Wikiversity:Custodian feedback/Archive

Comment on JWSurf

 * JWSurf.
 * My comments: It can be irritating that he is unfailing courteous, usually right, and a very fast typer often pre-empting others attempts to be helpful.  8) Mirwin 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
Ottava notified:

Statement of Abd
Summary (diff'd below)
 * Incivility unbecoming of any editor, but particularly a custodian.
 * Self-unblock when blocked for incivility repeated after warning. (Controversial, Ottava had a general permission to revert my custodial actions, but it is against policy to unblock oneself, so this one has some ambiguity.... but if Ottava had waited an hour, the original block would have expired, so the conflict was not necessary.) (possible recusal failure)
 * Deletion of block log entries, probably to conceal that he had unblocked himself. (recusal failure)
 * Removal of "Request custodian action" report by me, requesting independent custodial review of the block. (unbecoming a custodian)
 * Presented deceptive description of WV policy and the circumstances at meta. (unbecoming a custodian)
 * Requested desysop at meta without allowing 48 hours from withdrawal as mentor, as provided by policy. (violating policy)
 * Prematurely removed my candidacy page from WV:Candidates for Custodianship, not respecting the 48-hour period. (violating policy)
 * Revert warred to keep that listing out. (revert warring, unbecoming a custodian)
 * Threatened to block me for reverting him. (recusal failure)
 * Threatened to "ban" or block me for disruption for questioning his interpretation of policy. (recusal failure)
 * Claimed that I was lying about policy, when my interpretation is the plain meaning of the policy, as confirmed by others. (incivility)
 * summary added --Abd 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Having discussed the recent events with Ottava already, with no resolution and his threat to block me, this step should precede a Community Review per policy.

The story
Ottava has acted contrary to policy in a number of areas, and has insisted on doing so when questioned. I was distressed to discover this, because he had generously offered to be my mentor, see Candidates for Custodianship/Abd, but it appears that probationary custodian policy was written to contemplate possible disagreement between mentor and probationer, and provides for a 48-hour period for the probationer to obtain another mentor, should the original mentor withdraw or conclude the candidate is unfit, whether during the four week period or at or after it. There is no policy limiting specifically what actions a probationary custodian may take, except for limits that apply to all custodians, and some general advice. My particular candidate statement, however, did allow Ottava to revert any custodial actions of mine, even if this would ordinarily be considered wheel-warring, but that statement did not allow him to take actions that would otherwise be reprehensible or improper on their own. They just wouldn't be wheel-warring; this was intended for him to be able to avoid damage from errors of mine. The statement also allowed Ottava to unilaterally prohibit me from taking any custodial actions, and to request immediate desysop, with advance consent from me, if I violated the prohibition. I never violated such a prohibition, because none was issued.

A full Community Review would address older and underlying issues; this feedback is confined to the immediate events leading to my premature desysop and what ensued. If it were not for my opinion that we are, with the subject actions here, seeing the tip of the iceberg, I'd probably not be filing this. This is a step preceding a Community Review, this step cannot desysop, per policy, so this is only an opportunity for the community to review Ottava's actions, in a preliminary fashion, and provide him (and/or me) with guidance. Perhaps a CR can be avoided.


 * Evidence provided to Request custodian action page, brief summary: Ottava made edits grossly and gratuitously uncivil to SBJohnny, I warned Ottava, he removed the warning and made another uncivil edit in the same manner. Accordingly I blocked him, notifying him on his Talk page, and, because of the potentially controversial nature of the block, I also made a Request for custodian action, linked here. I made the block be only for two hours, the minimum standard time in the interface, to allow some opportunity for other custodians to review this, and I also specifically notified Jtneill, as I saw he was on-line. Not waiting for others, Ottava deleted the block notice, unblocked himself, and revision-deleted his block log.


 * Ottava also deleted the Request for custodian action involving him.


 * July 29, within minutes after unblocking himself, Ottava went to meta and requested desysop, claiming that this was "standard procedure," and, as would be expected with that statement, it was granted within minutes. In fact, the standard procedure, explicit in policy, when a mentor withdraws support, is that the candidate has 48 hours to obtain another mentor, and only after the lapse of this period is the mentor allowed to unconditionally request desysop.

Note that I'm not concerned at this time about regaining sysop tools. This feedback is solely for the purpose of examining Ottava's actions as a sysop himself, and possible misbehavior by me is not relevant to that.


 * August 1, Ottava finally made formal notice of termination of mentorship, claiming that the candidacy was over, completely ignoring the clear provision in policy of a 48-hour period in which the candidate is allowed to find another mentor. He relies on totally specious arguments for this, arguments that fly in the face of actual practice, where extension of probationary custodianship beyond four weeks is possible, and in this case, the custodianship was extended by mutual consent of Ottava and myself, with opportunity being given to the community to object, and it did not.


