Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/8

Semi-protection usage by Adambro and block of User:Moulton
I have been watching the situation with Moulton and JWSchmidt for several weeks, and was dismayed this morning to find that the Community Review page for JWSchmidt has been semi-protected due to "Excessive vandalism: repeated target of blocked user". A definition of vandalism applicable to Wikimedia projects can be found here. Applying this reasoning to the present situation, I can find no actions that would qualify as vandalism. Simply because a user is blocked does not make their edits automatically vandalism.

The Community Review page is not the only page that has been semi-protected for an inappropriate reason. When I came here to challenge that semiprotection, I discovered that Adambro has also semi-protected this page, the primary means of requesting custodian assistance. While this may prevent Moulton from posting here, it will also prevent other anonymous users from using this page.

Adam has additionally semi-protected JWSchmidt's talk page, which has the effect of prohibiting anonymous users from attempting to converse with him.

Semi-protection is especially inappropriate in the present cases because it only serves to feed the troll. I am requesting that all three of these pages be unlocked as soon as possible, and that Adambro consider carefully both the responsibilities of custodianship and the detrimental effects usage of protection can have. Geoff Plourde 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Geoff. What do others think? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Geoff. See my comments at Wikiversity talk:Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. I welcome Moulton's participation at Wikiversity. I think Moulton was subjected to a bad block. His account should be unblocked so that he can return to normal participation at Wikiversity. I view enforcement of a ban against Moulton to be a serious violation of policy which cautions against calling for unjustified blocks and bans. --JWSchmidt 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to accept unprotection if and only if Moulton were to limit himself to these pages and stay on topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If people are so interested in seeing Moulton particpate then get consensus for him to be unblocked. A 'crat can rename the account and then rename it back again to detach it from the global account and I can remove the name of his user pages from the global title blacklist. If my interpretation of the term "vandalism" is a problem then ignore that part of the log and skip to "repeated target of blocked user" which I would think is indisputable. However, attempts have been made to negotiate with Moulton and he's shown he's not really able to handle behaving appropriately towards other contributors. In that context, I don't see why we should grant him the right to comment on Wikiversity affairs.

This really shouldn't be that difficult. If there is consensus that he should be unblocked then he can be and I would respect that. I don't see why I'm being expected rather unconventionally to turn a blind eye to a blocked user evading their block to participate in discussions. I'm already doing so to some degree in not just completely shutting down User talk:Caprice and User talk:Ethical Accountability but I'm not prepared to watch this going on elsewhere. I've had discussions with Moulton off-wiki about his inability to log in using his normal account and made efforts using my admin rights on Meta to faciliate that by removing a relevent entry from the global title blacklist. If the community wishes for Moulton to participate then make the lives of admins easy by not expecting them to turn a blind eye to block evasion. Get consensus to ask a 'crat to sort it out. Jtneill seems to suggest he has concerns about my use of protection but he could sort this problem out if he wanted as I've explained, assuming he feels there is adequate consensus. Adambro 09:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "If people are so interested in seeing Moulton particpate then get consensus for him to be unblocked" <-- Moulton never should have been blocked in the first place, he was subjected to a bad block. It was wrong for an outside invader to disrupt the Wikiversity community by not demonstrating consensus before imposing an infinite duration block on a Wikiversity community member. An honest Custodian should just do the right thing and unblock Moulton's account. Moulton's block was not immediately removed in 2008 because Jimbo threatened Wikiversity and intimidated the community. A bully should not have been allowed to disrupt Wikiversity then and a bully should to be able to disrupt Wikiversity today. --JWSchmidt 11:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There might be two different topics for discussion here - the block of Moulton (separate topic) and whether the community wants semi-protection of pages such as Request custodian action (which prevents editing by anonymous IPs). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to JWSchmidt's comment, a custodian, honest or not, does not have the power to unblock Moulton. That requires either a crat as I've explained or the global lock to be changed by a steward. On the more general issue of page protection, clearly it isn't something that is desirable. I don't want any pages to have to be protected but there is a point at which it becomes necessary. If Moulton would stop evading his block and have a bit of patience the protection might not be necessary and he might find he gets unblocked. Adambro 11:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "There might be two different topics for discussion here" <-- They are two closely-related topics. Moulton was subjected to a bad block of infinite duration, imposed by an outside invader who did not even attempt to establish consensus for the block, which would not have been obtained because Moulton had not violated any Wikiversity policy. Such an absurdly bad block can be undone at anytime by any custodian and since it is a violation of Wikiversity policy to call for unjustified blocks and bans, it is a serious violation of policy for Adambro to continue enforcing a ban against Moulton. The only reason that harassment of Moulton continues is because of threats that have been made against the continued existence of the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 11:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't true that the "block can be undone at anytime by any custodian". Not technically anyway. The local block could be removed by a custodian but it would have no impact on Moulton's ability to edit. As I have said now many times, either a crat or a steward needs to act here. I doubt either will act without being comfortable that there is community support. Adambro 11:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Moulton block, can I suggest starting a Community Review? Then, if community support is evident for unblock then there are grounds to act. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yesterday a Steward came to #wikiversity-en asking if Moulton should be unblocked. An honest custodian can unblock Moulton's account today and put into the log a statement such as "original infinite duration block was without community consensus". A Steward will see that log entry and then remove all of the lock/block nonsense that Jimbo imposed, also without consensus. --JWSchmidt 11:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An honest custodian, or rather any custodian, could do that yes, I'm sceptical as to whether that would be enough to prompt a steward to change the global lock though but it might be. I'm not sure that would be a sensible custodian though. I think a sensible custodian would want to make sure they were acting in accordance with the views of the community. You criticise Jimbo for apparently blocking without consensus. It is difficult for me to say whether that is accurate but I think it would be equally unwise to unblock without establishing whether there is consensus to do so. The point is that consensus can change. The community might not have been in favour of the block at the time but might consider it appropriate now. Instead of simply appealing for an "honest custodian" to act unilaterally, just as you criticise Jimbo for doing, start a discussion at Community Review, Colloquium or similar. As Abd has recently suggested, that the circumstances in which a block was imposed might be wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean the block itself was inappropriate. Adambro 12:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see a community review first and if it concluded for unblock, then I'd be happy to act. Although Jimbo did the initial block, the Moulton account was subsequently reblocked by WV custodians and in so doing the responsibility for the current block is "owned" by the WV community as per Community Review/Moulton's block. That was almost two years ago - perhaps there could be value in raising the possibility of unblock with the community. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "You criticise Jimbo for apparently blocking without consensus. It is difficult for me to say whether that is accurate" <-- It is not difficult for anyone to look at the edit history. Jimbo imposed his bad block without first coming to Wikiversity and discussing his intention to block Moulton. Jimbo imposed an out-of-process block on Moulton because he knew he could not obtain community support for an infinite duration block against a community member who had not violated any Wikiversity policy. Jimbo's bad block was not undone because of threats that were made against the continued existence of Wikiversity. The correct sequence of steps now would be to unblock Moulton and let him return to participation at Wikiversity. If he then does something that causes trouble, that trouble can easily be dealt with in the future. Adambro, please list the Wikiversity policy that you think Moulton might violate if he were allowed to edit. --JWSchmidt 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have "due process" evidence to support your theory of what Jimbo knew and thought? -- dark lama  12:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "what Jimbo knew and thought" <-- I can imagine two possibilities. 1) Jimbo thought he could obtain consensus at Wikiversity for an infinite duration block against a community member who had violated no policy, but he was in a hurry so he just decided that threats against Wikiversity's existence would prevent the community from over-turning his bad block, or 2) knew he could not obtain community support for an infinite duration block against a community member who had not violated any Wikiversity policy. The available evidence, described here, supports option #2. Jimbo was told that Wikiversity Custodians would not impose the block that Jimbo wanted to impose, so Jimbo had to do it himself, against consensus. In either case (1 or 2), Jimbo should have first discussed the block before imposing it. --JWSchmidt 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your evidence suggests that Jimbo requested a block, was told to it himself, and so he did as he was told. Do you dispute calling that exchange a discussion? Do you have evidence to support your theory that Jimbo could not of taken being told to do it himself as a show of consensus that he should take action himself? -- dark lama  14:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Do you have evidence to support your theory that Jimbo could not of taken being told to do it himself as a show of consensus that he should take action himself?" <-- That is not my theory. Darklama, do you have evidence that any Wikiversity participant asked Jimbo to even come to Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your theory than? I have no evidence that any Wikiversity participant even asked Jimbo to come to Wikiversity. I thought the quickest way for you to prove your position whatever it may be is to provide evidence that falsifies that Jimbo couldn't of taken it as sign of consensus. Does Jimbo or anyone need to be asked to come to Wikiversity in order to suggest whatever they want? -- dark lama  15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the evidence I have seen, Jimbo was told that nobody at Wikiversity would indef block Moulton. "Jimbo couldn't of taken it as sign of consensus" <-- I agree that Jimbo could not have reasonably thought there was consensus for his block of Moulton. "Does Jimbo or anyone need to be asked to come to Wikiversity in order to suggest whatever they want?" <-- Jimbo should have come to the Colloquium and proposed the block, citing Moulton's violations of Wikiversity policy. However, Moulton had violated no policy, so that path for Jimbo was not open. --JWSchmidt 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JWS, have you bothered emailing Jimbo directly and asking him on what conditions he thinks would be necessary for Moulton to be unblocked? You do focus a lot on what Jimbo thought then, but do you know what he could think now? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have not tried to send an email to Jimbo. He stopped responding to my questions back in 2008. --JWSchmidt 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any recent evidence to suggest that Jimbo still thinks as he did in 2008? -- dark lama  14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you count as "recent"? --JWSchmidt 14:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent incident at Wikimedia Commons and Jimbo's response to it at Meta, might of lead to a change in his thought process. How about something as recent as that? -- dark lama  15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What Jimbo thinks is largely irrelevant, though I'd expect that his thinking has changed. He no longer has the tools that would allow him to intervene directly here, and he cannot assign himself those tools. (There is an exception, he does have the oversight tool, but that was because of software limitations; if he were to use that here, he'd be violating an implicit agreement with the full WMF community, and I don't expect this at all. What remains, and will remain, is Jimbo's influence. Stewards have the necessary tools. One steward used one of them May 30, but has not indicated that the origin of this action was some recent request by Jimbo, and I rather doubt that it was. However, there is some sign -- not proof -- that this individual steward will not repeat that, and if this community has developed a clear consensus, I very much doubt that an individual steward would act contrary to it. It is only when we have no consensus that we are vulnerable to such intervention. There are more issues here, including our definition of community, our allowance of "Wiki Studies," our "outing" policy, our collective response to what is seen by some as disruption, and others. The reality is that with all the wikis, the community has the ultimate power, if it becomes coherent and exercises it; we could fork, collectively or otherwise, if deemed necessary, and the only reason that forking is frequently not seen as practical is precisely that there is no consensus behind it. If a majority of us, or even a large minority, decided to fork, it would be at least as successful as the WMF Wikiversity. It all boils down, to me, to reliable consensus process, and that has been my own long-term study and focus.
 * There is a nascent fork, NetKnowledge.org, which may have enough participation by enough experienced Wikiversitans and others to be successful. It is developing its own process and responses to some of the issues that have divided us, and diversity is very important to academic freedom.
 * Ultimately, wikihistory will examine what happened here and on Wikipedia; current attempts to document and examine this have been, in my opinion, far too focused on blame, on identifying "abusive administrators," and assuming that they are responsible for the difficulties. I think not, in fact. I see the problem as a natural one, which will inevitably arise unless process is established to ameliorate the damage and replace (or modify) the adhocracy with something more efficient, more effective, and more deeply collaborative. Developing that future is a major part of our task, and this task is of fundamental importance, transcending just the individual project interests. It starts with small agreements, baby steps, patient negotiations, and care and caution, and I see plenty of resources like this among Wikiversitans, and I deeply thank the community for its patience. --Abd 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputes become intractable when multiple issues become linked. There are many issues here, and even if one, by itself, is simple and consensus could be found, all the others are brought in, leading to impasse and endless and fruitless debate. That's what must stop, and, if we are seeking education in process this is a fundamental lesson: One issue at a time. This section was started with a specific observation by Geoff Plourde about semiprotection, which indicates an apparent dispute. We sometimes think we should resolve specific disputes by resolving the general underlying dispute. If that's possible, sure, and that should be a long-term goal. However, here, the underlying dispute(s) are quite complex, so the opposite approach is advisable: address the specific issue, find consensus just on a solution or resolution to that instant problem, then carefully begin to address the issues hierarchically, with baby steps, building a practice of cooperation that can eventually carry us through to overall resolution. I am going to make a specific and narrow proposal here, and I will encourage discussion of that to focus on finding consensus. For efficiency, I will use a poll format, but this is not a vote, and it is our collective understanding at the end and closing of the poll that matters, not the numbers of votes. The poll may raise many further questions, leading to possible and valuable policy development. But one step at a time. --Abd 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now unprotected the three pages which I believe are relevent to this situation. As I've said, I understand the concerns about due collateral damage and in hindsight I agree that semi-protection of these pages was probably doing more harm than good. Adambro 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Adambro. Excellent. The motion below still stands, and should in no way be considered censure or punitive. I'm asking the community to advise you regarding this matter, just as I hope it will advise me and all of us. There are important issues here, transcending the immediate occasion. I very much appreciate your past and present cooperation and willingness to examine your own actions; if we all do this, we might get through this mess quickly. --Abd 22:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion re Adambro's use of semiprotection re Moulton
Proposed finding and request: Adambro's use of semiprotection in response to the IP edit activity of the blocked User:Moulton is excessive, and, absent emergency, which did not exist with respect to recent semiprotections, Adambro is requested to recuse from further use of admin tools to enforce that block, except with a permitting community consensus.

