the situation of loss of tools by mentor is not contemplated in policy, but JWS could presumably have formally withdrawn mentorship and, if no substitution were made within 48 hours, gone to meta to request desysop of Ottava. That did not happen. As to the "horribly embarrassing situation," can then I expect Ottava to understand the position his incivility (confirmed independently) re SB_Johnny put me in? I have not reviewed the desysop of JWS, I am taking no position on that. And this is irrelevant here. Ottava has elsewhere suggested, or practically has demanded, that I stop responding to JWS, but... he insists on it himself. --Abd 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not documented" is false: this shows McCormack at 08:18, 20 September 2008 that there was a need for a new mentor with others offering and Ottava Rima at 02:49, 14 September 2008 accepts directly with the opening up to others, including the original discussions on user talk page. Since SB Johnny was the crat in question, he has the right to determine where the discussions are and their validity, especially when it was mentioned on the candidacy form. Mikeu, a second crat, verified the legitimacy after. JWS was indef blocked at the time so he could not withdraw anything. By the way, if you want to think I was incivil to SB Johnny, JWS can confirm that SB Johnny has said far worse along the same line to others. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This keeps getting more bizarre. I did not say "not documented." I said "not documented on the candidacy page." And I said that it was "now moot," so why is Ottava continuing to argue it? Ottava now gives a citation to the candidacy page, in the Custodians willing to mentor section, which does not show any text from McCormack offering to mentor, no diff showing any offers, no clue as to where the offers that McCormack does mention were made. JWS had previously explicitly offered to mentor on the page, which is normal process. When Ottava accepted that offer, he was opped on 14 September by SB_Johnny. The page shows Ottava as accepting "McCormack's kind offer," 21 September, but doesn't actually say what that offer was, and there was no diff to the offer. The McCormack edit mentions "replacement mentor" but does not state why a replacement was needed. There wasn't careful attention paid to this because Ottava was already sysopped, no action had to be taken. I don't understand the comment about SB_Johnny, who opped based on JWSchmidt, not the substitute mentorship. My comment was purely a process note, no claim is being made that Ottava is not a proper custodian based on some possible defect back then. The !vote is what sealed it, not the previous process, and if there were some defect in the mentorship, the !vote, accepted by a 'crat, wipes it out as inconsequential. There was, in fact, a glaring defect. If McCormack was the mentor, where was the recommendation from McCormack that policy appears to require? The recommendation, apparently, was from SB_Johnny, but there is no mention of substitution. This was out-of-process, but it would be silly to claim it wasn't valid for that reason. The vote and 'crat decision has the weight, by far. Probationary custodianship with a mentor who recommends is merely a highly recommended way to get there. The community and a 'crat can bypass this. I don't advise it, but they can. If the !vote in my candidacy had been in favor of custodianship, a closing 'crat could have promoted me.