 * Unilaterally, ignoring the 48-hour provision, and without other support from the community, Ottava removed my candidacy from listing on WV:Candidates for custodianship. I provided contrary argument on the attached Talk page, and reverted. Ottava then reverted me, restoring his own action, and threatened me with a block, both there on the Talk page and on my User talk page. A threat to block by a custodian is generally abusive if a block would have been abusive. Ottava is clearly involved and there was no emergency. If my position is sustained, as distinct from his, the only difference is that I'd have 48 hours to obtain a mentor, from the formal termination, at which time we all agree the candidacy could be terminated unilaterally. And if his position were sustained, policy appears to allow me to re-establish the candidacy if I obtain a new mentor, with a new request. So Ottava is revert warring and threatening a block over practically nothing but his personal will being frustrated, being unable to wait two days.

For a custodian to threaten to block over revert warring, when the custodian is revert warring without emergency, is very serious. It is a custodian asserting a superior right to control content, but without policy backing. Some incidents may be of less import, individually, though the incivility was a sign of a much deeper problem than may be apparent. I knew, before Ottava offered to mentor me, that he had problems dealing with other editors elsewhere, he's banned on Wikipedia, and that's not the full extent of it. But it seemed to me that he had successfully partitioned his behavior, so I trusted that. Whatever caused this, something broke down, I'd been seeing increasing signs of the problem. I'd greatly prefer to see Ottava recognize the issues, so that the community can sensibly allow him to keep his tools, because he is a valuable contributor here. But an inability to refrain from use of sysop tools when involved is one of the major problems that Wikiversity faces, it perpetuates dispute and disruption, and this is a clear example of it. I'm asking that the community inform Ottava that these actions were improper, seeking an acknowledgment from him and assurances that this will not continue. This is the last stop before the "seven day review" provided by policy, with a close by a bureaucrat, who may decide to desysop, in the event the issue is not resolved. --Abd 05:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on statement of Abd

 * Abd is unable to understand the definition of "four weeks". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I am able or unable to understand is irrelevant to the issue of Ottava's behavior.
 * However, four weeks is 28 days. Four weeks is what, here? From reading the entire policy, it is clear that four weeks is emphasized as the minimum period of probationary custodianship. Ottava has twisted that into some kind of drop-dead date, which is entirely contrary to the sense of the whole policy and to actual practice. That is wikilawyering, and that we have a custodian who tenaciously wikilawyers, including threats of blocks, bans, or meta policy violation reports on a 'crat, to support his personal and even preposterous position is quite serious. This mess started with blatant incivility, and it got worse. In fact, my unusual block, little more than the warning that preceded it, revealed a can of worms.
 * Ottava has now threatened Jtneill with a policy violation report, presumably on meta, should Jtneill act on his interpretation of the policy, which apparently matches mine, see, comments of August 2. He is also threatening me with a "ban" for alleged disruption and lying about the policy. I increasingly fear, if he continues as he has, that Ottava will have to go. What that means, the community will decide. --Abd 15:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats are not given the ability to grant adminship without consensus by the community. Temporary ops has never been something accepted as common practice at the WMF and has strict regulations. Furthermore, as I have shown from my own RFA, 28 days is not a "minimum" for the probationary period. It is the line that a mentor is to decide if someone is fit for nomination or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is spinning out, so I'm collapsing my response.
 * Nobody has claimed that bureaucrats may sysop without process, but "consensus of the community" is only the standard for permanent custodianship. For probationary custodianship, the standard is the agreement of a candidate and a mentor on mentorship. Period. No consensus is required, policy implies that a bureaucrat will immediately grant sysop status upon the arising of that agreement, and that appears to be actual practice. There was a delay with my own candidacy's conversion to probationary only because there was no available bureaucrat, which situation I fixed by going to meta and requesting a close for the 'cratship of Jtneil, which was long overdue. There is nothing in the policy requiring the mentor to do anything at any particular time, but rather the mentor is allowed to do certain things as specified. If there is delay, it is generally moot, unless someone objects to the delay, in which case some kind of decision would have to be made. It would appear that with the above argument, Ottava is trying to justify his threat to report Jtneill for policy violation, based on the contingency that Jtneill decided, as one possibility, that I was not according the 48-hour period to find a new mentor, and Jtneill had indeed stated that I was entitled to this period, this seems to be finding consensus. Ottava's out on a limb, here, vigorously sawing the wrong side. In Ottava's case, Ottava was a probationary custodian, having been given the tools, but not yet formally approved, for substantially longer than 28 days. In that example, though, there was substantial effort to more precisely follow policy. What Ottava is missing, however, is that policy specifically provides for the contingency that the mentor "turns against" the mentored custodian, and provides explicit process should that happen at any time before permanent custodian approval, and Ottava did not follow that process, instead trying to claim that some expire date had been passed and the milk should be thrown out without any further consideration. Why? Because he did not want the stewards to look at what had actually happened. It might have gotten messy. (In fact, if the stewards had been aware of the actual policy, I assume, one of them would have so commented, noting that if no mentor appeared within 48 hours of the termination -- they'd want to see the termination, too, which Ottava did not provide as well -- they would then desysop. Strictly, the mentor is supposed to wait 48 hours, but the difference would be academic. Given what Ottava wrote, however, and how stewards operate in reality, what the steward did is more or less what would be expected. Stewards are not expected to know the intimated details of local policy, and it looked like Ottava's reason was sound, Ottava presented this as routine, though I'm not aware of any precedent for it (non-emergency desysop request based on expiration of the four week period only, which is contrary to policy.) --Abd 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