Request recusal
please add approval of this motion here.
 * Approve as proposer. --Abd 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not request recusal
Please add disapproval of this motion here.

Other comments
I'm not quite sure why we can't simply have a straightforward discussion about this. This seems overly formerly. I don't need a "motion" to be able to judge what people are saying in this discussion, just as I didn't regarding JWS's block. As I've explained, if the community don't want the block to be enforced then they can unblock Moulton. Until then, custodians shouldn't be being asked to turn a blind eye to block evasion. I don't understand how there seems to be such objection to this block actually being enforced but apparently little enthusiasm to actually get Moulton unblocked if people want him to participate. I've explained how that could be done. Instead of asking custodians to turn a blind eye, ask a crat or a steward to sort this out. Adambro 15:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We can have a straightforward discussion about this. But operationally, we need decisions, pending that discussion. You have been acting with an assumption that policy exists that may not exist. That an account is blocked is the product of an individual decision, always. It may or may not reflect a community consensus. Even on Wikipedia, there are conflicting policies and conflicting interpretations of policies that remain, in practice, unclear. I sense consensus on the following, here:
 * Any editor may revert the edits of a blocked editor, without regard to content. (On Wikipedia, I "discovered" an exception: if a blocked editor removes alleged or apparent BLP violations, it is not proper to revert them back in. That was a poor decision, in my opinion, but it was supported -- and enforced -- by snow comments and specific warning by an arbitrator. Even though I was "right," I immediately stopped it. Respect for consensus requires that.)
 * Any admin may short-block the IP being used by a blocked editor to edit, upon clear identification. Moulton is cooperative with this, by signing such edits, and expects it. It is simply a consequence of being blocked.
 * None of the above rights are requirements, that is, no editor is obliged to revert the edits of a blocked editor. Further, any editor may, upon his or her own responsibility, revert such edits back in if the editor considers them useful and insufficiently harmful to warrant their being hidden in history. Any editor may refer to them with diffs or links to prior page versions. No administrator is obligated to block IP or take other action to prevent the edits of a blocked user. There seems to be some level of disagreement on this, but I consider that unlikely to survive discussion.
 * and I propose these, with some expectation of validation by consensus:
 * Upon a complaint of involvement in a dispute, especially if validated by more than one user, a custodian should recuse from further use of tools with respect to the dispute, absent emergency or some explicit permission for the custodian to continue. "Emergency" means, among other things, that no relatively neutral administrator is available to make a decision about tool usage, and the situation requires an immediate action or enduring harm will accrue. "Recusal" does not require reversal of actions already taken, but it does require given permission for any admin to reverse the decision, using tools.
 * Blocks are account-specific, bans are person-specific. Moulton is blocked on Wikiversity, but has not, here, been banned. A global lock is equivalent to a WMF-wide block, but only of named accounts. I know of no example of a true global ban.
 * Block evasion is not an offense in itself. On Wikipedia, for example, it can be required by WP:IAR, which is worded in the imperative. The implications of block evasion are complex social issues, and to disentangle these will require extended discussion, I suspect. I reblocked Caprice, most recently, not because Moulton is "banned," but because the account Caprice was being used other than for its purpose, which was designed to be nondisruptive, if Moulton elected to use it that way.
 * and then this specific proposal:
 * If this proposal passes, the only decision that is thereby made is that you, Adambro, personally, should recuse from using tools with respect to Moulton block enforcement. You may still revert edits, and you may request another admin to block this or that. The proposal, as written, and my intention, writing it, is not to censure you for what you have done, which has been within some reasonable interpretation of your rights and responsibilities as a custodian. It is only to ask you to stop, and, beyond stating that the semiprotections were "excessive," as responses, it doesn't make you wrong. We ask custodians to recuse precisely because some personal involvement, either with the person or with policy interpretation, is causing excess. That's what happens when we become personally involved, it's normal. --Abd 16:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton was subjected to a bad block. An honest Custodian should remove the block. It is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy to call for unjustified blocks and bans. I think it is a violation of policy to enforce a ban that resulted from a bad block. In this case, it is a block that only stood because of threats against the continued existence of Wikiversity. I welcome Moulton's participation at Wikivrsity, particularly since he was rudely harassed and blocked without having violated any Wikiversity policy. It is a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation that a Wikiversity participant was treated in this way. An honest custodian would unblock Moulton and try to set things right. --JWSchmidt 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have explained to you numerous times, a custodian, honest or not, cannot unblock Moulton to enable him to edit. I have also explained how Moulton could be unblocked and instead of repeating what you have said, you might wish to start a discussion at Colloquium or similar to see if there is consensus for a 'crat or steward to sort this out. Adambro 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to "sort out". A Custodian should simply unblock Moulton's user account, which never should have been blocked in the first place. --JWSchmidt 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amusing. Adambro 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, do you find bad blocks amusing? --JWSchmidt 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what I find amusing is your apparent failure to note my repeated explanation that no custodian can unblock Moulton. Adambro 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "your apparent failure" <-- A Custodian should unblock Moulton's account and put in the log something like "original indef block was not made with community consensus". A Steward will see that log entry and then progress can be made on any remaining lock/blacklist issues. --JWSchmidt 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've said that yes but I'm a little sceptical as to whether a steward would actually act in response in the absence of clearer consensus. I don't accept your suggestion which seems to be that because there was apparently not consensus to block at the time that must mean consensus now would support an unblock. Consensus changes and it may well have been shaped by how Moulton has acted whilst he was blocked. Moulton, rightly or wrongly, has been blocked for a long while now. I think on balance it would be better to have him wait a little longer until a community discussion could take place to determine whether consensus does support an unblock. It would certainly make things smoother in terms of approaching stewards if there was clear consensus to point to. Adambro 17:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "how Moulton has acted whilst he was blocked" <-- As far as I know, Moulton has never violated a Wikiversity policy. It is unfair to impose and enforce a ban against his participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Second request: Adambro, please list the Wikiversity policy that you think Moulton might violate if he were allowed to edit. --JWSchmidt 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that. I'm not prepared to speculate as to which policies Moulton may or may not violate if he was unblocked. Adambro 18:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Semantic confusion: Any custodian here may unblock the Moulton account. That will have no effect on whether or not Moulton can use the account, because login may be prevented by the global lock. There is a way, however, that this can be bypassed, possibly. But it wasn't considered necessary, because the person, Barry Kort, was permitted to create Caprice, and to edit User talk:Caprice, and did so for a short time. Caprice is now completely indef blocked, and I expect that situation will continue until and unless Moulton voluntarily makes some necessary agreements with the community. My point here is that we do have the power to "unblock Moulton" in the way that counts, i.e., that Barry Kort can edit, but we have not chosen to do so yet. We are responsible, we cannot palm this off on Jimbo or stewards.

Personally, I'm not willing to go to the trouble of getting a global unlock for Moulton, when it would not allow Moulton to edit because Moulton is still blocked. If we come to consensus that Moulton may edit openly, something I'm not prepared to propose for simple reasons (Moulton doesn't want it!), we would unblock at the same time as we allow a sock, and then go to meta and request a steward unlock the original account so Barry can return to using a single account, openly and clearly him. I.e., what Adambro seemed to want.

As to policies Moulton would violate, he violated one, a defacto policy against gratuitous outing, while editing as Caprice. That's why Diego reversed his allowance of Caprice editing, I assume (Diego did not actually explain). I did reverse that as an experiment; he did not then out anyone, but did not refrain from using Caprice for other than the announced purpose of cooperation with Geoff Plourde. So I reblocked, pending some further development or consensus, and without prejudice. Moulton has made no promises and violated no promises with Caprice. But he did show a willingness to insist on "outing." It was pure in-your-face defiance, since it was totally unnecessary and silly, apparently trolling Ottava for outraged response (Ottava didn't bite.) I'm not personally offended, but neither will I support it. --Abd 22:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a complete spin-out. Moulton could be a monster with fangs dripping baby blood, and it would not justify non-emergency intervention by Adambro, and Moulton could be the baby having been mangled by the monsters at meta, etc., and it would not necessarily justify unblocking him, and the issue here is not whether or not Moulton should or should not be unblocked. At this point I ask both Adambro and JWSchmidt to stop defending/bringing up this issue when there is a different or narrower issue being considered, it distracts and postpones resolution. If someone wants to start a CR on Adambro, they may. If someone wants to start a new CR on Moulton, they may. If someone wants to assist in possible negotiations with Moulton, they may. (Good luck!) If someone wants to file a Request for Custodian action to unblock Moulton, they may. And we already have a CR going on JWSchmidt. --Abd 22:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

site notice update
Can someone update the site notice so as to provide links to the two on-going community reviews? --JWSchmidt 08:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

History Merge
While working through Uncategorized pages I came across A Case Study for Practicing FFA and A case study for practicing FFA, the second page seems to be started as a copy of the first. Perhaps someone was unfamiliar with the move tab. Anyways I have corrected all the links to point to A case study for practicing FFA which appears to be the more recent of the two pages and I would like to history merge A Case Study for Practicing FFA into A case study for practicing FFA. Thenub314 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Diego Grez 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okanosato and others
Last night while patrolling recent changes, I came across two pages by this user in Japanese. After contacting someone from ja.wp, I was informed that one page is a copyright violation, while the other is nonsense. I've tagged both pages to be deleted, but I'm noticing that this isn't the first time we've dealt with this user and copyright violations, and that other potential copyright violations may have escaped detection through use of deletion by author request.