 * And then Ottava attempts to divert attention from his own incivility by claiming that SB_Johnny has allegedly said "far worse." Even if true, that would not in the least justify Ottava's incivility, which took place a few days ago and the incident that Ottava is apparently referring to was two years ago. And SB_Johnny was warned, then, whereas Ottava has now refused to accept warnings and this whole Review is clearly a retaliation for a civility warning from Jtneill, as shown elsewhere on this page. SB_Johnny's incivility two years ago was definitely not "worse," it was an expression of anger (roughly, "cooperate with the community or go fuck yourself," something like that, that doesn't personally impugn the target's integrity, whereas Ottava just called SB_Johnny a "liar," which is a personal insult. SB_Johnny was practically begging JWS to be cooperative and civil, as many others have, and fell into an error himself, but there was no justification for Ottava's attack on SB_Johnny, it was clearly based on off-wiki stuff. Purely personal. --Abd 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I already linked above where SB Johnny was confirmed as my mentor. You saw it. If you repeat the question, then you are disrupting." <-- Ottava Rima, I looked at the links you provided and I saw no confirmation of SB Johnny as your mentor. When a mentor is confirmed, a bureaucrat makes note of the selection on the correct page. I don't think it is reasonable for you to say it is "disruption" when I can't see something that does not exist. "my original mentor abused his ops and position, harassed multiple users, caused wide spread disruption to Wikiversity" <-- Ottava Rima, those are interesting accusations, but I see no evidence to support them. How did I abuse "ops"? Who did I "harass"? What "wide spread disruption" are you attributing to me? --JWSchmidt 03:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity is not an eye doctor, so if you have problems with reading I suggest you go to one. Why bring up such things here? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be the first time that an issue concerning the 48 hour period has been raised. I think there is no previous bases in which anyone could be expected to know how anyone else interprets the conditions. I think knowing all the precedences and community norms is an impossible task and expecting anyone to know all the precedences and community norms is unreasonable. I think there is nothing wrong in commenting as jtneill has. -- dark lama  18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My mentorship was one that had to switch and Terra's mentorship was one without a recommendation. Both set precedence for how to interpret the policy. There are less than 20 candidacies within the past two years, so that is not an undue burden for a Crat to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Terra's candidacy may have set a precedence where someone other than the mentor can initiate discussion for full custodianship. What precedence do you think your candidacy set? Your mentor was desysoped. I think neither case had anything to do with how the 48 hour period is to be interpreted. -- dark lama  19:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The precedence set was that my candidacy did not "reset". It went to a vote 28 days after it was started under a new mentor. That suggests that the 28 days/4 weeks idea is a one period block. User:Abd was clearly given that time and a lot more than that time, so there cannot be a way saying that he was harmed by having it terminated with plenty of extra time as opposed to a candidacy that was terminated in the second week without another mentor to restart it (thus allowing for another 4 week temporary custodianship period at a later date). Does that make sense? If the community doesn't feel that he is fit for a full custodianship, why would they regrant him temporary ops after having about 7 weeks to use them before? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no provision in policy for a "reset." The mentor is there to guide the probationary custodian; the absence of a mentor is a possible problem, because of lack of supervision, hence if the mentor becomes unavailable for any reason, there is a provision for speedy desysop if no replacement is found within 48 hours. This is quite clear. The length of probationary period is actually irrelevant. The policy provides for a four week period, which is clearly a minimum because of the purpose. The mentor may withdraw at any time, whether during that period or after, and the probationary custodian is still a probationary custodian until the tools are actually withdrawn. The policy provides for the withdrawal procedure, and there is no restriction on this to within the four weeks, rather, it is allowed during the probationary period. Which obviously extends to termination. Ottava is consistently arguing contrary to the plain sense and simple interpretation of the policy, depending on some new and fancied desysop right that somehow magically appears, he thinks, at the end of four weeks. I should not have "temporary ops" because I don't have a mentor, nor have I asked for one. (Ottava however, claims he is still my mentor, and he has claimed that nobody else can take his place without his consent, which may be inconsistent with his position on the mentorship of himself by JWSchmidt, who was desysopped during the probationary period.) Jtneill could have re-opped me, because of the process violation, but by policy, if I did not gain a new mentor before 48 hours elapsed, Ottava would then have been able to legitimately request desysop at meta. Further, obvious concerns had been raised about my stability or reliability. For Jtneill to re-op me would have been unnecessarily controversial, and I did not request it. What he did, in fact, was to point out the process failure, and that discussion -- discussion only! -- is the basis of this complaint. Ottava's cause for filing this is completely obvious from the record and timing. Jtneill confirmed my previous warning and block for incivility. That's intolerable for Ottava, so he then searches around and picks up everything he can think of to complicate Jtneill's life or to smear his reputation.
 * The timing:
 * prior to the three actions below, Jtneill was engaged in massive resource work.
 * 15:08, 6 August 2010 Jtneill, having apparently reviewed the evidence, confirms that my 2-hour block of Ottava for incivility was within discretion.
 * 15:21, 6 August 2010 Jtneill opposes my permanent custodianship for procedural reasons. (I concur.)
 * 15:35, 6 August 2010 Jtneill confirms civility warning for Ottava.
 * 16:57, 6 August 2010 Ottava responds on his talk page, does not deny incivility but calls Abd a "hypocrit," and claims massive abuse by Jtneill of 'crat authority.
 * 17:01, 6 August 2010 Ottava tells Jtneill on his Talk page to "take a week off."
 * Jtneill ceases editing for several days, no edit after the warning diff'd above.
 * 17:22, 6 August 2010 Ottava starts this Community Review, ignoring policy which suggests direct discussion before coming to Community Review.
