Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill 2

== Jtneill (talk | email | contribs | stats) ==

Archiving - the contributer who opened the review is no longer participating at wv, no new comments in over 2 weeks and there is no consensus for a "recall" among the comments thus far. --mikeu talk 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a recall for Jtneill Bureaucratship status. There is no process, as Bureaucratship is only a proposed policy. However, it is standard to require consensus for the user to keep the right, with Bureaucratship needing a super majority of community trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the "standard" is that to remove the right, violation of policy is required, or supermajority support for removal. It's a 'crat decision, as per Custodianship, based on advice from the community and confirmed by a steward upon recommendation of a 'crat. Policy is quite clear, and Ottava is being inventive in pursuit of his private vendetta.


 * It would be crazy to allow a 'crat to be removed by a few disgruntled users under conditions where an ordinary custodian would not be removed. 'Crats should indeed enjoy the highest level of community trust, but that level cannot be determined from small-participation reviews, by themselves, that is why the decision is made by a 'crat. Just a different 'crat from the one being reviewed! --Abd 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "violation of policy is required" Violating community trust is all that is required. His duty as mentor was to desysop you as soon as you started threatening to block people and you should have been blocked at least 4 times by him. That is a major failure on his part that everyone in the community besides you recognizes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Recall justifications
In addition to items listed in the previous Community Review, Jtneill is a failed mentor of User:Abd. Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 2 shows Jtneill recognizing community opposition yet went along with giving Abd ops anyway. Although the community has shown unanimous support for removing Abd's ops at Community Review (Community Review/Abd), he has not responded.

Bureaucrats are supposed to abide by community consensus, be trusted members of the community, and uphold our policies. Multiple policies have been ignored by Jtneill and he has demonstrated a complete disregard for his duty as Bureaucrat, substituting a status symbol for an obligation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have permitted any 'crat to request removal of my privileges at meta, without debate. I also permitted any custodian to interdict possibly controversial actions of mine. So I have made, in effect, the entire administrative community into an extended mentor, with 'crats having the right of immediate desysop. Ottava tries to make this a personal issue, when there are others watching the situation who could and would intervene if necessary. He's trying to take out every active 'crat, all together or one at a time. It is possible to imagine a mentored custodian with inadequate supervision becoming a problem, but that did not happen here. I simply acted as if I were a custodian, knowing that the community would restrain me if necessary, and making sure that no serious problems could endure. What I voluntarily did could become part of mentorship policy. --Abd 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship of Abd 2 probationary custodianship
Why do you claim the right to disrupt the Wikiversity community by forcing upon it a totally unacceptable sysop like Abd? --JWSchmidt 14:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Serious assumption of bad faith here and undeserving of an answer until you decide to put forth a question that isn't loaded. Adrignola 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Assumption of bad faith" doesn't mean what you think it does. No where did JWSchmidt mention that Jtneill acted inappropriately because he explicitly wanted to cause harm. Attributing stupidity or carelessness to a really bad decision is not assuming bad faith. Bad faith clearly means intended malice. Otherwise, no one could say someone else is wrong. However, you do assume bad faith in your response to JWSchmidt, making it ironic and hypocritical. You also answered for Jtneill, which is a sign of arrogance and is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this really need explained? JWSchmidt' question starts off with the premise that Jtneill has "claim the right to disrupt the Wikiversity community". I can think of a few answers to JWSchmidt's question, if they were asked of me, none of them would probably provide a helpful answer for constructive discussion which also makes the question disruptive. There are far many other ways this question could of been asked that assumed good faith and would of provided answers helpful for constructive discussion. On that note, I guess I will ask to keep this discussion constructive. Jtneill, why did you choose to mentor Abd when the Wikiversity community had concerns about how he would use the tools? -- dark lama  21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. While I don't think you've asserted the right to disrupt Wikiversity (and or hand over anything to the devil), I really would like to understand your thinking here. Keeping Abd on board and under your wing was clearly making a lot of people very unhappy, and I'm really a bit perplexed about why you let that slide. I've always respected you and have thought of you as a great asset to the community because of your calm and forgiving approach, but I'm not sure what to think about this. --SB_Johnny talk 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SBJ, you've got it wrong. Sure, my custodianship made certain people unhappy. Notably Ottava. JWS is generically unhappy about about every custodian, you know that, I assume. Ottava successfully created an appearance of abuse of ops through filing a process to topic ban me after I warned him, and he has a long-term pattern of doing that, it's a wikilawyering tactic that has often worked for him, and the long-term habit of too many wiki users to jump to conclusions without seeing balanced evidence is what allows it to work, it even sucked in a WP arb. Force anyone who sees what you are doing to recuse, wear them out.