This user has not provided an explanation for their actions in the past. Thoughts? Geoff Plourde 07:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that "other potential copyright violation may have escaped detection through use of deletion by author request" is not a problem since we have "copyvio" archives. They are deleted and it is important.
 * I have placed to his user page Last warning, where I explained why it is a copyvio and how he as an author of the original text may allow its use in Wikiversity (if he is an original author). I deleted his user page which contained copyvios already delete in the past. And I recommend indef if hell continue to add in copyvios.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JWSchmidt
see Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010 --Abd 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for a review by a neutral administrator of the behavior of. I and other administrators have warned him about tendentious incivility, but he has defied the warnings, claiming abuse, even for just warning, and has persisted in the behaviors involved. For the most recent example, the occasion for this report and request, see this move to an archive titled "silly attacks and nonsense," and review the preceding discussion, which begins at (block notice), and which should be read in the context of a preceding warning. This is part of a long-term pattern of provocative actions which do not seem to be a part of addressing and actually resolving long-term disputes and problems, but only of blaming and counterattacking, such that even when an administrator is simply expressing what is likely actual consensus, as with the comment moved, above, to archive, the admin is accused of bias and is considered worthy of desysopping for it. This is disruptive, and I've warned JWSchmidt about it, and have discussed it with him at painful length.

The behavior should be reviewed and a decision made about the benefit to Wikiversity of JWSchmidt's continued participation here, in light of his seeming inability to drop the old disputes, ironically just as we may be making baby steps toward directly resolving them. My tentative request is for an indefinite block, because it is clear that this is not just some transient error or outburst, but has a deeper basis. I would want to see his return, and previously suggested that he might regain admin tools -- which were removed out-of-process -- if he becomes willing to address his own dysfunctional behavior or at least to assure the community that the behavior that others find objectionable will not return.

I am notifying JWS of this request on his Talk page. If others think that wider attention is needed, please feel free to link to this at the Colloquium. A previous subpage is at Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt. Possibly this new request should be moved there, but I must move on to other activities at this moment. --Abd 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with what has been said here. As Abd notes, this is just the latest example of a long pattern of what I'd suggest seems to be a failure to comply with the civility policy. When I saw this latest incident I did consider blocking indefinitely myself and raising it for discussion but refrained from doing so since I am slightly involved with this. It might be worth considering an indefinite block pending wider discussion of this issue to ensure those discussions can proceed without the distraction of the same old repeated accusations from JWSchmidt. Adambro 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Review of JWSchmidt" subpage is not the only review to have taken place. Community Review/JWSchmidt's block and Wikiversity:Community Review/Topic bans for User:JWSchmidt are two others. -- dark lama  18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS responded to my notice on his Talk page. I'm not responding there. If he should be blocked, however, discussion of the block could take place on his Talk page. Reviewing the prior lengthy discussions, there is a basic error I've seen on Wikipedia as well: assuming that an allegedly disruptive editor who does not acknowledge that there is any problem or who, if not acknowledging the problem, does not at least agree to avoid behavior considered problematic, will somehow magically change and become nondisruptive, is naive and rarely leads to a good end. At no point in those discussions did I see JWS acknowledge any error or even that someone might reasonably imagine that there was one. --Abd 05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The basic error here is the use of the blocking tool, which has no place in an authentic learning community. It's an appalling disruption of the collegiality and congeniality of an authentic learning community.  Can you imagine a genuine educational institution that employed something comparable?  It's ludicrous.  This site will never rise to the stature of an authentic educational culture as long as Custodians are clubbing people over the head with their banhammers.  That just turns this site into a pathetic version of Mafia Wars.  --Barry Kort 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone can start and/or participate in a Community Review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How can I start or participate in a collegial conversation on the Colloquium or address problematic issues in a Community Review when Custodians like Adambro and Ottava systematically and unceremoniously revert my comments and block my access? —Barry Kort 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By and large "adult" edits seem to remain; "child" edits seem to have a greater probability of attracting "parent" punishment responses, thereby triggering a Karpman drama triangle. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what makes the character of Caprice so fascinating to work with in a didactic exercise. Because there are plenty of occasions in life when there is a Persecutor and a Victim, but no Rescuer. Caprice exhibits the ability to be a Self-Rescuing Victim — the Scape-Goat Who Returns. Barry Kort 06:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Individual members of any community may lose their rights to participate in community discussions, this is true for all communities, without exception. Barry, you have no right to participate here, you lost it through a series of unfortunate incidents, regardless of blame, and, to regain the rights, whether or not they were properly removed, you would need to follow due process. Here, you have essentially lost your community membership. That leaves you free to sock all you want, but understand that this also sets up conditions where anyone can revert your contributions (not just admins), just as anyone can revert them back in. While you are blocked (not only "banned"), any admin may block your IP. Some will do it, some not, but this is well within administrative discretion, it is simply an enforcement of a block. If you have been conducted from the campus by campus police, you may not simply re-enter at your will, it's trespassing, whether or not the expulsion was "legitimate." It is not up to the police to determine if you were "guilty" or not. That's a judicial function, not an executive one, except as to ad-hoc application of discretion. Individuals may not "ban," that's been established, not even Jimbo was able to pull that off, he merely tried and some of the damage hasn't been cleaned up. But for now, Barry, you are effectively banned here, not because of what Jimbo did, but because of what you did in response.
 * Process was begun that could have allowed you, under certain conditions, not yet established, and subject to negotiation, to return to participation here. However, you neglected and defied warnings, instead of respecting them and, perhaps, appealing them, if you disagreed. In recent events, this month, you have not been treated outside of academic norms, your idea of some kind of total freedom in academia, as to access to university resources and publications, is a fantasy, not a reality in any established institution. While this is not Wikipedia, you have pointed out that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a fantasy, as well. It's "anyone except...." But such advertising claims are puffery, and that level of puffery is routinely accepted, and challenging it legally is very difficult, if it is to be challenged at all. It is, after all, an ideal and not a promise. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but there is no guarantee that the edits will stick. You have shown that, in spite of blocks and locks, you can edit Wikiversity, but you are complaining that the edits don't stick. We can all read them, they are not actually being censored. Merely removed from the standing transcript. If you have something to add to that transcript, to the "minutes" of our meeting, all you have to do is to convince another to revert it back in, taking responsibility for it. If nobody is willing to do that, your effort is doomed.
 * Personally, I'd prefer that the IP not be blocked, but it's not all up to me, is it? I'd prefer that the IP not be blocked to encourage you to use a stable address, so you contributions can be watched. I'd prefer that you were allowed to use the account that was set up for you by Diego, and I'd support his unblocking that, and, indeed, I'd prefer, for example, bot reversion to blocking, and voluntary compliance with restrictions to either of them. But, with you, I couldn't move to any of these and an unqualified unblock became completely out of the question due to your behavior. You could fix this, but apparently you don't want to. That's your choice, I can't even call it "childish," but maybe it is. You have at various times expressed a belief that you, indeed, were helpless over your own reactions. But that's your personal psychology and is really your business, not ours. I'm just trying to get a functional community going here, that is capable of moving on from the events of 2008-2010, whether or not the specific damage is ever undone. Sometimes one has to rebuild a place that has burned down, even without identifying the arsonist or bringing him to justice. --Abd 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

 * I've now indefinitely blocked User:JWSchmidt and would ask that this isn't changed without a comprehensive discussion about JWSchmidt, consensus that he should be unblocked, and the terms of any unblock agreed. The discussion above and in particular, some of the links to relevent pages, provide the background. JWSchmidt has a long history of failing to comply with two key policies on Wikiversity; WV:AGF and CIVIL. His block log supports this view. He has been blocked on a number of occasions by a variety of custodians. Many thousands of words have been written about JWSchmidt and his behaviour and so he is well aware of the concerns. Despite this, very little has changed in his approach to discussions with others on Wikiversity from my first awareness of him in 2008 to now. As a couple of recent examples show, most discussions are dominated, not by useful input but repeated statements about "abusive sysops" or "the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008". This does little to promote an atmosphere conducive to discussing and resolving differences of opinions and this acts to disrupt Wikiversity. It is important to recognise that JWSchmidt has and continues to do good work but unfortunately this is overshadowed by his hostile approach to community discussions. I hope that I have adequately assessed this situation and that the block I've put into place is appropriate. I would strongly urge again though that if there are any concerns about this block that it is dealt with by means of a comprehensive discussion by the community of JWSchmidt behaviour. I expect JWSchmidt will inevitably request that he is unblocked but it has been shown that nothing will change and the same disruptive behaviour will continue so I would ask that other custodians don't unblock him without the community discussion that I've suggested. Adambro 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very uncomfortable about this strong action for debatable reasons without first something like a community review and evidence of consensus. I would prefer to see this unblocked ASAP followed by due process for community discussion and consensus. Could others respond here to get some sense of collection reaction. Adambro, could you consider this alternative path and perhaps undo yourself and set up a Community Review? Otherwise, let's see how others feel about this action. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with a clearly involved admin taking this action, even though I agree with practically all of Adambro's arguments. "Bad block," though, does not equate to "unblock." A "bad block" can be done for good reasons. Because of the involvement, Adambro should recuse, allowing any admin to unblock, contrary to what he wrote above. However, I would suggest that any admin considering unblock review the situation, and consider whether or not unblock conditions should be set, to attempt to avoid the situation that tempted Adambro to block even though involved. I agree that JWS should be allowed to defend himself and his actions, within limits. The same as with any justice court or academic review body. --Abd 02:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear first, JWSchmidt should not in my view be unblocked until the issues are resolved. Simply unblocking because of my apparent lack of neutrality isn't going to solve anything. If, as is suggested, I am too involved here, why is that? If some of my involvement is because I have been a frequent target for JWSchmidt then my question to the community is how long should I be prepared to put up with it? As I've mentioned, whilst blocks are often preceded by warnings, I don't believe any warning would have helped here. JWSchmidt, as I've said, cannot claim to be unaware of the continuing concerns. Only recently did Abd made him aware of the above discussion. Any attempt to discuss my concerns would have inevitably found itself moved to User talk:JWSchmidt/silly attacks and nonsense and disregarded. That is what history has shown. History has also shown that the previous attempts to resolve this have had no impact. There are been various lengthy discussions about JWSchmidt that haven't brought about any change in his behaviour and where those discussions have been conducted whilst JWSchmidt has been unblocked they've been distracted by the same repeated general accusations and statements of misconduct. JWSchmidt has had plenty of opportunities to defend himself when pretty much the exact same concerns have been raised. If someone feels they have some new suggestions that may resolve this issue then we can discuss them. I won't start a community review or anything because I don't have any suggestions and I don't think it would be useful to repeat the previous exercises that have analysed his behaviour but I don't believe it is wise to expect anything to change by simply unblocking JWSchmidt so if anyone does want to unblock him, we need to hear their plan for dealing with the issues here. Adambro 10:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that JWSchmidt has offered to avoid involvement in the ongoing policy discussions and restrict his contributions "to development of learning projects in the main namespace for a period of time determined by User:Jtneill". In my opinion, that isn't a real solution. It is not his involvement in policy development per se that is the problem, it is the way in which he conducts himselfs in discussions, any discussions. Accepting his offer would just be an invitation for him to use how he was "prevented" from being involved in the development of policies as another way to complain about the apparent "hostile takeover. That wouldn't resolve the problems, if anything it would simply add to them. Adambro 10:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add a bit more to my comments, JWSchmidt often tries to portray himself as being persecuted because he is apparently highlighted the abuses of admins. I wouldn't really accept this. What we have all the time is remarks made in passing that suggest someone, or admins as a whole, are responsible for various abuses. I've seen very little in the way of attempts by JWSchmidt to raise issues for discussion by the community or discuss his concerns with the custodian involved. His apparent disagreement with an instance where I kicked him from #wikiversity-en is just one example. He suggests it was an abuse in some way of my ops in the channel but instead of first raising that for discussion on Wikiversity, he just drops it into random discussions. Whilst the IRC channel isn't official, clearly it would be improper for me to have ops there if the community concluded it wasn't appropriate and it would be right for me to respect that. I suspect that JWSchmidt would defend his decision not to start a discussion about that on Wikiversity by noting that IRC logs are not meant to be published so there wouldn't be any evidence. However, does he really think that I would lie about anything I've been involved with on IRC? Assuming I would lie about something doesn't really seem civil. Adambro 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, could you summarise the specific grounds on which you've blocked JWSchmidt? Currently, my understanding is that there was no emergency and that there was not yet clear consensus on what action if any the WV community wished to take. So, this block seems premature, especially with JWSchmidt now unable to contribute to this discussion. I think we need to sound out the WV community about what they wish to happen next - I've kicked off a vote below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you not considered how previous community discussions have been attempted and failed, including where JWSchmidt has been permitted to participated. I'm not sure why I should expect another to be any different. Hence why I consider the block appropriate, and I don't consider it appropriate to unblock unless the community can discuss this and come up with some new ideas as to how to handle this situation. I'm not convinced we need a vote on this. What we need is ideas. Do you have any ideas as to how this continuing problem can be resolved? Adambro 10:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the problem is yet - can you provide a clear summary? In the current absence of this or a clear warning on JWSchmidt's talk page or consensus etc. I'm not in favour of a user being blocked and would prefer to be having such discussion in a way that JWSchmidt could participate. I am wary of sweeping generalisations or assumptions or predictions about anyone's behaviour - I am interested in facts and frank and open discussion about difficult issues involving all parties. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Voting and comments