 * From his last edit to Jtneill Talk, to the first edit starting this review, was 19 minutes. Ottava made no other edits to Wikiversity in the interim. This was a retaliatory CR, the evidence is clear. Ottava should be warned. He's not going to listen to me, nor to Jtneill, so it should be someone else, hopefully someone he might listen to. --Abd 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a new mentor does not reset the probationary period might be a reasonable interpretation of the precedence set by your candidacy. However even with your candidacy you were given a chance to find a new mentor. I think Terra' mentor also did not immediate have Terra's tools removed. What you have done by immediately have Abd's tools removed was set a new precedence. Do you understand that? I think what Jtneill did was objected to this new precedence by you as being against policy. There hasn't been a case until now where a probationary custodian wasn't given 48 hours to find a new mentor before losing the tools. I think Jtneill believes this new precedence by you harms Wikiversity because this means in the future other mentors could attempt to ignore the 48 hours wait altogether, if nothing is done about it. Ignoring the 48 hours wait means the Wikiversity community may not have a chance to comment, and another person willing to mentor may not have a chance to continue the probation period where it left off, like with your candidacy. The precedence set with Abd by you could affectively be interpreted as saying there may be times when a probationary period is reset which could be a contradiction to the precedence set by your own candidacy. What precedence do you think Abd's candidacy sets? -- dark lama  20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was 7 weeks after he started. There was no community consensus to extend it. By the letter of the policy, he should have been put up for a vote two weeks or so before he was desysopped and either recommended or not. The only new precedence that would harm the community was extending Abd's temporart custodianship without consensus. I screwed up by turning my back to that and allowing him to keep the ops even though it was long over when he should have had them. It was obvious that in the 3 weeks that he had the tools beyond what he should have had, he entered into multiple inappropriate and controversial actions - undeleting Moulton's sock "user" pages on 21 July 2010, unblocking Moulton on 21 July 2010 Abd, unblocking Thekohser on 22 July 2010, etc. None of these would have happened if I and the rest of the community followed by the letter of the policy. I was hoping that his guarenteed failed candidacy might have switched over to a 50/50 chance if he was given more time. Instead, he didn't listen to my advice, became combative with JWS while simultaneously ignoring consensus and our standards in making such actions above, and alienating himself from much of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think people were willing to be lenient on when you should have put up a vote and either recommend or not. There have been other precedences for extending the period. I think that isn't the concern. I think the concern is no vote happened, until I put one forward, and you only recommended that he not be made a full custodian after desysop instead of making your recommendation before desysop and waiting 48 hours. I think the timing of the recommendation and the lack of a vote are the concerns. I attempted to address the later issue, the former issue hasn't been specifically addressed yet. -- dark lama  20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only discussion of "48 hours" in the piece is "during", which, as pointed above, is connected to the four weeks. We need to add something in policy about what happens at the completion of the four weeks and a mentor does not want a vote. Otherwise, there could be an indefinite mentorship/temporary custodianship without any ramifications. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens at the completion of the four weeks probably does need to be clarified. However that doesn't have anything to do with Jtneill's review. I propose this section of Jtneill's review be closed as a non-issue. -- dark lama  20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Crat non-policy policy page states that Crats are not supposed to be using their authority to influence discussions and should refrain from any biases of discussion. There was enough in the policy to suggest that his stance was not 100% within the policy and that procedures were not followed. Plus, there are no recommended remedies or actions so there isn't really anything to close. It is already in a template. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava Rima wrote, "Custodianship lasts a period of 4 weeks before it ends". Ottava Rima, how long did you mentor User:Abd? --JWSchmidt 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Longer than what was appropriate under policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy is clear on this, and Ottava violated policy with an out-of-process termination and request for desysop at meta. This has been confirmed by multiple editors, not just Jtneill, and this is under discussion at Custodian feedback. No support has been shown for Ottava's position, which reads the policy entirely contrary to its plain text and sense, as well as standing interpretation and practice, and that Ottava is continuing disruption over this is a matter of serious concern. Jtneill did not act as a bureaucrat in this matter, but only gave his opinion. Ottava is trying to censure the giving of opinion, here and in the first charge, which is entirely offensive. Jtneill did not act on his opinion, but he could have. What is this really about? That will come out in a deeper review of Ottava's actions, which have recently been entirely unbecoming of a sysop, and Jtneill has both confirmed the propriety of my block of Ottava for incivility, and then, having read the record, he went ahead and confirmed my original warning of Ottava. Ottava has now, as a result, identified Jtneill as an enemy, as he previously did with me, and Ottava has a long history of tenaciously accusing enemies of this, that, and the kitchen sink. If he does not stop, he not only should be desysopped, it will be a necessity, and a block might even follow, based on his prior history elsewhere. --Abd 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Claiming it was out of process while directly pretending that "4 weeks" does not mean 4 weeks is disruptive. It is also incivil. Your attribution of bad faith and using of terms like "enemy", when someone like Jtneill is a really good friend of mine who I have stuck my neck out for in the past, as is JWS, Moulton, and the rest, is disturbing and shows that you have no understanding of this community, its history, or its interactions between people. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No claim or pretense is made that four weeks is anything other than four weeks. To ascribe an argument to someone that they did not make is uncivil, though not as uncivil as calling someone "liar" or "hypocrit" [sic]. If Jtneill objects to anything I have written, I will seriously consider striking it. He is, as far as I have seen, the most trusted and the most trustworthy member of our "staff." If Jtneill is your "friend," Ottava, then why did you file this CR, which is the only WV process which can remove ops, within minutes after rejecting his warning, and without waiting for his response to your objections?
 * As to the substance, the policy reads During your mentorship period of four weeks, you will have all the technical privileges described below. The issue is what happens after four weeks.