 * You unblocked Ottava without taking due care to protect the community. Because of my recusal problem, I was forced to allow any custodian to stop me, and, if I acted, to not wheel-war. That is totally proper behavior, and the real protection against sysop abuse in a wiki system. However, you knew that Ottava was being massively disruptive. Yet you are, here, blaming me for that. If you look at the history, that's preposterous. Ottava first went after you. He then went after me, Mikeu, Jtneill (both of them, filing his second CR), as well as, before that, trying to complicate Wikiversity mentorship procedure, which is excellent, one of Wikiversity's best features, with no actual damage shown, and including a safeguard: 'crat approval, which, in this case, SBJ gave while actually disapproving, part of the problem.
 * Therefore SBJ was happy to see Ottava making the fuss and successfully creating an appearance of community support. SBJ knows that this support is illusory, and the vote analysis that I did in my CR, SBJ could also have done. SBJ preferred to have that cover. This explains why, though SBJ had previously warned Ottava about incivility, had blocked him for three days (in spite of being under just as much of a recusal requirement as I), he did not reduce my "one year block" -- explicitly indefinite, seeking immediate review -- to a more appropriate time, but simply lifted it without setting any restrictions at all on Ottava. Had it not been for my express approval for any custodian to lift the block, upon assumption of responsibility, that would have been wheel-warring. It was, absolutely, failure to protect the wiki, and damage has been done. My bit is not the damage I'm thinking of, it's the precedent that a tendentious attacker like Ottava can manipulate the process and get away with it. I know, for a fact, that this is driving away users, and it's certainly dampened my own enthusiasm about Wikiversity, which I'd considered the possible "savior" of the WMF, in particular Wikipedia. It appears that Wikiversity also has the Wikipedia Disease. Mob rule, vulnerability to small but determined factions, etc. --Abd 16:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentored Abd 2's probationary custodianship for approximately 3 weeks until it was terminated via a Community Review. I understand that there is some concern expressed above that I didn't terminate the custodianship. The main reason was simply that I was undecided about whether I would recommend the candidate for full custodianship at the end of the probationary period. I understand and respect that others made up their mind before I did as the mentor. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation discussion

 * Oppose confirmation for egregious abuse of community trust, multiple instances of ignoring consensus regarding the privileges of Abd, and his unwilling to respect the community, I can no longer trust Jtneill as a Bureaucrat. Prohibit Jtneill from serving as a mentor for 1 year. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose change in privileges. No example has been shown of "egregious abuse of community trust." If Jtneill was in error in suggesting and approving mentorship for me, that's a separate issue, and the community may, in my view, prohibit any custodian from mentoring, and it is part of the discretion of a 'crat to rule that a mentor is (or is not) an effective supervisor. The "ignoring of consensus" that Ottava asserts remains to be demonstrated, and this Community Review, like the prior Community Review/Jtneill, was filed as payback for the crime of Failure to Support Ottava on his vindictive rampage, like a host of such Ottava actions, here and at meta, see m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. --Abd 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "No example has been shown of "egregious abuse of community trust."" Giving you a mentorship against consensus and concerns that he, himself, pointed out existed, is a major example. You violating your ban from Wikiversity space shows the ramifications of his bad decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no "consensus" against my mentored custodianship, only the usual stuff from JWS, Ottava's rants, and "issues" raised by non-Wikiversitans, some of which had nothing at all to do with Wikiversity. There was no "ban from Wikiversity space," and Ottava's claim simply shows that he still thinks Wikiversity is the Ottavan Empire. Not. But, in some sense, it might as well be, because as long as he is allowed to harass those against whom he has a grudge, he will damage our user base, he will drive away those who dislike continual conflict, and I know that's been happening. --Abd 15:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unanimity minus one against one is not consensus. Unanimity minus one against one is the fundamental mathematics of an abhorrent and anachronistic cultural practice known as alienation and scapegoating.  