 * Maintain indefinite block of JWSchmidt and proceed to Community Review


 * Unblock JWSchmidt and proceed to Community Review
 * ✅ I would like to see due process in the form of Community Review prior to actions such as blocking in non-emergency situations and non-clear-cut disputes. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't support blocks, and especially don't like to see one made against JWSchmidt without a careful following of process. Leighblackall 11:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree 100% with James and Leigh. Blocking known community members for political reasons is simply not an acceptable practice in an authentic learning community. It's a corrosive and toxic practice that, when used previously in this manner, utterly sundered the community of scholars and educators here. If Adam has a beef with John, the appropriate thing to do is to request assistance with dispute resolution and, failing that, to request a Community Review. Adam now has an inescapable obligation to demonstrate that John has acted in violation of Wikiversity Policy in a manner that cannot be remedied by any less disruptive method than blocking his access. And John has an unalienable right to challenge Adam's allegations and to present a defense before a candid jury of his peers, all undertaken in a manner which illustrates 21st Century concepts of Due Process, Evidence-Based Reasoning, and Scholarly Ethics. Moulton 13:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ While we might end up in the same place, due process is important. While Adambro's analysis is mostly correct, absolutely he should not be the one to implement a block and he should at this point recuse from any use of tools involving JWSchmidt or User talk:JWSchmidt (absent emergency), as he did today. Generally, users should be allowed the freedom to permit blocked editors to edit their Talk page, providing that they are responsible for what they allow to continue. If not for what I consider necessary caution at this point, I'd have reverted back in the IP edits Adambro removed, because JWS obviously prefers that the edits remain. When deep conflicts arise, it's important for custodians to step back from individual action and seek community support. In an emergency, any of us can act. There was no emergency here. --Abd 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Undecided
 * What makes a person an "involved party"? What makes a person a "neutral" party? On the one hand JWSchmidt was a source of inspiration and might of even been considered a good leader. On the other hand JWSchmidt seems hostile ever since he felt Wikiversity suffered a hostile takeover. Hostility breeds more hostility which isn't good for collaborative discussion and resolving disputes. I think JWSchmidt has from what I have seen over the last few years made up his mind that the only solution is to take the project back from those he feels took over the project and that appears to have taken on an ultimatum form. Past efforts have been unsuccessful to bring about a permanent resolution to the issue so far. Unless people can come up with some new ideas the only solutions I can see is to either have everyone resign and leave thus leaving Wikiversity without anyone to deal with community problems until the community discussions and gives new people the tools, or block JWSchmidt indefinitely which could be an acknowledgment that even though JWSchmidt is a good person there is nothing more that can be done and people would like to move on. Neither solution is probably what anyone wants, but the question is there any other choices left? -- dark lama  11:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another question: What would people do if this were anyone else? Would this have lasted as long? Would people be questioning whether this was the right or wrong thing to do? -- dark lama  11:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I just thought of one possible idea. Open up a Community Review where JWSchmidt can state what he wants for taking back Wikiversity. The Wikiversity Community can than ask follow up questions to clarify their understanding of what JWSchmidt wants. This could go on until JWSchmidt is satisfied that the Wikiversity Community understands what he wants for taking back Wikiversity. Next the Wikiversity Community can show a consensus of whether to accept or reject what JWSchmidt wants for each thing he brings up. If at that point JWSchimidt is still not willing to accept what the Wikiversity Community decides, and continues to be hostile towards participants and bring up past issues in a nonconstructive way, than we could go back to blocking him indefinite. -- dark lama  12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked
After 24 hours, he was unblocked and warned not to continue problematic behavior. He was also told to initiate the Community Review process - one on his own behavior and a second on what he thinks are problematic actions. He was warned to control himself during these discussions, to be observant, and be welcoming to criticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Community review
Here's the community review page: Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Already it looks like it's going wrong. JWSchmidt has added an image of the notice which note that the page has been semi-protected by me to prevent a certain blocked individual from evading that block and contributing. JWS describes the image as an "Example of a falsified log entry". This is actually another example of the problem with JWSchmidt. He has made no attempt to raise any concerns he may have about the page protection and instead just skips to describing it as falsified, not bothering to actually start a discussion about it with me which might result in his concerns being addressed. Adambro 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, if you have a problem with my edit then you can discuss your concerns on my user talk page. --JWSchmidt 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is asking a person to bring up their concerns on your user talk page, while not brining up your concerns on their user talk page reasonable? -- dark lama  17:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page of the relevent page. As I've said, really these concerns should have been raised with me first and I feel that not doing so is nothing new and is an illustration of one of the ongoing problems. Adambro 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "these concerns" & "your concerns" <-- Adambro & Darklama, what concerns are you talking about? As far as I know, Adambro is the only one with "concerns" and he failed to discuss them on my user talk page before coming here to tattle. All I did was try to have a discussion with my colleague. --JWSchmidt 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be concerned by Adambro's reason(s) for recently page protecting Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010 for example. -- dark lama  17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "You appear to be concerned" <-- Darklama, please have faith that I'll let Adambro know when I'm concerned. If you have a concern, please come to my user talk page and we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is writing that Adambro has falsified logs to be interpreted, if not as you being concerned? -- dark lama  17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "How is writing that Adambro has falsified logs to be interpreted" <-- I was discussing my participation at Wikiversity with my colleague. I made an observation about the sorry state of Wikiversity since the hostile takeover of 2008. I'm sure my colleague understands what I was talking about. Darklama, if you want to explore the concept of having a discussion with a colleague then come to my user talk page. Maybe we can work together to design a learning project that could become part of the Custodian mentoring process. --JWSchmidt 18:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think discussing observations about living people in public without checking that your observations are correct with the person you are discussing is highly ethical? Do you think that [ your proposed policy] would not apply to what you have wrote about Adambro falsifying logs? -- dark lama  18:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, do you think suggesting that discussing observations about living people in public without checking first with them is unethical? I am not to be allowed to discuss Obama without his personal agreement? You can't be serious. - WAS 4.250 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This all very easily spins out. Two issues, and they really should be addressed on the affected page or the attached Talk, but to summarize:
 * The process isn't "gone wrong." JWS is displaying the same behaviors there as elsewhere, thus it is more efficient, it's not so necessary to dredge up outside evidence. JWS, in my view, should be cut a great deal of slack in how he conducts himself on that page; people may warn him, there, on his talk page, or elsewhere, but, in the end, unless he truly violates a fundamental policy that causes serious damage if not addressed, he should be allowed to make that Review page what he wants, provided he doesn't prevent others from contributing and from summarizing and, in the end, finding consensus. I encourage Adambro to back up and abandon efforts to control JWS, let the community do it if it is to be done.
 * Adambro protected that page due to a single edit by IP, signed as Moulton or pseudonym. By accepted practice, any editor may revert contributions of blocked editors (it is a permission and not a requirement). But the use of tools to prevent such edits in the first place is, in this case, unwise. Any of us can revert those edits, including Adambro. If Adambro chooses to block the single relevant IP, for a week, say, that's within his normal discretion as dealing with a blocked editor evading the block. But protecting the comment page from IP edits is overkill, here. JWS's actions are generally based upon his support for Moulton and Moulton's position, so if JWS wants those edits to be visible, he can and should revert them back in, taking responsibility for that visibility. If it's disruptive, he's being disruptive. If it's useful, fine and good. Preventing the edits in the first place simply inflames the dispute, leading to JWS responding as he did.
 * What's remarkable to me is that I haven't seen JWS revert back in any removed edits from Moulton, though he has complained about many removals. That would have been courageous and direct and forthright. Instead, he's complained bitterly about censorship, at the same time as he's referred to the edits in history, thus proving that there was no actual censorship.
 * Let's move all discussion on this to the Review page, and let it rip. If the community allows it, I will be active as an administrator to prevent this from spreading. JWS should be allowed extraordinary freedom on that page itself. If anyone believes that JWS has, there, crossed boundaries such as to create an emergency, that can be addressed. It's about time that all this be clearly resolved. That's why I requested Custodial action from a neutral admin, here, in the first place. It is unfortunate that only Adambro responded, effectively, because he wasn't properly neutral, but, in the end, we are now where we needed to end up in the first place, it was just due process with a few small detours. --Abd 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Beetlebaum
I noted that this user account was recently created and it immediately started work on Music and learning and the writing of what looks like a song parody relating to incidents on Wikiversity. My initial assumption was that this was a sockpuppet of Moulton but it didn't quite pass the duck test in my view. Yesterday, I made a request on Meta for this to be investigated, assuming this would confirm my suspicions. The results are not what I expected however. It has been confirmed that this is actually a sockpuppet of User:JWSchmidt. Closer review of Music and learning, or more specifically, the one IP that has edited it here does reveal that the IP has been used by JWSchmidt (see here for an example of confirmation). That would add weight to the idea that Beetlebaum was actually JWSchmidt but the results of checkuser provide confirmation. Since I am aware of some concerns about me taking action relating to JWSchmidt, I would ask that other custodians review this situation and take any action as appropriate. Adambro 15:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Beetlebaum is my account, I created for a particular learning project. Adambro, why did you violate the privacy of that account? --JWSchmidt 15:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't violated the privacy of that account so I can't answer that question. Adambro 15:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Make sure you have a good reason for the check. It will only be accepted to counter vandalism or disruption to Wikimedia wikis. Valid reasons include needing a block of the underlying IP or IP range, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption." <-- My User:Beetlebaum account did nothing to warrant a checkuser action. Adambro, your call for a checkuser action was a violation of my privacy. --JWSchmidt 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is for the stewards to consider the merits of any checkuser request. They are responsible for their use of the tool. As far as I was concerned this was probably a sockpuppet of a banned user and the intention of my checkuser request was to confirm this and hopefully identify if any there were any other accounts to be aware of. That it actually turned out to be an account operated by you that, for whatever reason hadn't been declared as such, is not my fault. Ottava is correct that there is no restriction on using multiple accounts but it would seem good practice to declare any such accounts to avoid accusations of vote stacking for example. Perhaps you could explain how using an alternative account figured in this learning project and the general idea of a learning project apparently centred around writing songs about incidents on Wikiversity? Adambro 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * drini did a good job. However, you went out of your way to reveal my IP address. That was the violation of my privacy. Why did you start this thread? You wrote: "take any action as appropriate". Adambro, please list the actions that justified you starting this thread and violating my privacy. "Beetlebaum" is a character in a famous song, it inspires me to write music while using that account. Adambro, do you object to me exploring my interest in music at Music and learning? --JWSchmidt 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not have restrictions on multiple accounts, nor is anything to suggest that there would be a problem regardless. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hid both IP addresses linked above per privacy concerns as expressed by JWS. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment on this particular affair: Ouch! I was about to write that Adambro had violated "Beetlebaum"'s privacy by linking Beetlebaum with JWSchmidt, a user who uses his real name. But, just to check, I looked at User talk:Beetlebaum and saw this, which represents deceptive socking, an attempt to set up an appearance of separation, of two distinct users, possibly for later use. On the one hand, filing a checkuser request without notifying the user is highly discouraged, there had better be very good reason. However, Adambro was operating on the assumption that Beetlebaum was Moulton, not JWS, so the consideration of a notice may not have been considered necessary. And this affair shows, once again, that Adambro should back off from enforcement of the Moulton block, it's causing collateral damage and it seems his judgment is impaired, which is why we would have recusal policy in the first place. He did not use his admin tools, but rather, perhaps, his admin reputation, a subtler and more difficult issue.
 * Ottava, the privacy issue is not merely with the IP, if not for the pair of edits I show. However, by that pretense of separation, JWS did legitimize the revelation of the connection. Otherwise I'd be looking for revision deletion of this entire thread. --Abd 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "represents deceptive socking" <-- I can't believe that anyone, including even Adambro, was uncertain about who was editing as "Beetlebaum". In any case, maybe Abd can write a Wikiversity policy on "deceptive socking". --JWSchmidt 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, JWS, you are now denying the direct statement of Adambro that he believed that the account was Moulton when he filed the checkuser request (but was properly unsure for good reasons). I see absolutely no reason to deny his report or suspect that he has been other than honest and direct. Yes, I'll stand with my claim that this was deceptive socking, the kind that is universally considered reprehensible or at least questionable, across every wiki or on-line forum I know of. You arranged to greet Beetlebaum as JWSchmidt and then replied to yourself as Beetlebaum, creating an appearance of two separate users, whereas the kind of socking that is normally permitted is socking to establish separate "personalities," that do not interact or support each other; typically they maintain separate areas of interest and would never, for example, !vote on the same issue or carry on a discussion with each other. It was not the formation of the sock, itself, nor the use of the sock to write song parodies, thus resembling Moulton, that is a problem. It's that greeting on User talk:Beetlebaum to set up the appearance of separate users. Harmless? I don't think so, and I could speculate about the purpose, but what to do about it is another question, it's up to the community. --Abd 22:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think it odd that JWSchmidt did welcome his own account, Beetlebaum, but I suppose if the use of an alternative account was a necessary part of his learning project, ignoring whether I think creating secret alternative accounts is a good idea, it might have been to try to avoid anyone else seeing a new account active with no talk page, i.e. not welecomed, and going to welcome them and looking at their contribs more closely. My checkuser request has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag as it were and means that whatever reason there was to use an alternative account has been compromised. I think we should assume JWSchmidt had a proper reason for using an alternative account. It would be helpful if he explained what that was to help those who might question his motives to understand. However, whilst I didn't see it as obviously an account operated by JWSchmidt, it was obviously not a new user in the traditional sense so it seems very likely that questions would have been raised eventually by someone else even if I hadn't. I am therefore curious as to what the idea of using this alternative account was when it would inevitably have been identified pretty quickly. Adambro 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "you are now denying the direct statement of Adambro" <-- No. When I was growing up my mother would say things like, "I can't believe you ate all that!" She had just watched me eat it, and she literally believed that I ate it, but "I can't believe" is sometimes used idiomatically to mean "I'm surprised". So allow me to rephrase what I said before: I'm surprised that anyone could read Music and learning and not realize that I had created that learning project. "universally considered reprehensible or at least questionable" <-- I don't considered it reprehensible, so your claim of universality fails. You are free to question my practice of using multiple accounts, and I suggest you come to my user talk page so we can discuss the matter. "every wiki or on-line forum I know of" <-- Of course, you don't seem to notice that things are different at the wiki where you are on probation, thus providing one more piece of evidence that you are not suited for Custodianship. "creating an appearance of two separate users" <-- only among people who jump to unsupported conclusions. If you must know why I made this edit why not come to my talk page and ask me. I think you will be amused by the answer. Of course, if you prefer not to trust me then you can continue to make your unsubstantiated assumptions and bluster about how the community should defend itself against my harmless account. --JWSchmidt 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "the use of an alternative account was a necessary part of his learning project" <-- I simply made the personal choice to use an alternative account so I could work on the Music and learning page. That choice need not concern Custodians. That it is of concern to a few sysops is highly educational. "it might have been to try to avoid anyone else seeing a new account active with no talk page, i.e. not welecomed, and going to welcome them and looking at their contribs more closely" <-- If you must know why I put a welcome template on my own account and made this edit then please read this and then come to my talk page and ask me. --JWSchmidt 22:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If one were to admit that a certain IP address were theirs, there would be no violation of the privacy policy. CheckUser is not for fishing, however, and it's important that requests be made as specific as possible. For instance, "is Beetlebaum a sock of Moulton". Then the answer could be a simple confirmation or denial. While it is interesting for participants here to know that Beetlebaum is actually a sock of JWSchmidt, revealing that was not in line with the original CheckUser request, which should have compared Beetlebaum's IPs to the anonymous IPs listed for disruption. Keep in mind that CheckUser can only examine logs up to a certain point in the past, so the check couldn't have compared against whatever IPs Moulton used when the block was not in effect, only to the ones Adambro listed. I don't believe drini should have listed JWSchmidt as being a user associated with the underlying IP address given the request. But I can't fault him because he saw the blocks on JWSchmidt's account and thought there might have been malicious socking involved. On the other hand, revealing it was outside the scope of the request. JWSchmidt, you can address concerns to the Ombudsman commission. Finally, I want to note that CheckUser policy says that it is not necessary to notify the person being checked or even the community and that alternative accounts are not forbidden unless they are used in violation of policy (such as vote stacking). Adrignola 00:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have can't fault drini for mentioning that "Beetlebaum" = "JWSchmidt" since I had recently opened a community review on my behavior and I welcome examination of ALL aspects of my participation at Wikiversity, including my User:Beetlebaum account. I assume that drini read this and acted correctly to let a Wikiversity participant know that "Beetlebaum" = "JWSchmidt". Thanks for your comments, Adrignola. --JWSchmidt 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of community discussions
Notice: The failure of any Custodian to respond to this request in a timely manner is now the subject of a community review.