 * 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. This evaluation is in two parts, a mentor recommendation and a poll. Are the tools removed at the end of the "four weeks," as a routine matter? Far from it! I've looked at quite a few candidacies, and I see no precedent for what Ottava did, going to meta and claiming that lifting the tools was "routine" after the expiration of four weeks, without a !vote or the alternate process.


 * routinely, the tools are not lifted until one of two things happens: the mentor withdraws or recommends against permanent custodianship, and 48 hours elapse without a new mentor volunteering and being accepted; or the mentor has recommended promotion, but the closing 'crat considers consensus as not supporting it. In the former cases, the mentor may request desysop after the 48 hour period, but not before, and in the latter, it is a 'crat who requests desysop.


 * Ottava is hinging his argument on accidental and clearly unintended meanings: 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. He then substitutes "mentorship" for the "probationary period," and since the "mentorship period" is stated as "four weeks," he then thinks he has a basis to claim that the 48 hour restriction does not apply, because it was not within the "four weeks," i.e., the "mentorship period."


 * That was not an intended meaning of the "four weeks." It is clear that, until desysop, the probationary custodian is still in the "probationary period," otherwise we will have a custodian who is neither permanent nor probationary, a third class.


 * What, then, is the "mentorship period"? Is it different? It certainly can be. If a mentor rejects the candidate, the policy is clear: the candidate has 48 hours to find a new mentor or the original mentor (and possibly anyone else) can go to the stewards and request desysop. That's a probationary period without mentorship. However, the mentor is a custodian and can still reverse any problematic actions of a probationer, and other custodians can as well.
 * In my case, there was an additional agreement I'd provided, sensing that this wasn't covered by policy: Ottava had the right to ban me from any or all custodial actions. He had the right to immediately request desysop, at any time during his mentorship period (and maybe during the anomalous period), but only if I violated the prohibition. Hence his immediate desysop was not necessary, and was, based on what we have seen here and the general sense of how his attitude shifted so rapidly about me, retaliatory for my warning and blocking him for incivility, just as this CR was filed for the same reason.