most relevant point: Ottava is apparently trying to justify his threat to report Jtneill for "violating policy," when Jtneill has been simply interpreting policy as written and practiced, as have I. Thus his tendentious argument, not supported by consensus, and preposterous on the face, is adding to the necessity for review of his actions. His comments above are actually true, except for the conclusion in the last sentence and the implication that others are in contradiction to the true statements. As to the last sentence, the ending of the four week period is the period where !voting, with approval, may begin. It does not terminate probationary custodianship, that is clearly standing practice, and the policy provides for the contingency that the mentor rejects the candidate; Ottava's position would make that meaningless, thus defeating policy in favor of ... what? --Abd 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) For reference, here is the policy relevant to probationary custodianship. I believe it is quite clear, and it matches actual practice, either exactly or closely. --Abd 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments from JWSchmidt. Abd, my advice is that you again nominate yourself for probationary custodianship (assuming you are still interested in the position). If Ottava Rima were a normal Custodian it would be possible to resolve your conflict with him (or it would never have arisen), but evidence indicates that he is not a normal Custodian. Ottava Rima was never nominated for full custodianship by a custodian mentor, so it is not clear that he is actually a Custodian at all. Ottava Rima has asserted that he is the top organizer of Wikiversity, apparently positioning himself as being "special" in some way. Ottava Rima has adopted the strange position that he can impose blocks not forbidden by policy, but Wikiversity policy says that blocks are only for preventing repeated vandalism or other purposes explicitly prescribed by policy or defined by consensus. Ottava Rima's rogue position with respect to his use of the block tool led him to impose a bad block and violate the Wikiversity civility policy by calling for an unjustified block. Ottava Rima fails to provide evidence to support accusations he has made against Wikiversity community members (examples: 1, 2). This is particularly alarming when a wild accusation alienates a new member of the Wikiversity community. Ottava Rima also uses the Wikiversity chat channel inappropriately, for example, to bully another member of the community. Given the many examples of bad behavior by Ottava Rima (provided by you and I in this discussion thread), I doubt if it will be possible for you to resolve your conflict with Ottava Rima. Abd, since no other Custodian will stand up to Ottava Rima and prevent him from disrupting Wikiversity, my advice is, just move on and re-nominate yourself as a probationary custodian. --JWSchmidt 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While I could have done that, and still could do that, Darklama has opened up a permanent custodian discussion. Per policy, that can't be closed as positive without a mentor, but, I had to agree, the mentor could equivalently be added later. As I pointed out, this isn't what policy describes, but it makes sense, because I did have a long probationary period with few real problems except for your flak. If no other custodian will "stand up to Ottava" -- which isn't correct, it's already happening, I'll give some examples -- too bad. It's my job to do my duty and to speak the truth. I think you know about that one, the difference is that I'm trying to do it rigorously within policy and due process, while, hopefully, minimizing disruption. Doesn't always work, but, hey, how's your approach working, John? I have not reviewed your evidence above, I intend to if I have time, and comment on it. This request for feedback, though, isn't intended by me to be a laundry list of all errors or whatever that Ottava has made. I filed it just over the narrow actions, and the reason is that "discussion of all is discussion of none," a variation on a phrase that a very old and very wise man once said to me. If we can't get through to Ottava with something narrow, how much is hie likely to hear us if he is busy ducking the kitchen sink? Remember, that's the process here, trying to allow the community to talk some sense in to him (or me, or you!). Thanks for commenting. --Abd 01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Examples. Jtneill has pointed out that Ottava did in fact neglect policy on the 48 hour thing, and on his claim that I could not reapply. Darklama relisted my candidacy after Ottava twice removed it, and completely rejected -- demolished, actually -- the argument Ottava was making that he could prevent it all by insisting he was still my mentor. In the end, how will the community !vote on my candidacy? I'm sure there will be some opposition, but the decision is actually made by a 'crat, not by !vote, if I'm correct. I think Ottava may be past his prime. But what if he surprises us and simply says, "Oops!" I'm not against Ottava, I just want him to follow policy and not use his tools for his personal ego. I also intend to make a desysop promise, the cumbersome process for desysopping is a serious problem when things go awry, so I should set a good example. --Abd 01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "your flak" <-- Calling for unjustified blocks and bans is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Two good ways for a probationary custodian to disrupt Wikiversity are falsifying log entries and failing to respond to questions from community members. You are free to dismiss my objections about your behavior as "flak", but a Custodian would honor the obligation to abide by policy and explain how their actions support the Wikiversity project. "how's your approach working, John?" <-- What do you mean by my approach? "ducking the kitchen sink?" <-- I'm not sure what you mean by the "kitchen sink". It might be that Ottava is slowly learning that since Jimbo lost his toy banhammer there is no longer enough support for imposing bad blocks upon Wikiversity community members. --JWSchmidt 13:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My actions are not the subject of this feedback. I am not (currently) a custodian, but comments on my actions as a probationary custodian remain fully in order at User talk:Abd/Custodian actions. As a page used for my own reception of advice, I reserve the right to refactor that page, should it become necessary to keep it clear. As to your unsureness of what I mean, I have elsewhere suggested that you seek advice from someone you trust, since repeated explanations have been ineffective. --Abd 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
I request that possible polls be proposed before being actually started, we should have some sense of the value of a poll, before soliciting !votes. This is not a deciding process, it is only for advice to Ottava and myself, but if we do this work carefully, and a Community Review is later needed, it might be fairly simple. --Abd 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottava has not responded to the substance of this feedback; accordingly, I propose a report"; as this is summary process, intended to reduce useless discussion, please endorse or oppose the motion. Endorsement will close this report, opposition will keep it open until further process. If you wish to add substantial comment, you may now !vote in opposition, and reverse this later. If substantial response appears from Ottava, or from others, time should be provided for further response and this motion will be tabled or revised. --Abd 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll to close Ottava Rima feedback
No consensus or resolving agreement having been found, Abd, the filer of this feedback report, or any other responsible editor, is requested to close it as ineffective.