I object to the repeated censorship of Wikiversity community discussions (just one recent example). I call on an honest Custodian to put a halt to this kind of disruption of Wikiversity community discussions. Why can't unregistered users post their thoughts at Wikiversity? What Wikiversity policy allows for massive (look in the edit log!) disruptive censorship of Wikiversity community discussions? --JWSchmidt 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no censorship. The diffs show that anyone can read those edits. The only revision-hidden edits are those which violate policy on outing, i.e., the use of real names when a user wishes to remain anonymous, which, by the way, is no different from the revealing of IP when a user doesn't want it revealed, a principle that JWS clearly supports.
 * Unregistered users may post their thoughts. A blocked user may also post their thoughts, normally, but it may be removed. Otherwise a block means nothing. If JWS disagrees with the block, he is welcome to bring it up for discussion as a proposal, here or elsewhere. As far as I've seen, that hasn't happened recently. He's merely complained about those enforcing the block or cleaning up disruption. Unblocking is an action, someone must take it. Convince an admin to unblock, it's done pending review. Otherwise if someone is blocked, they are blocked pending review. That's how wikis work. Massive disruption leads to massive reversion (which is not a custodial action, it can be done by anyone and undone by anyone. Including IPs, in fact; however, allowing an IP editor to undo his own reversion defeats the principle of requiring, as a minimum, that a registered editor approve of an IP edit of a blocked user in order for it to stand in the current text, by reverting it back in.
 * Not once have I seen JWS bring back in the reverted edits of Moulton. Rather, he complains bitterly about censorship. In other words, he could fix the "problem," but instead wants to blame and complain and attack others. The situation is intractable as it stands. --Abd 11:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "policy on outing" <-- Abd, please provide a link to the Wikiversity "policy on outing". --JWSchmidt 11:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "the use of real names when a user wishes to remain anonymous, which, by the way, is no different from the revealing of IP when a user doesn't want it revealed" <-- The violation of Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy that took place on this page yesterday is now the subject of a community review. I suggest that Probationary Custodians read that policy. The Privacy Policy applies to Wikimedia functionaries who misuse data that they obtain from the WMF servers. Adambro improperly used checkuser data so as to publicly reveal the IP of a Wikiversity user. "the use of real names when a user wishes to remain anonymous" <-- Abd, please quote from the the policy to support your claim that a Wikiversity participant cannot use the name of another Wikiversity participant. --JWSchmidt 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "A blocked user may also post their thoughts, normally, but it may be removed." <-- Abd, please quote from the Wikiversity policy that says Wikiversity can be censored. What policy gives you the power to revert war so as to disrupt the Wikiversity community and prevent Wikiversity participants from seeing the good faith contributions of a Wikiversity participant? --JWSchmidt 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "If JWS disagrees with the block, he is welcome to bring it up for discussion as a proposal, here or elsewhere. As far as I've seen, that hasn't happened recently. He's merely complained about those enforcing the block or cleaning up disruption." <-- I request that the Custodian Mentor of Abd advise the Probationary Custodian not to disrupt community discussions by hijacking discussion threads. This request for Custodian action is about the censorship of Wikiversity by a few sysops who are abusing their positions of trust. This discussion thread is not about the absurdly bad block that was imposed on User:Moulton; that is the subject of a community review. Abd is seriously violating Wikiversity policy every time he enforces the bogus ban that was placed upon User:Moulton without Wikiversity community consensus. An honest Wikiversity Custodian needs to respond to this discussion thread. In order to prevent further disruption of this discussion and Wikiversity as a whole, I request that the Custodian Mentor of Abd give thought to terminating the unsuccessful Probation of Abd. --JWSchmidt 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "the principle of requiring, as a minimum, that a registered editor approve of an IP edit of a blocked user in order for it to stand in the current text" <-- Abd, please quote from the Wikiversity policy that describes how this "principle" justifies your censorship of constructive edits that were made in Wikiversity community discussions. --JWSchmidt 12:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not once have I seen JWS bring back in the reverted edits of Moulton. Rather, he complains bitterly about censorship. In other words, he could fix the "problem," but instead wants to blame and complain and attack others. <-- Abd, please don't game the system by abusing the term "attack". Every Wikiversity participant has the duty to discuss abuse of power by sysops. Discussion of disruptive behavior by sysops is not an "attack". An honest Custodian would respond courteously when their errors are brought up for discussion. Someone on Probation should not game the system in an attempt to shield their actions from proper community scrutiny. Since you are an involved party, please don't continue to disrupt this thread: let an honest Custodian deal with this matter. --JWSchmidt 13:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton disruption intensifying.
Because disruption by Moulton has intensified, he is revert warring as IP to restore his deleted comments, instead of allowing other editors who want them discussed to revert them back in, I am protecting relevant pages for 24 hours. Any admin may reverse this action, I am not insisting on it. Perhaps now we might be more generous with Adambro.... A range block might be more appropriate, but I've never done a range block and I don't want to be experimenting with it without guidance.... --Abd 04:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To minimise collateral damage, a series of range blocks covering the Boston Verizon IPs which have been used will be necessary rather than a single range which would take out many other unrelated IPs. You can use this tool to calculate the appropriate range block based upon a list of IP addresses. I've made a list of IPs used by Moulton and have sorted it into groups to minimise the range blocks. At the moment, this would involved four range blocks of 68.160.128.0/18, 68.162.192.0/18, 68.163.100.0/22 and 141.154.0.0/17 although those may need to be refined further as some of those ranges are probably larger and I am aware that there might be more ranges. Ironically, the more IPs Moulton uses the clearer the requirements of any rangeblock. Those ranges could potentially affect 66,560 IPs. However clearly, we've got to weigh up the potential damage of blocking a load of IPs used by Verizon in Boston versus the other ways in which the block evasion could be prevented. The only other option is semi-protection of an ever growing list of pages which would of course impact on all anonymous/new users rather than just those using Verizon in the Boston area. I think using a range blocks would be preferable in my view since the risk of inconvenience to anyone else is much lower. Adambro 09:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please take note:

"Thanks all for your communications and efforts. Let's see what others might have to add as well, but I think to take these issues further, please raise them at Colloquium, Request for custodian action, and/or Community Review and let's see how we go at working through them. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)"

In order to undertake the Action Research Protocol which James has called for, it will be necessary for you to ensure that the Colloquium, Request for custodian action, and Community Review remain open for IP editing, and that, going forward, our joint problem-solving discussions are not disrupted by rollback reversions or semi-protection.

Moulton 10:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this problem is still continuing, I've implemented a series of range blocks as I've described above. The ranges are 141.154.0.0/17, 68.163.96.0/20, 68.162.192.0/18 , and 68.160.128.0/18. I will monitor their effectiveness and amend them as appropriate. I will also unblock all the Moulton IPs which should covered by these range blocks and remove the protection of this page. Whilst I am not under an illusion that these range blocks will completely deal with this problem, it should reduce it to a more manageable level allowing the semi-protection to be removed. Adambro 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "he is revert warring as IP" <-- Posting good faith edits to Wikiversity is not "revert warring". The revert warring is being done in tag-team by a few sysops who have abused their Custodial tools to censor Wikiversity. There is no basis in Wikiversity policy for censoring Wikiversity community discussions so as to repeatedly remove good faith contributions. Notice: sysops who have abused their Custodial tools to censor Wikiversity are now the subject of Community Review. --JWSchmidt 13:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Revert warring is not about good faith or not good faith. Revert warring is repeated reversion without basis in policy. Reverting edits of blocked users is simply enforcing blocks, and due process requires challenging the block through appeal, first to other administrators, and then to the community or even beyond (to the WMF), not evading it. If a custodian has the authority to block, and if the block is not reversed, the blocked editor is "evading" the block by editing as IP. There are four separate actions here: blocking, reversion, page protection, and revision deletion. The reversion is an ordinary editorial action. JWS complains about all these actions as if they were administrative abuse, and does not discriminate between involved admins and uninvolved ones. What have been removed are admittedly provocative edits by a blocked user, not "good faith contributions," but some of the contributions may have been allowable as to their content, if not the identity of the editor. If JWS believes that an edit is a positive contribution, he has been free to revert them back in. Instead, he continuously and stridently complains about censorship. They are not censored. The only "censored" edits are revision deleted, and the only revision deletion going on has been removal of provocative trolling, using the real name of an administrator who is not using tools in this matter, but who dared to make an offer to the blocked editor to unblock, setting a condition that the blocked editor rejected, claiming it was "bullying." And this is what JWS is supporting through his complaints and endless questions of actions, often on the smallest of technical "errors." I am involved, because, as an originally neutral editor sympathetic to charges of abuse, I noticed that JWS was carrying on a campaign of complaint that was grossly and continually uncivil, and I warned him about it. What a waste of time! I did not use tools or threaten to use tools. But he immediately began complaining about repression and the rest, and is now calling into question the simplest actions of mine, on the Requests for adminship page. His behavior is as it has been for almost two years: continually disruptive, inflaming disputes instead of helping to resolve them. If the community does not address this, I will personally give up on any effort to bring Wikiversity up to full operating condition, because it will be wasted effort, and I'm already stretched.
 * Wikiversity was badly damaged by the events of 2008 and last March. However, the ultimate struggle was successful and Wikiversity is now operationally independent, apparently. If, however, it does not come together with sufficient consensus to build what was intended here, it will be for nothing. Adambro was technically violating recusal policy (assumed policy, that is, I don't think it's necessarily explicit yet), and I pointed that out. But that does not mean that his actions were abusive, because there is a severe shortage of active administrators. When I suggested that Adambro recuse from dealing with Moulton, I promised that I would help as to what was clearly within administrative discretion. Naturally, this earned me the wrath of JWS, and continual trolling from Moulton. Instead of respecting the opportunity represented by the removal of page protections, as urged by myself and others, precisely so that he could comment, he escalated, revert warring intensively (including repeatedly removing a comment by Jtneill). I remain recused as to JWS, and do seek guidance from the community on the Moulton affair. Moulton very clearly refuses to accept the right of the community to limit his contributions, which is a common-law right for all assemblies. There are structural solutions, but what do we do meanwhile? It is true that the community never made a decision to block Moulton, but there is a defacto "ban" due to the unwillingness of any administrator to unblock. That is, the consensus of the community is manifest through two things, the lack of any admin willing to unblock, and the lack of any process initiated by the community to request unblock. JWS was desysopped in 2008. He could have requested his tools back. Apparently he did not, preferring to complain about the out-of-process desysop. Problem is, there is no established process, it's a typical wiki problem. SBJohnny has a clear understanding of the situation, but he resigned his tools. He could get them back any time, but declines.
 * Remarkably, I started out with the idea that Moulton had been abusively excluded, but the more I reviewed the evidence, the more I became convinced that Jimbo had actually done the right thing by blocking him. And it was for abusive action on Wikiversity, not "retaliation" for what Moulton had done elsewhere as has been often implied or claimed. Clumsy? Yes. But abusive, no, except in the possible aspect of not respecting local process. And all this is old history. If Moulton would show cooperation with the community now, it would all be moot. Instead, what he shows is ironically what he condemns: "my way or else." That is, we must accept his edits, we must not revert them, or he will keep finding new IP to edit from and cause more and more work in responding to him. I've given up on Moulton, as a result of the utter intransigence he's displayed over the last week or so; basically spitting in the face of efforts to open the door to him. He's like all extremists, someone who tries to find a compromise is aiding the enemy.
 * So, as this is playing out, Jimbo did not destroy Wikiversity; rather a community strong enough to govern itself didn't exist and doesn't exist. A puff of hot air from Jimbo was enough to blow it all away. Jimbo isn't the problem and never was. The problem is us.
 * I want to make one thing clear. This is not about the "good faith contributions" of Moulton. Moulton has a means to make good contributions and not see his IP blocked, it's been pointed out to him, but he is clearly uninterested in that; the same proposal was made (by me) to a topic-banned WP editor, having been approved by a WP arbitrator, and he angrily rejected it, because, like Moulton, his purpose was defiance and disruption and trolling for excessive response so that he could then humiliate an admin who was simply enforcing an ArbComm decision. Another topic-banned editor on WP took up the suggestion and it worked, fostering cooperation between the banned editor and the very one who had requested the ban in the first place. There are ways to cooperate and move toward genuine consensus. But as long as one or both sides are more interested in blame and complaint and accusations of abuse, than in working together for the welfare of the project, it won't happen. We cannot move on while clinging to the past and demanding "justice" while being not willing to set up the conditions for justice to operate: it requires peace.
 * I see no immediate danger of WV being shut down, but that situation could rapidly change with only minor shifts in the disruption we are seeing. There are possible solutions to the problems, but they involve some rather drastic changes. We have some possible immediate choices:
 * Ignore the Moulton edits, as to any administrative action. Should obvious Moulton IP be treated as a "good faith" editor, such that repeated reversion of his edits would be revert warring and thus subject to block? If so, why just for Moulton and not any IP with any apparent agenda? Special privileges for Moulton? Why?
 * Revert all Moulton edits, but allow any registered user to revert them back in. This is what I favor, except I wouldn't necessarily revert all Moulton edits, it depends on how Moulton behaves. When the level of problematic editing is high, it becomes more efficient to revert them all on sight (standard for blocked editors, except in certain page locations), but if Moulton were to establish a pattern of true good-faith edits, reasonable criticism, etc., the balance could go in the other direction.
 * The problem with this option is that Moulton hasn't been willing to accept it, and instead started revert warring to overturn reversion, instead of allowing other editors to "validate" his edits.
 * Moulton's option, he could unilaterally take, and it would bring a certain response from me: he could self-revert "per block of Moulton" or "per ban". (Moulton is not, in my opinion, technically banned, though there is a defacto ban.) That's the solution I developed on WP, and what it does is to procedurally respect the block or ban, showing cooperation, and not placing admins in any difficult position. Normally, I would pay no attention to self-reverted edits as an admin, just as I would normally pay no attention to self-reverted incivility, self-reverted revert warring, etc. Only if there were a specific complaint about an edit, such as it containing "outing," would I feel a need to act. In my view, a self-reverted edit by a banned editor does not violate the ban, provided that the revert intention is announced with the edit, in the summary, and is promptly carried out, and occasional lapses or errors wouldn't change the substance of this. What self-reversion does is to efficiently place the edit before the community and any user may simply revert it back in if they agree that it is a positive contribution and are willing to take personal responsibility for that. But Moulton has shown no interest in this when it was described to him off-wiki, nor when it was described here. My response if he does this, though, would be to vigorously defend these edits as not being ban violations, and not deserving of further IP blocks. In other words, he could, with relative freedom, comment.
 * But Moulton's response has generally been "you can't make me." He's correct; that is, we cannot prevent all IP edits from him without causing collateral damage. I saw this play out on WP for years with Scibaby, in a situation that clearly began with administrative abuse. It's still going on, and it's very difficult to disentangle it.
 * Today, Adambro instituted range blocks to make it more difficult for Moulton to evade and edit. His action was certainly within his discretion and was essentially based on my request. I short-term protected certain pages, leaving open certain others. For example, I do not support blocking Moulton from editing User talk:JWSchmidt, as long as he refrains from "outing" there, and I unprotected that page, as I recall, to make it possible. So among our options are escalating range blocks and page protections. I might also meet personally with Moulton to see if some solution can be directly negotiated, though that might not be able to happen immediately. I do have a sense of some kind of general support in that effort.
 * This is the central problem. There remain stewards who are not likely to be shy about intervening if they believe we are incapable of handling the situation. If we can find consensus, I see no hazard of outside intervention, but where we are ineffectual and divided, it's very real as a possibility. (This might be a fair assessment of what happened in 2008 and maybe in March, though in March, it seems Jimbo was led down the rosy path by a disruptive user. It was much more a simple mistake.) Does the WMF have the authority to intervene in hosted wikis to prevent overall WMF damage, as they see it? Damn straight they do! Why would we imagine otherwise? Do we have some contract that prohibits it? If we don't head it off, history will repeat. Just without Jimbo this time.
 * Note that this isn't about acting in fear. It is simply a recognition that if we, as a community, do not govern our own wiki, someone else will. Moulton? The WMF? I know what will happen if administrative support here collapses, as it might. We supposedly gained two new permanent administrators, see the banner! They aren't editing at all. --Abd 15:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "simply enforcing blocks" <-- Abd, please quote from the Wikiversity policy that says you can disrupt a Wikiversity community discussion by repeatedly removing a good faith contribution to the discussion. --JWSchmidt 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for communicating with Moulton
Allow logged in editing of User talk:Moulton? I realise that for some people Moulton has gone too far too many times, but I also realise that for other people he hasn't been treated fairly and has important contributions to make. The Moulton account is currently globally and locally blocked such that Moulton can't edit anything. As a result, in order to communicate, he tends to user sockpuppets or anonymous IP which then engage reversion and blocking. An alternative option (if I've understood correctly from others who have looked into it) could be to use WV's capacity (via Bureaucrat actions) to allow Moulton logged in editing of User talk:Moulton. For some people this may seem to be too much to permit such editing access and for others it may be perceived as ongoing, unjustified restriction. However, if dealing with a conflict is going to move towards peace then I think the greatest prospects lie with some shift to middlish ground. Such a change would allow Moulton a place to edit without being reverted purely for block evasion. Then we could concentrate more clearly on listening to Moulton has to say. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton already has already wasted a place to comment where I've been turning a blind eye to his block evasion. That was User talk:Caprice, an interesting experiment but not one I was particularly comfortable about. The attempts to negotiate with him regarding a possible unblock didn't go very well and that account is now fully blocked with talk page use disabled. However, if any such negotiations are to take place then in my view it should be at User talk:Moulton which can be enabled for Moulton to use logged in as that account if that was considered appropriate. My view is that users should in most circumstances only use their talk page when blocked to negotiate an unblock. I don't, for example, want to see as is sometimes done, a running commentary of a blocked users view of current events on the particularly project. So I think the question is whether anyone wishes to try to negotiate with Moulton regarding an unblock, or make a proposal that Moulton is unblocked. It isn't necessarily the case in my view that the community can't consider the appropriateness of an unblock without input from Moulton himself. I think really at the moment the ball is in the court of anyone who wishes to make efforts to get Moulton unblocked. They can consider whether to propose for community discussion an unblock of Moulton and whether they might need to discuss that with Moulton on-wiki. Adambro 12:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "reverted purely for block evasion <-- There is no basis in Wikiversity policy for repeatedly censoring the constructive contributions of any editor. This is now the subject of a thread on this page and community review. Moulton was subjected to an infinite duration block imposed from outside Wikiversity against Wikiversity community consensus. Moulton was subjected to a global ban that was put in place without Wikiversity community consensus. The User:Moulton account should be unblocked by an honest Custodian with a log entry indicating that the original indef block was made against Wikiversity community consensus. Constructive edits from any source should always be allowed to stand at Wikiversity. There is no basis in Wikiversity policy for censorship of constructive contributions to Wikiversity community discussions. --JWSchmidt 13:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton unblock
I'm just noting that User:Darklama locally unblocked User:Moulton: Special:Log/block + Special:Block/Moulton "06:17, 17 July 2010 Darklama (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Moulton (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Not needed with global account lock in place)". Given that the previous WV block was based on a Community Review (Community Review/Moulton's block), I think it would be desirable to have a (consolidated) community discussion somewhere about unblocking. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton can't edit even with that block gone under that name. I thought it was important to make that clear for anyone that still thought Wikiversity custodians could do anything about it. Even if the Wikiversity community decided Mouton should be allowed to edit locally, Moulton still wouldn't be able to edit at Wikiversity because of the global lock. Community discussion can still happen, even though the Wikiversity community is powerless to allow Moulton to edit, should that be the desired outcome. -- dark lama  23:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not true that "Wikiversity custodians" can't "do anything about it." You just did something. The consequence is this: Moulton may now legitimately create a declared sock and edit with it. He's blocked or he isn't. Now he isn't. Global lock is not our affair at all, though we can certainly request unlock, and if we do so having demonstrated local consensus, I'm sure it will be granted. But the idea that Moulton editing here depends on the absence of a global lock is simply incorrect. After all, he does edit here, as recent activity shows. If he's not blocked here, it is not legitimate to revert his edits on sight, as it is if he is blocked. Using a sock account is allowed, there are only two kinds of socks not allowed: nondeclared socks used to create an appearance of multiple user support or agreement, or socks, declared or otherwise, used to evade a block.