It is crucial that Wikiversity not fall into the popular mistake that has long plagued humankind, because that mistake is corrosive of any forward-looking culture that strives to achieve academic excellence.  —Moulton 16:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, Moulton is correct, except that "consensus" is often shorthand for "substantial consensus." Moulton assumes conflict, one "against" a supermajority. I have real experience with real-world organizations that seek consensus, and that do so effectively. Moulton knows very well how to act the role of the scapegoat, but he knows much less how to catalyze real consensus. It's a special skill, and it is not particularly common. Real consensus organizations, the ones that survive, don't refrain from making decisions by supermajority or even majority, but they value full consent, and accord dissent protection and opportunity to change decisions. Within limits. Moulton has struggled against and has defied all limits, and then mistakes the natural response for repression of dissent. To live outside the law you must be honest. --Abd 16:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support confirmation for even-headed responses in the face of high-tension situations, willingness to give people a chance, and desire to mentor others in order to help them improve. Adrignola 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Willing to give people a chance" is not allowed by Bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can only enforce the community will, not "give people a chance" in defiance of it. There was no improving here nor an effort to help Abd improve. A mentor must be constantly active with their mentee, which Jtneill clearly was not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava's complaint here is not about any 'crat action. It is about Jtneill's exercise of the right to mentor. If there was 'crat abuse involved in my second probationary custodianship, it would be the action of SBJ, but that abuse, if it exists, was subtle, not the kind of thing for an easy lifting of the bit. The community had, in place for a long time, a policy of allowing probationary custodianship upon the offer and acceptance of mentorship by any custodian. SBJ decided, for whatever reason, to respect Jtneill's offer, and made it plain, before my candidacy was reopened. Jtneill appears to believe that I would be a net positive as a custodian, I believe that I was (basically, I did not anticipate the continued community inattention, and it's impossible for a custodian to do what I was trying to do without community support), and the Community Review that gave cover for SBJ's decision to terminate -- he relied upon it, rather than my prior, oft-repeated consent to his removal of ops -- did not establish any specific misconduct as a custodian, and I'd pointed that out. Ottava relies upon that review as evidence that "the community" was so radically against my custodianship that Jtneill should be sanctioned for allowing it. In fact, all that review demonstrated was that a vengeful editor could gather enough support, quickly, to create an impression of "consensus." Wikis are vulnerable to that, as structured normally.
 * It was evidence-free, a topic ban proposal that collected !votes on one set of issues, opened as an attempt by Ottava to create an impression of sysop abuse (it was filed immediately and quickly after I warned Ottava that continued disruption would result in a block) and that was then converted into an "emergency desysop" procedure, with prior discussion excluded, comments copied out of context, a travesty of process, and it should have been closed immediately as such, and reopened properly, with a site message, if it was to be considered. There was no fix, and no site message, in spite of the serious implications, for any of the filed CRs.
 * There was no custodial support of my removal, except from SBJ, in the end, and the assent of Mikeu, a matter I will take up with him, personally, because it seems to have been based on off-wiki "discussion" with SBJ, echoing the past. (I consider Mikeu's position reasonable, if uninformed.) There was no custodial protection, from SBJ or others; every controversial action I took was preceded by requests for attention from the custodial community. I then proposed acting, and acted, as I'd expect any custodian to act based on what I was seeing. SBJ knew that Ottava was being completely outrageous, he'd blocked Ottava himself, previously. Ottava had not been under provocation, this whole thing was simply a continuation of old grudges, viciously pursued.
 * Ottava's comment assumes that it was Abd who needed to improve. The CR does not establish that, it was a device to create an appearance, and SBJ cooperated with it, because it served his purposes. If Jtneill is to be reprimanded for having inadequately supervised me, much better evidence for abuse of ops should be shown.