Endorse close of Ottava Rima feedback

 * 1) Abd 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (mover)

Discussion

 * In standard deliberative process, a motion like this is not debatable, which avoids useless discussion. However, because discussion on a wiki can proceed simultaneously with closure process, debate and discussion is allowed. My intention in closing is to proceed to Community Review/Ottava Rima, it having become necessary. This report was on narrow issues; the Community Review will necessarily be wider. Please see Policy on "Problems with Custodians" for a description of due process. --Abd 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill

 * Name of custodian/bureaucrat: Jtneill
 * Your comments: This custodian has a broad and holistic knowledge of the wiki format. He is kind and courteous. Keep up the good work Jtneill.

=Benjamin= ( t ) · ( c ) · ( e ) 04:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Community review
Several Custodians do not respond to questions about their actions. This is the subject of community review. --JWSchmidt 14:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When asked on their user talk pages, User:Darklama and User:Adambro have failed to explain how their actions support the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When asked on his user talk page, User:Ottava Rima has failed to explain how his actions support the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 05:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Custodians are volunteers and are not required, in fact, to explain their actions, though explanation is preferred and suggested. An unexplained action may be reversed readily by another custodian. The community may ask questions in some process for removal of ops, and failure to respond may be part of the grounds for removal. But there is no such process underway at this time. In particular, questions only coming from a single individual may generally be ignored if it becomes tedious to respond, where experience has shown that response simply leads to more and more questions. Hence a general rule can be derived: the urgency of response is proportional to the number of users confirming that a question requires answers. Normally, custodians are routinely expected to answer a single question from a single user. A barrage of questions from a single user, however, may be ignored, though it is more courteous to decline to answer unless the questions are reduced and narrowed, to, perhaps, one question at a time. I note that in the process by which Adambro became a custodian, JWS asked a large number of questions at one time, nearly all of them appearing hostile. Adambro declined to answer, inviting JWS to reduce the number of questions. JWS did not, but faulted Adambro for not responding, and opposed the custodianship of Adambro. The community did not accept the position of JWS, all other comments were favorable to Adambro. JWS is beating a seriously dead horse here, he's been doing it for a long time. --Abd 17:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Test and treat
Test and treat is a proposed public health measure which is intended to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. I recently created a page discussing Test and treat which was deleted by Ottava Rima. After I asked him on his talk page if he is opposed to test and treat, he blocked my account and deleted the question from his talk page. This means, among other things, that I must now log out before I may post on talk pages. I am curious about how other custodians feel about this issue. --173.206.237.7 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (KBlott)
 * 1. You plagiarized two pages. 2. You used my real name, which you cannot possibly know based on standard editing. 3. You were blocked before for inappropriate edits on Wikipedia on the same subject then proceeded to use socks to put them back again. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaint: SB Johnny
SB Johnny has a long history of inappropriate actions. He desysopped JWSchmidt outside of community process and discussion, made dozens of bad blocks, wheel warred with Jimbo Wales and others, canvassed people to stop proposals, uses Wikipedia Review to out and harass users, and has been consistently incivil. He also demanded his own ops restored outside of community process and was granted them without first requesting the community about it or telling Stewards that we do not have a policy allowing for automatic resysop. Currently, he granted Abd Custodian status even though the community