 * So, perhaps the Gordian knot has been cut. I'm certainly not going to reblock unless Moulton is currently disruptive. I really don't care what he did years ago, consensus can change, Moulton could change, etc. Some of his recent behavior was blockworthy (the outing, and maybe revert warring), but what users do when blocked doesn't indicate what they will do when not blocked. If Moulton is now blocked again, there is a new specific custodian responsible for making that decision (who could undo it with no fuss, perhaps). (My view is that even if a decision is based on a community discussion, the closing and acting custodian is still responsible, but that's wikitheory, maybe we should have a resource on that...) --Abd 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with below) Well, the unblock is either fine or it creates a technical problem. The issue is whether or not Moulton is blocked on Wikiversity. He was blocked. Now he isn't. The issue has to do with whether or not socking is allowed. If he's blocked, he's not generally allowed to sock, except possibly as a special accommodation, probably with restrictions (as was tried with User:Caprice and could be tried again if Moulton negotiates some agreement. If he's not blocked, he may create a declared sock and it's perfectly okay. Hence, Darklama, you really have unblocked him. That's fine with me if it's fine with you and the rest of the community.


 * See, Darklama, Moulton can edit even with the global lock, just not under that name. Further, if we have him unblocked, and that isn't just some fluke, we have a basis for going to meta and asking for unlock. If we have a community consensus on Moulton returning to editing here, my strong suspicion is that a simple steward request would do the job. Regardless, the Wikiversity community has the power to decide to allow Moulton to edit locally. He already edits locally, of course, the question is whether or not we allow those edits to stand, revert them, or, alternatively, do we spend considerable administrative effort with range blocks and page protections and the like, causing collateral damage. Individually as admins we can make our own decisions, but, ultimately, this should be a community decision, and it is not a meta community decision, it's ours, it only becomes theirs if we allow activity here which they consider causes "cross-wiki" damage. We should avoid that, while not compromising our essential values. --Abd 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did mention "under that name" in my initial response above. I also mean powerless to let him edit under the Moulton name, without seeking a steward (or outside intervention as some might call it). Functionally (software wise) the Moulton account is still blocked locally (and everywhere else). If people feel there is a symbolic need to keep a block recorded locally, I won't get in the way. -- dark lama  00:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No such need here! If someone believes Moulton should be blocked here, then they have two ways to do it: block directly and take responsibility for it, or start a block discussion. --Abd 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