 * Jtneill was monitoring the situation, indeed, and expressed his opinion, as he had before, in reviewing my very first block of Ottava, during my first mentorship. (When Jtneill also warned Ottava, that was followed immediately by Community Review/Jtneill, clear vengeful payback.) I was acting for the protection of the wiki, and SBJ very deliberately stopped that, without substituting any guidance or proper protection. I can guess why. He wanted it to continue. --Abd 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats must listen to the community and not use personal opinion. The community spoke, Jtneill based on personal preference. The easiest statement is that Jtneill could have -not- decided to serve as a mentor as he could have always said no. He saw concerns, acknowledged concerns, proceeded anyway. When the community spoke about abuse, he ignored it. That shows an ignoring of the community that is not acceptable by a Bureaucrat. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava is a liar, presents distorted evidence, he's tendentious and vengeful. As long as Ottava is permitted to edit Wikiversity, his mission of revenge will ultimately continue, and bringing down Wikiversity, in revenge for the failure of the community to support him in Community Review/Ottava Rima, has become part of his plan. Ottava has lied at meta about Wikiversity policy, he's lied about SBJ's history, and I am not one to use "lie" lightly, he's lied about many things, when he can be presumed to know the truth. I can back all this with diffs. If they were merely errors, differences of opinion, they would have ceased when evidence was shown, previously. He's famous for this, see m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. He's banned for it on Wikipedia. But Ottava has always had his supporters, and he's believed that Jimbo and the WMF steward structure support him. They don't, not any more. Ottava's disruption here was part of what led to the threat to close Wikiversity in March, 2010, and his support of Jimbo's intervention then led Jimbo to believe he had local support, so Jimbo continued, and this led to Jimbo's resignation of the tools that had allowed him to intervene, see Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag. Ottava has done massive damage, all over the wikis, and as long as it's allowed to continue here, Wikiversity is far from a safe place.
 * None of Ottava's supporters rise to this level, they are merely dupes. --Abd 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I was banned for being a "vengeful liar" on Wikipedia, why did I start the ArbCom on myself and no one else ever did? Or an RfC? o.O And I was friends with Jtneill, just as JWSchmidt was. If Jtneill's action was okay why would his own friends say there was a problem? Jtneill is busy with his professor work and I feel that real life clouds his on Wiki judgment. He doesn't have time to thoroughly deal with matters and it is time he steps back. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By now, he's famous for it. He's famous for asking irrelevant questions implying self-justification for his paranoid visions. Ottava presents distorted evidence routinely, he's tendentious and vengeful. Diffs on request.
 * By the way, the recent sequence with Ottava and JWS has demonstrated that there are no consequences for an ordinary user who is uncivil. We have a candidate for custodianship who is opposed to blocking for incivility, period. We have another 'crat, SBJ, who unblocked, without setting any restrictions, Ottava, who was engaged in massive incivility, lies falsehoods, deceptions, fraudulent refactoring of votes, misrepresentations of Wikiversity policy and conditions at meta, massive filing of CRs for wikilawyering purpose, and more.
 * Jtneill is not responsible for my assertiveness now, I was restrained as his mentee, and very careful about what I wrote. People simply imagined that telling the truth about Ottava was a "personal attack." But since SBJ determined that the Ottavan Empire was free to Strike Back, I have no reason for restraint. I'm still telling the truth, just less politely. You get what you pay for. If the community establishes safety and protects Wikiversitans from gross incivility, as I tried to establish, I'll be happy to comply. Otherwise, I've learned some lessons, from Professor Ottava, Advanced Wikilawyering and Trolling. --Abd 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose recall for Jtneill's Bureaucratship status. I agree that Jtneill should have ceased to mentor Abd. Indeed I asked him to do so. However, Bureaucrats should not be removed by this process where only a few people, all involved in a whole series of reviews and other nonsense, are having a say. I still have trust in Jtneill. I want to take this opportunity to raise a more important point. There is a small closed shop here of custodians, would-be custodians and ex-custodians who are arguing with each other in all sorts of different places. Are there not other neutral custodians who could step in and sort out this overall mess that is clearly doing no good for wikiversity? Or are all the other custodians inactive? If that is the case, we have a big problem. --Bduke 06:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bduke. Jtneill had deep knowledge of the situation, the history, and, while it's all on-wiki, most people haven't seen it. Jtneill trusted that I would not do anything truly disruptive. It is unclear what the reasons were for the removal of my bit. Some think that it was because I blocked Ottava. However, if you look at Ottava's block log, you'll see that, while I was the first to do it -- when he was my mentor, for two hours! -- I wasn't the only custodian to think there was a problem. Ottava's behavior had worsened, not gotten better, since the previous block by SBJ. (He eventually got himself blocked at meta.) So what was going on? It's very complicated, but, bottom line, Jtneill understood, better than most, what I was doing. Under custodianship policy, I could have asked for a renewed period of custodianship! But I did not, because it's not that important. The smoke should clear.