This complaint follows the process here. If SB Johnny does not call for the removal of Custodianship and permanently give up all privileges at Wikiversity, then "a new seven day community discussion" will be started. If there is not "community consensus in support for the custodianship", which requires more than 60% to support him keeping his ops, then he will be desysopped after seven days. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been notified of this complaint, and have read it. --SB_Johnny talk 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bluster busted, bluff called. SBJ was following policy, precisely. A mentor is responsible for ensuring that the community is protected, and policy provides for no review of that mentor decision; if it's improper, the complaint would be about the mentor, abusive mentorship would be a problem for any custodian, a form of admin abuse. The litany of complaints above are misleading, irrelevant, or worse. Normally, I'd look to see if some compromise could be made, but Ottava's position is completely out to lunch here. Ottava, if we look carefully, is complaining about all three active 'crats, with the above. Maybe he's in the wrong community. --Abd 03:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "policy provides for no review" Policy provides for consensus to determine any and all things, and have the ability to override any and all things. That is a WMF standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is nice to see confirmation that as soon as you are op'ed, you begin edit warring, making attacks, and creating a poisonous atmosphere while promoting a view of what is policy here that does not match what actually exists. These are the concerns people alleged would happen and you confirmed them in a few hours. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus has authority. Ottava's declaration of consensus does not. That consensus has authority does not mean that we require a finding of consensus for most actions. Most actions are done, on wikis, on individual initiative. Wikiversity probationary custodianship policy does not set up a discussion period. Frequently it's done before anyone else has commented, besides the candidate, a mentor, and an implementing 'crat.
 * Ottava created this huge fuss over an action that was utterly routine, and I did not use tools, and having them made no difference in my actions, except that possibly I'm a little more restrained! "Poisonous atmosphere?" Who went to meta immediately to ask for an emergency desysop of SBJ, based on what was clearly routine service? Who attacked, immediately, my candidacy, with wild charges? Who is attacking all three active Wikiversity 'crats in the above complaint, Mu301 for restoring SBJ's bit on request -- routine --, Jtneill, in effect, for offering to mentor me, and SBJ for routine and implementation? What was being done? Was Ottava being harassed here? --Abd 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I can have a look at the policy and perhaps give some suggestions for improvement that may satisfy both sides in this discussion. Regards, Guido den Broeder 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see previous suggestions and suggest improvements at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship. -- dark lama  15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "That consensus has authority does not mean that we require a finding of consensus for most actions." But when there -is- consensus to not do something, that overrides the previous lack. The WMF has processes to ensure that community's have a say over who has an admin right or not. The only reason why you are against this is because you know that you would never get adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not, at all, against the community having the ultimate authority, but through process. "Consensus" cannot determine itself, it requires judgment. I've written a review of deysopping process at . No consensus "not to do something" was apparent.


 * However, no such consensus was apparent in the immediate cause of this feedback filing. We determine community consensus, on permanent adminship, through an announced poll, seeking wide participation. Mentored adminship is specifically designed to bypass this, and the policy provides for no review at all, other than by a mentor and a 'crat, who merely confirms that the prescribed condition exists. Comments may be made, but no close is required of that discussion. No 'crat is required to take any action, and a 'crat who believed that a mentored custodianship would harm the community may abstain from closing, or even actively reject the candidacy, for strong reason. Thus the existing process has a double safeguard: to become a probationary custodian requires the consent of two privileged users, and Jtneill, in my current candidacy, specifically declined to both agree to mentor and to assign the bit (he's a 'crat himself), to keep this requirement meaningful, I assume. There is precedent for only a 'crat being involved, if we want to plug a loophole, that might be it.


 * In addition, if there is any problem with a probationary custodian, not only is normal desysop process available, but a quick and simple bypass is available: consultation with the mentor. In my view, the essential duty of a mentor is to be responsive to complaints. (I also believe that the mentor may expand or delegate this duty, and should, if absent.)