 * Ottava is tenaciously trying to interpret away the clear protection written into policy against possible abuse by a mentor, and he is doing so to retaliate for a legitimate action (my warning and block), and in the face of a lack of confirmation of his interpretation from anyone, except possibly JWS, whose opinion can be obscure because he complains about practically everything. Others have clearly confirmed that there was a process violation in Ottava's desysop request, and this was even noticed at meta, by a former Wikipedia arbitrator, but the stewards strongly wish to avoid debate on the steward request page. The steward properly granted the request by Ottava, because Ottava had misled the steward as to our policy, and stewards will AGF. Further, if there was a process error, any 'crat here could fix it, so it was relatively harmless. Since my probationary period terminated due to that request (legitimately or not, I am definitely not a probationary custodian, even Ottava still claims that he's my mentor, a truly bizarre position), and because the candidacy has finally been closed, I am free to re-apply with a new mentor at any time. Ottava has, again, claimed otherwise, in spite of the clear provision in policy on a negative closure:


 * If you are not approved, you are free to request another mentorship or withdraw your request. I considered withdrawing the request when the poll was opened, because that was out-of-process, but decided that it could be seen as declining review by the community, when the opposite is the case, I've requested review, and request that it continue, see User talk:Abd/Custodian actions, where I list all my custodial actions, with reasons where there might be some controversy, and users are invited to comment. --Abd 16:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WYSIWYG, I did not act differently during my probationary period, except for the usual clumsiness at the beginning, than I would act as a permanent custodian, I don't think one action would have been different. A normal probationary custodian might have been more "deferential." I'm not normal.


 * I have almost 25 years of on-line community experience, including as a moderator elsewhere. I'm highly experienced on Wikipedia on the matter of admin recusal failure, I'm one of the rare ordinary editors to take an admin banning me to ArbComm and obtain his desysop, in a massive, sprawling case that got so big because there was a phalanx of admins who'd rather have seen me drop off the edge of the earth (Maybe a dozen, out of the many hundreds of active admins), and they piled in to avert the threat.


 * I'm considered by some, off-wiki, as an expert on possible ad-hoc process for efficiently seeking consensus.


 * I'm working within what is allowed by existing policy to start to clean up this community and how it operates. We cannot go back, but we can re-establish conditions where collaboration is safe again, this time even when there is serious controversy. I don't need custodial tools to do that, at all. I will be acting to empower ordinary editors, and the only major hazard that can prevent this would be custodians who believe they own this place, and have a superior right to control it. They have tools, yes, but they are also obligated to use these tools within limits, and better defining these limits, and setting precedent for what to do when those limits are crossed, is explicitly what I am about at this time.


 * I am, like all editors, subject to warning if I'm disruptive or uncivil. I expect policy to be followed, and that includes me. I will not run screaming from the room if I'm blocked. As long as unblock is a possibility, I will carefully stay within what collaborative editing requires, which includes not evading blocks. If any editor thinks that any edit of mine is uncivil, as Ottava has repeatedly claimed, please request that I delete it (if there has been no response) or strike it, and any editor may warn me, as I warned Ottava. Any uninvolved custodian, if I improperly disregard a warning and repeat the action, may block me, according to my interpretation of policy. Right now, who would be "involved"? Clearly, Ottava, but I'd include Adambro, because I've been so active pointing out his recusal errors. There are enough other custodians. Anyone may file a Request custodian action, upon a good-faith belief that I'm violating policy. In an emergency, even Ottava or Adambro may block me, but it better be good! See for proposed recusal policy, which would make it easy to recognize recusal failure. It's possible that existing CR process is adequate to address recusal failure, I won't know until it's been tried. Recusal failure, as I've defined it there, should be easy to recognize, and easily resolvable if the custodian is cooperative with the community. If not, it's a pretty fast process, if managed adequately to seek consensus and prevent disruption of it. --Abd 16:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this concerns about my role as a bureaucrat in the probationary custodianship of Abd. I didn't make any (active) Bureaucrat decisions in this matter. I did make the decision not to act hurriedly and to allow discussion and consensus to emerge. I shared my viewpoint that I thought that there were some problematic aspects in the procedures followed (i.e., lack of opportunity to find another mentor and voting without mentor recommendation) and I sought clarification and discussion about the community's interpretation of the probationary period and extended probationary periods on the custodianship talk page. I voted against full custodianship primarily because I felt that the probationary custodianship procedures which had been followed in this case were problematic. I would prefer to see that probationary custodianship procedures follow policy - or where policy is unclear - community consensus. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Statement by Jtneill

''Please do a section edit to add comments to this case. Please sign your name with --~ .''


 * }
 * }
 * }