 * While I was attempting to handle massive disruption, which included threats that users were going to be blocked simply for disagreeing with Ottava, I was begging for a neutral custodian to intervene, at WV:RCA. Nobody did. I know that at least one was watching, perplexed about what to do. I took my actions provisionally, allowing any custodian to reverse, which is how I've proposed that an involved custodian should act. Previously, other custodians frequently took actions while involved, and neither consulted nor invited review. When I was asked to stop by a custodian (SBJ), I stopped. But when the problems continued with no attention, I took my responsibility to protect the community seriously, and again proposed intention to act. I will start a CR on my own actions, for my own advice, but not immediately, because it's not necessary. I'm not a custodian, I'm committed to Wikiversity as a scholar and supporter of academic freedom. --Abd 16:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming we have a big problem, what do you propose is the next step for sorting out this overall mess? -- dark lama  07:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend against moral panic at the discovery of moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course we are crafting a comic opera about moral panic at the revelation of moral bankruptcy.  My perplexity is that I can't tell the difference between a comic opera and reality here on Wikiversity.  —Moulton 09:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Only a few people are involved because there are only a few people, unfortunately. If you notice, most Bureaucrats and Admin, if actually elected, have very few votes. We don't have enough activity to justify how many of them we have. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose both process and proposal. The heart of the matter seems to be a disagreement over how to apply the policies around mentorship, so the remedy should be to clarify the policies. --SB_Johnny talk 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, I think it has demonstrated a fundamental weakness in the process of mentorship. That is that it allows a person who has no real community support to become a provisional custodian. This then leads to difficulties for the custodian who agrees to mentor and to the crat who gives the bits. It is a flawed process. Nobody should be given the bits until the community has given them their trust. The mentoring process should be discontinued. Maybe something different from the wikipedia admin process can be working out that is more appropriate to an academic community, but it is a good place to start. A would-be custodian has to seek community support before they get the bits. That support is crucial. There is no alternative. --Bduke 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of policy
The existing policy has been interpreted, on the one hand, as requiring a 'crat to approve of a mentorship when the mentor is available. At the same time, the existence of opposition to the custodianship candidacy was interpreted, on the other side, as prohibiting the approval. There are some basic errors involved here.
 * No functionary or administrator is compelled to perform any action. This is a basic safeguard in the system, in fact. Those who designed wiki structure and ad hoc process clearly understood what Moulton has often pointed out, that rigid rules create irresolvable contradictions. That doesn't mean that rules are a Bad Thing! They lead to predictability, and violations of rules, exceptions, if routine, would mean that the rules should be changed.
 * So when the custodianship policy states that a 'crat will set the custodian bit, this is not a requirement on the 'crat, and if a 'crat considers the objections expressed with candidacy to be cogent and the custodianship unadvisable, the 'crat should not act, and should, instead, add his or her own objections to the discussion.
 * The important question is whether or not an opportunity should be provided for the community to object. In practice, very little time has been allowed; my recent candidacy was unusual in that the mentor was on wikibreak; as he had offered, I accepted, but then the candidacy sat open, and there are certain people who'd prefer to see me not editing here at all!
 * In the discussion on setting up a pre-assignment process, I pointed out that there has been no actual problem; controversial custodians have been approved before, and no harm was done. Was it done in my case? Certainly there was a big fuss, but that fuss represented long-standing disputes in the community. I'd suggest that we make bad policy by focusing on a single incident, the true nature of which has yet to be explored.
 * The mentorship "right" is a privilege that the community has assigned to permanent custodians. That should be made clear. I was a custodian, my bit had been set, but I could not, I interpret, become a primary mentor of another custodian. In working on the policy, we should clarify boundaries to this right. Can an inactive custodian mentor? I'd say not. The flap over my custodianship was based on deep mistrust of all three currently active 'crats, and process to remove them was filed at the same time, roughly, as the proposal to "emergency desysop" me. This says more about those who were agitating for removal than about me. Or about, the subject of this CR, Jtneill.
 * To resolve the issues properly will take time and careful examination. The proposed changes to CR process may help. --Abd 15:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)