 * I will not now review the comments in the current candidacy, but they were mostly limited to a few with axes to grind, fired up by Ottava. The candidacy was never announced so that the general community would see it. We don't know what the general community thinks about it, and Ottava previously confidently predicted support for much that the community strongly disagreed with. Ottava has no substantial community support in these disruptive actions, but confidently claims it, as he attacks anyone who has disagreed with him.


 * No sane 'crat would look at that discussion and consider that it shows a consensus against probationary candidacy, sufficient to set aside our standard of a simple, non-bureaucratic process. When it comes time to consider permanent custodianship for me, I will look at options to make the process as non-disruptive as possible, but, for sure, my goal will be to seek maximal review by an informed community. --Abd 15:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop back in here to see what's going on and it seems not a lot has changed really. How about we instead consider a desysop of Ottava Rima rather than SB Johnny? Ottava Rima's constant complaints about SBJ look more like personal attacks and bullying than genuine efforts to address a problem on Wikiversity. The hypocrisy in Ottava's statement above is mind blowing. It's about time Wikiversity's self-proclaimed "top organiser" stopped acting like he actually does think he is the boss here. Adambro 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! A tad out-of-touch, Adambro. Ottava was desysopped, he finally went too far. Way too far. that's part of why he's so ... reactive. Anyway, welcome back! You do know you can recover your tools immediately if you wish to. I had some "issues" with recusal failure, but, hey, nobody's perfect, especially me, and, besides, you corrected some of it, and the rest became moot. --Abd 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't make false claims about what happened. The "going to far" was making one block and one deletion, both within policy. You recruited users to vote against me, and the thing was closed inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Personal attacks and bullying by pointing out he didn't follow community consensus? Did you even read anything? If anything, SB Johnny is acting like he is the boss by choosing who gets adminship and who gets removed from adminship. You can't deflect from that by making things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment/SB Johnny, which Ottava filed. I've commented. --Abd 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my memory is failing me. Okay then, I suggest he should be blocked instead. Adambro 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you say that. I provided evidence, you made up claims about history. You even started the desysop proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Block Ottava?
(moved discussion to Request custodian action --Abd 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sidelight12
This probationary custodian (Candidates for Custodianship/Sidelight12) has been unresponsive to community feedback, and has used tools in violation of policy and Wikiversity custom, and takes high offense to this being pointed out, to the extent of making serious accusations on meta, with a Completely inappropriate RFC unbecoming of a Wikiversity custodian, requiring oversight there from a steward.. I am here focusing on a single incident, today.

Sidelight has again blocked Leucosticte. While Leucosticte has a long history (elsewhere) of involvement in highly controversial topics, he is also civil and respectful and responds to guidance and clear restrictions. This appears to be the history of the block.


 * On October 12, Leucosticte started editing our resource on Suicide. He created two new resources, Suicide/Suicide methods/Pentobarbital and Suicide/Suicidogenesis and two templates, Template:Suicide methods and Template:Infobox suicide method.
 * That day, at 17:08, Leucosticte requested my comment on the Pentobarbital resource. I have requested, before, that he consult before creating possibly controversial content. While he created this page first, he still followed the spirit of my request by asking me to look at it.
 * I reviewed the page and immediately placed a speedy deletion tag on it as being a topic that requires ethical guidelines to be in place before such content could be allowed. I explained this to Leucosticte on my talk page.
 * As is common for him, he argued with me. However, he did not apparently contest the deletion. Rather, he did what he often does, he attempted to engage in reasoned debate on my talk page. He also asked for better guidelines on deletion for "ethical violations" on Wikiversity talk:Deletions. This was, again, appropriate.
 * Dave Braunschweig deleted the page, and both Dave and I responded to Leucosticte's suggestion on the Deletions talk page.
 * I also reviewed Leucosticte's other edits, and saw the two templates. Those templates, in themselves, seemed harmless in all but the name (however, I may have overlooked something, I intended to review all of this). Because Leucosticte could appeal the deletion, I did not request deletion of those. The page created on Suicidogenesis was harmless as well.
 * Starting at 03:43, 13 October 2014, Sidelight12 started action without warning, deleting the templates and indef blocking Leucosticte with explanation "(dangerous user)."
 * Dave Braunschweig pointed out the impropriety under Wikiversity policy of these actions, focusing on the block, but the deletions were also improper, in my view. My comments on this:
 * Users are generally not to be blocked without a violated warning, even if they violate policy.
 * Sidelight12 must be considered involved with respect to Leucosticte, from prior events, and this block could be considered wheel-warring (though the unblock by Dave was not recent; yet the basic claim was the same before, that the user is dangerous, and, as well, before, the situation of danger had been handled before Sidelight12 blocked. Thus the block was not based on present danger, but on personal opinion about the user himself, formed long ago.) That's cause for recusal.
 * A custodian may make an emergency block without warning, and also if involved, but should then immediately consult with the custodial community, generally on WV:RCA if the topic is not privacy sensitive. There was no consultation and Sidelight has vehemently rejected advice on policy and his actions, calling it "harassment," this time as before.
 * Custodians should generally not make unilateral speedy deletion decisions, unless speedy deletion reasons are obvious (as with spam). Rather, they should place a speedy deletion template like anyone else, and let another custodian delete. That provides a first-level consensus (i.e, proposal and confirmation by another user). It gets tricky when there is only one active custodian, but this is still doable and it works. (If I saw a speedy deletion template placed by a custodian, I would review it, and confirm it if I agreed; the custodian could then delete. And any regular user may request reversal of speedy deletion, the routine is that it is granted, as if the user had removed the speedy deletion template.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolution sought

 * Sidelight12 resigns or apologizes and accepts guidance. Sidelight12 has shown many times a lack of understanding of how custodians serve the community and how consensus is formed. He is apparently not well-informed on how the tools work. He thinks he "only blocked [Leucosticte's] email." I don't think so. He blocked the user and email, but he did leave the talk page open and did not set up autoblock.
 * Had he only blocked email, why? Leucosticte has no history, anywhere, of abusing email. The only other WMF wiki where he is blocked is Wikipedia. The Leucosticte account also has email blocked, but that could be because Leucosticte was a sock of another abandoned account, not used anywhere else, who was banned, and who does *not* have email blocked. Generally, experienced admins follow this sequence:
 * Warning
 * Violation, user short-blocked. Sometimes "indef" is used but without the intention of it being long, but rather "pending discussion". With repeated offenses, blocks get longer.
 * If talk page abused, talk page access blocked. Some long term blocked users on Wikipedia are allowed talk page access unless it is abused.
 * If email abused, email blocked. I am banned on Wikipedia; while blocked, I used my talk page to document certain edits thought to be disruptive, so that was revoked, but I still have email access, and that is normal.


 * I do not personally see how this can be simply resolved unless Sidelight12 either sees the light and apologizes, or resigns. His mentor, Jtneill, has mostly not been responsive (on many matters, not just this one). Ordinarily, at this point, a mentor may withdraw the mentorship and the user has 48 hours to obtain a new mentor. If Jtneil does not withdraw mentorship, and Sidelight12 does not resign, I see Sidelight12's possession of tools as representing a continuing danger to our users.
 * Wikiversity has been a refuge for users who get into trouble elsewhere. Sometimes these users require guidance, and this is a place for "learning by doing." In handling these situations, it is necessary that we be firm and clear about disruptive behavior, but that we also open the way for users to learn to collaborate with the wiki community. We are quite skilled at this, usually. Standard block policy -- no block without warning -- works quite well. Exceptions can be handled as described. Without clarity on this, custodians can become little dictators, imposing their personal vision on Wikiversity.
 * So, here, I request the community advise Sidelight to resign, or otherwise act to ameliorate the danger.
 * Alternate resolution 1: any user may do as I did with Dave Braunschweig, set up the permanent custodian vote, on their own responsibility and recommendation. I'm certainly not going to do that! It is highly likely to be a waste of time.
 * Alternate resolution 2: WV:Community Review to remove Sidelight's custodial privileges. This is likely to be disruptive, because this can attract users who are here only to disrupt, and they come out for processes like this. However, I'm confident enough of the outcome that if Sidelight does not resign, and there is no permanent vote in short order, I expect I'd collaborate in filing one. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
*Alternate resolution 3: To address the immediate issue, Sidelight12 removes the block from Leucosticte and agrees to have no further custodial interaction with either Leucosticte or user Abd. Sidelight12 has done good work at Wikiversity, and his efforts have improved the quality of content here. However, there are clearly issues that prevent Sidelight12 from responding in a neutral, unbiased, and appropriate manner when either Leucosticte or Abd are involved. If Sidelight12 were to have recused himself from situations involving these two users, there would be no remaining evidence for this feedback. Any other issues can then be addressed over time as part of the probationary custodian process. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There were reasons to consider filing a review on Sidelight12 before this incident, but Dave is correct; if Sidelight had recused, the feedback would not have been filed. There is other evidence, but Sidelight is not particularly active, and it was old, and not an emergency, it seemed. We do have a problem of an unsupervised probationary custodian long beyond the time contemplated. That is a generic problem. We can and will develop generic, practical solutions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment
This is an attempted Kangaroo court. Abd is trying to set the rules when he is wrong here. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update.Sidelight blocked me for two weeks, at 02:36, 14 October 2014, reason: (Not given permission to post on my userpage). This was the post to his user page, it notified him of this feedback filing, nothing else. His response to the post was "(removed kangaroo court notice)". (The removal was harmless, the "kangaroo court" comment shows a serious misunderstanding of Wikiversity process and what is expected of custodians.)
 * Custodian feedback is not a court at all. It is a place to examine complaints or provide other feedack for custodians, for discussion, especially if user talk page discussion fails, as it obviously has. Discussion here cannot remove custodian privileges and cannot sanction any user. It is possible that this could generate advice, but that would not be binding. It is an opportunity to resolve disputes. An attempt toward that can be seen above, in Dave's suggested alternate resolution. Dave struck that alternative only after the block and the comment above.
 * I placed an unblock template at 12:47, 14 October 2014‎, covering what happened, taking responsibility, and providing assurance that any possible problem will not repeat. Dave Braunschweig unblocked me at 13:14, 15 October 2014, having allowed 24 hours after my unblock posting as if he had attempted discussion with Sidelight. I assume he did not actually discuss because of Sidelight's treatment of his previous inquiry re Leucosticte, as "harassment."
 * The full unblock discussion on my user talk page.
 * Meanwhile, Jtneill, Sidelight's mentor, has asked Sidelight12 to review his actions. Because this process may resolve this matter without further disruption, I am holding off moving up to WV:Community Review. Sidelight is being given every opportunity to learn how to serve the community as a custodian. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * |Here, Snowolf said he missed acting on Dave's self unblock. Oh, it was with Prejudice, those are just magic words that abd uses to make it sound it so, Only his side of the story was heard when the emergency was taken. - Sidelight12 Talk 09:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Close

 * The situation escalated into direct wheel-warring and mutual blocks.
 * I filed a request for steward action on meta., for desysop "without prejudice," i.e., not a finding that Sidelight12 was wrong, but that the local community may review.
 * A steward desysopped Sidelight12.
 * Jtneill reviewed Sidelight12's statement regarding his custodial activity, and terminated the probationary period. Had the steward not already removed the status, there would then have been a request for desysop anyway.
 * Request close. As Sidelight12 is no longer a custodian, this Custodian feedback filing should be closed. Sidelight12 remains free to WV:Request custodian action, if he believes that a user is violating policy or harming the wiki, or to file his own custodian feedback on this page regarding the actions of any custodian, or to initiate WV:Community review if discussion fails. I do not recommend any of that unless there is support from other users. It can all backfire. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the only people commenting here are abd and dave, aside from my other comment, so this is why I call this a kangaroo court. The problem here is that two people unconditionally backing each other is not a community., please comment, and close if you wish. -Sidelight12
 * It would not be appropriate for a meta steward to close a local feedback issue. Snowolf has already taken action without prejudice and left this for local review.  Regarding that local review, I encourage Sidelight12 to reread the comments at  and .  A local review has already been provided by our only active bureaucrat.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That said he can't mentor me. And it is pathetic you try to rub something in. Snowolf said both custodians should have been emergency desysoped. You abused your admin privileges, big time. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave Braunschweig's inappropriate behavior
|Here, Snowolf said he missed acting on Dave's self unblock, when there was an emergency. Then abd cherrypicks which rules to follow. leucostite agreed to stop writing dangerous pages here, then he immediately jumped to write them at |Wikibooks. Blocking someone forcing them to agree to avoid admin actions against a user creating problematic pages was extortion. Also making up terms as they go, for their convenience, are inappropriate acts.
 * | Comment by IP that Dave doesn't understand when blocks are appropriate.
 * "12:47, 16 October 2014 Dave Braunschweig (discuss | contribs) blocked Sidelight12 (discuss | contribs) (autoblock disabled) for indefinite (Intimidation, harassment, or vulgar language: Misuse of custodian tools.)" He misused custodian tools, and put a false claim of harassment. If anything, Dave's and abd's actions are harassment.
 * Hypocritically tells others don't push your values onto others, then he outright bullies his values onto others, then makes up excuses for it.

- Sidelight12 Talk 09:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment
Your feedback is noted. The actions of Sidelight12, Dave Braunschweig, and Snowolf on 16 October 2014 have all been reviewed by a local bureaucrat. There is nothing new in this feedback statement and no attempts toward resolution. I extended an opportunity to discuss this issue with you on 16 October and I remain open to meaningful dialog. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have filed a Request for custodian action on this, because review by a neutral custodian may be appropriate. Discussion attempting to resolve the "dispute," should be here, proposals and discussion of requested immediate sanctions for users should be on the RCA page or on appropriate user talk pages. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue has been resolved. --atcovi (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)