the block log
Is this a correct assessment? If the proper entry was put into the block log for User:Moulton (saying that he was originally blocked against Wikiversity consensus) then a responsible Steward would perform the account unlock. --JWSchmidt 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we really know that though? I think it would be more responsible for a steward or a crat to only act if they are sure that consensus supports an unblock. That the original block might have lacked consensus doesn't mean the community doesn't support the block now. I'm also not clear about the significance of putting such a note in the block log. Adambro 00:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "support the block now" <-- Any block must be justified or calling for one is a serious violation of policy. Adambro, what Wikiversity policy has Moulton violated? Moulton was subjected to Jimbo's bad block and to several show trials while the Wikiversity community had been threatened and intimidated. Moulton should be given a clean slate and allowed to return to his constructive participation at Wikiversity which he demonstrated before he was targeted for a ban by a disruptive and harassing sockpuppeter from Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 00:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that rather than addressing the points I raise which might have been helpful, you just repeat your opposition to Moulton's block and call for him to be allowed to participate. I and I'm sure everyone else on Wikiversity understands your position now. You've not responded to the points I raised about whether a steward would act in the way you suggest. As I've said, do you know that a steward would remove the global lock if such an entry was made in Moulton's block log? Have you spoken to any of the stewards about this? My impression from brief discussions with a few stewards is that they'd be more likely to act on the basis of community consensus supporting such an action rather than an apparent lack of consensus supporting the original block. I'm also not clear as to why such a note in the block log would have any more weight than a custodian simply stating that the global lock should be removed for example. Is there some significance to putting this in the block log? Adambro 11:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest entry in Moulton's block log is worthless information. A few days ago a Steward came to #wikiversity-en asking if Moulton should be unblocked. I would gladly open a community review on this but I can't edit Moulton's user talk page and invite him to participate. --JWSchmidt 11:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Catch 22.222222222222.png or left the project in disgust.]]
 * I did see the comment from the steward, I'm pretty sure they weren't offering to remove the global block though and I think your description isn't completely accurate. They didn't ask if Moulton should be unblocked but rather whether there was consensus to reduce the block settings of Moulton et al. I don't think that is the same thing and isn't an indication they were just waiting for the nod to change the global lock. I still remain of the opinion that finding consensus for the unblock would be better. Adambro 11:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, the fact is you improperly removed part of my comment and you ignored the fact that I would gladly open a community review on this matter if I could. While waiting for Godot, someone should put into the block log that Moulton was originally blocked against community consensus and link to the current community review where the bad block is discussed. --JWSchmidt 12:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS, I'll be blunt. If you shut up, Moulton might remain unblocked. But perhaps you'd rather continue attacking Adambro? Does it really matter what policy Moulton violated? I could dredge up a few, but so what? He's not blocked, unless Darklama changes his mind. That means that his signed IP edits can't be reverted on sight. It means that his IP can't be blocked just because he edits with it. It means that Adambro can stop enforcing a block that doesn't exist any more. If Adambro thinks it's his responsibility to "enforce" global locks, well, we'd have a problem, wouldn't we? I very much doubt he will go there!
 * I'm not sure I'll have the time, but I just might go from here and look at those range blocks that Adambro properly placed, which are now not appropriate, and lift them, assuming Adambro doesn't beat me to it. If there are still any page protections from those edits, they can be removed. To start, I will consider unblocking Caprice, I last blocked him for behavior that might not have resulted in a block for an "ordinary" editor, not that Moulton will ever be ordinary.
 * On the other hand, if Moulton does this "outing" thing again, if he's deliberately and personally provocative and insulting, to anyone, this now-open door will slam shut quite quickly. JWS, you have praised and condoned some of the actions which legitimated Moulton's block. As far as I'm concerned, that's all moot now, but be aware that if you continue this, you are still in danger. If you can move forward, the dark days may be over. If not, well, that's your choice. --Abd 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Custodians could still choose to enforce the global lock, just like they chose to enforce the local block. I don't see where your getting "can't" from. -- dark lama  01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They could choose this. I'd advise quite otherwise. If someone wants to prevent Moulton from editing here, block the account. If not, don't. If some custodian here starts "enforcing" global locks, I predict, it will be trouble, unless there has been a local decision supporting that. That would be similar to "enforcing" Jimbo edicts, which is singularly unpopular almost everywhere, even on meta. Nothing against Jimbo here, this is only about local rights and process. Reverting the edits of an unblocked editor would be revert warring, Darklama, unless those edits are actually disruptive. --Abd 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you follow along with what Jtneill said above, a local decision already exists which may or may not support doing that in Moulton's case. OTOH I don't see the point in reverting the edits of blocked users, unless those edits are actually disruptive either. -- dark lama  01:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "attacking Adambro" <-- Abd, please list the attacks so I can respond to your accusation that I have attacked Adambro. "I could dredge up a few <-- Abd, please list the Wikiversity policies that Moulton violated. if Moulton does this "outing" thing again, if he's deliberately and personally provocative and insulting, to anyone, this now-open door will slam shut <-- Using the name of a colleague is not "outing". Using someone's name is not a violation of Wikiversity policy. "JWS, you have praised and condoned some of the actions which legitimated Moulton's block" <-- Abd, please list the Wikiversity policy violations that justified a block of Moulton. Abd, please link to evidence that I condoned those policy violations. "if you continue this, you are still in danger" <-- Abd, please explain. Are you saying that if I continue to seek justice for a wikiversity community member who was subjected to a bad block that was imposed against community consensus then I am in danger? Abd, please specify that danger. --JWSchmidt 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any confidence that Moulton will return to a manner of behaving that would be appropriate for an educational environment as long as he refuses to promise what I've asked him to refrain from doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have confidence that Moulton has been treated at Wikiversity as he would have been in any real world educational institution. In the real world colleagues are allowed to refer to each other by name in conversations (as is the case at Wikiversity). Wikiversity has no rule against using a person's name. Instead, Moulton was subjected to a bad block (made against community consensus) by an outsider. At what real world educational institution would a scholar be brutally attacked by the banhammer while his colleagues were subjected to threats and forced to look on in dismay? "he refuses to promise what I've asked him to refrain from doing" <-- Ottava Rima, what did you ask him to do and on what authority? Ottava Rima, what Wikiversity policy do you think he will violate? Before Moulton was viciously attacked by invading Wikipedians in 2008 he was participating constructively at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 10:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JWSchmidt, do think that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy sets a standard of ethical management of wikis that should be respected by contributors to wikis funded by that Foundation? or perhaps that it is itself an unethical standard for a learning/teaching non-profit foundation? Would it be possible to to create a learning resource about this question at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Ethics ? - WAS 4.250 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied on your user talk page. --JWSchmidt 22:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the Moulton situation
I would appreciate a discussion to clarify the current situation with Moulton. I note that User:Moulton has been unblocked with the reason "Not needed with global account lock in place". It seems that some are taking that as invitation for Moulton to return to Wikiversity. However, despite the many discussions about Moulton recently, what we haven't had is a simple debate about whether the community wishes for Moulton to participate so I don't consider the recent unblock to have granted Moulton's wish to return to Wikiversity. As Darklama noted, technically a local block is not needed whilst the global lock is in place. However, the situation here remains unclear. I would urge anyone who wishes for Moulton to participate here to help clarify the situation by getting a steward or a 'crat to deal with the global lock issue. The the ability of a 'crat to get around the global lock the community can deal with this without outside assistance if that is what is desired so I see little reason to not pursue allowing Moulton to use User:Moulton if he is to be allowed to return to Wikiversity. As it stands, it would be my intention to continue to enforce Moulton's block. If the community doesn't wish for me to do so, then community consensus can be found to deal with the global lock on User:Moulton and I will respect that decision. There are four 'crats and thirty-two stewards who can sort this out properly. I am neither so don't complain about me being confused about whether I should be enforcing a block here, ask one of those 36 people to clarify the situation. Adambro 11:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that discussions about preventing Wikiversity community members from participating at Wikiversity should be held in a community forum rather than here where it has been demonstrated that unjust calls for blocking can be made without any objection from sysops of questionable trustworthiness. Moulton's participation at Wikiversity is the subject of a community review.--JWSchmidt 12:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put a note at the Colloquium to draw attention to this. The reason I posted this here is because it follows on very closely from the above discussions and I thought it would make things easier to keep it in once place. Adambro 13:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One way might be to unblock Moulton locally and to then conduct a community review in which Moulton can participate. We could then see if there is consensus. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "unblock Moulton locally"? Unless I missed a reblock, a global lock is what is preventing Moulton from contributing locally now, not a local block. -- dark lama  14:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is preventing Moulton from contributing. --Gastrin Bombesin  16:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that? Something seems to be disrupting the open communication lines here.  --Albatross 16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Adam, when Bert and Ernie are having a conversation with each other, is that Jim Henson just having a conversation with himself? When Sagredo, Salviati, and Simplicio are having a conversation, is that just Galileo having conversation with himself?  Think about it, Adam.  The dialog model dates back to Aesop.  --Montana Mouse 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jtneill, since you seem to be the most active 'crat at the moment, in what circumstances would you be prepared to act to detach User:Moulton from the global account (and lock)? Adambro 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that there are several WMF projects that are not part of the SUL matrix. I can log into them just fine, but I still cannot edit there, because the SUL lock blocks all editing anyway.  Moulton 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant that one way forward could be to 'detach' the WV Moulton account from SUL locally for the purpose of allowing Moulton to participate in a discussion ~2 years on after after the Wales block and the community review that lead to re-blocking. I personally wouldn't have any particular conditions other than WV policy - the purpose would be to invite that Moulton participate in community discussion about possible unblock. What do folks think about taking this step? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * James, for the record, I've never asked to be unblocked. There are several reasons for this, some of which are subtle and not at all obvious to those who have not had long conversations with me.  Here on WV, perhaps three or four people who know me reasonably well could faithfully articulate my reasons.  I don't oppose a discussion about unblocking, and I am more than happy to participate in it, but not because I am seeking to be unblocked.  To this day my objectives remain as I posted them on my user page three years ago — namely to promote accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.  I can do that whether I am unblocked or not.  Indeed some of my objectives are best served by creatively engaging in civil disobedience when I am subject to an out-of-process block or comparable Bill of Attainder.  To my mind, these are worthwhile and timely learning projects that, happenstantially, tend to be most commonly introduced via liminal social drama (rather than via dull classroom lecture materials).  JWS, PM, SBJ, Greg, and I have somewhat overlapping ideas on these issues, given that we've all been subject to Monarchial Bill of Attainder (out-of-process blocks by Jimbo Wales) and comparable shenanigans and machinations when Jimbo threatened to shut down Wikiversity if the Custodians did not do his bidding.  He got away with it two years ago.  Last March it backfired on him, and now the time has come for Truth and Reconciliation.  Moulton 02:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Moulton has been participating at the community review. Moulton was blocked against Wikiversity community consensus and has now been unblocked. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, the "reason" given as "enough is enough". One Wikiversity Custodian has stated his intention to enforce the account lock and has been reverting Moulton's edits1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Can anyone explain the basis in Wikiversity policy for reverting Moulton's edits? --JWSchmidt 11:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "James, for the record, I've never asked to be unblocked." So, you just want to whine about being blocked? Since you do not want to be unblocked, any discussion regarding your block is now moot and closed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with below) Moulton was simply stating the truth, at least as to recent actions. I'd urge you, Ottava, to refrain from terms like "whining." It's uncivil. Just because certain others are uncivil doesn't mean we have to jump down that rat-hole. Moulton doesn't have to ask to be unblocked, at this point, primarily because he's not blocked. Please be careful about writing as if you have a unilateral power to close discussions, without actually taking responsibility to close them respecting evidence or consensus. One of the problems with Moulton, for sure, is that he can stimulate angry response. We will need to find ways to restrain what gratuitously triggers such response; I have no idea at this point if Moulton will survive being unblocked for long enough for this to develop. Maybe! --Abd 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, reread the above. Moulton was claiming he didn't want to be unblocked. It is a mistruth by Moulton in order to push an absurdity as part of his theatrics. He really does want to be unblocked and is just tossing around such rhetoric as the above to partake in mischief. If you think my words are angry, then I think you need to spend more time reading them before responding, as they were clearly a twist of Moulton's own false rhetoric against him to expose it as false rhetoric. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I couldn't fail to disagree less. —Montana Mouse 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, are you trolling me? I know you've been paying enough attention to know why I'm really here.  —Moulton 02:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You stopped having a reason to be here two and a half years ago and you seem to live solely off of spite at this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please exhibit your evidence, analysis, and reasoning, to support your most curious theory of mind regarding my reasons for being here (keeping in mind that my reason for being here is to ask these kinds of questions). —Moulton 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you lost that privilege when you started stating what my mental state was. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "just want to whine"<-- Is this how low Wikiversity has sunk as a scholarly community? Since when do collaborating learners blithely dismiss an expert in online learning communities and call him a whiner because he objects to the unprofessional practices of Wikiversity? Is there a single Wikiversity sysop who is disturbed by the fact that an innocent Wikiversity scholar was viciously harassed and subjected to a bad block, imposed against Wikiversity community consensus and subjected to show trials while the Wikiversity community was subjected to external threats and harassment and who continues to be persecuted by rogue sysops who bring dishonor to Wikiversity? Is every Wikiversity sysop's ethics and mind "moot and closed"? I'm sickened by the way Custodians are behaving. Ottava Rima, who taught you that you can bully a fellow Wikiversity participant? Please leave Moulton alone and let him return to normal participation at Wikiversity. "I don't care if there is a policy or not" <-- Ottava Rima, what do you think is going on here, a Wild West Shootout? --JWSchmidt 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once Moulton started pretending to have multiple puppet characters, started mocking people through "song parodies", and started tossing away their real names in a harassing manner, he lost the status of an "expert". Moulton was never a normal participant of Wikiversity as he never treated others per our social standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I did not adopt your "social standards" as I do not believe that Bondage and Discipline are an appropriate social practice for use in an authentic learning community. —Moulton 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, you didn't accept our social contract so your editing privileges were terminated. That is how social contracts work. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A cowardly anonymous hitman from Wikipedia harasses a Wikiversity scholar with the stated intention of getting the scholar banned and you object to Moulton writing a song? "our social standards"? our social standards? Ottava Rima is it your vision that Wikiversity accepts all manner of horrors but rejects the healthy practice of using the name of a colleague? Nay! Nay, I say! "tossing away their real names in a harassing manner" <-- This is not Wikipedia, at Wikiversity we don't have to pretend that using someone's name is harassment. Colleagues in a learning community gladly refer to each other by name. If you want to impose Wikipedia's destructive rules on Wikiversity then put it into policy. --JWSchmidt 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to abide by common community standards, then put it into policy. There is no acceptable excuse for such behavior. No amount of "he did worse" is ever a justification. If you want to change that, put up a policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that using someone's name is "bad" is a Wikipedia invention. In authentic learning institutions colleagues refer to each other by name. Until the invaders from Wikipedia arrived in 2008 may of us happily used each others real names from 2006-2008 and there was no problem. I don't accept you suggestion that Wikipedia's rule was ever the standard of behavior at Wikiversity. The imposition of a Wikipedia rule against using names of fellow Wikiversity participants needs to be put into policy. --JWSchmidt 04:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The whole world is using what Wikipedia uses - we refer to others based on the name -they- choose. The name I chose here is Ottava Rima. You refer to me as Ottava Rima. You have no right to attribute some other name to me because you feel you have an ability to override my ability to name myself. That is how reality works. It is not my fault that Moulton is unwilling to act towards others with the most basic of courtesy. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The whole world is using what Wikipedia uses" <-- We must be from different planets. Ottava Rima, what real world learning community allows dogs and fish and bears, hiding under puppet masks, to come in and harass the resident scholars? At what real world educational institution would anonymous animal puppets be allowed to publish false claims about a scholar and then bash him over the head with a banhammer? If your attempt at anonymity has failed, if preventing other Wikiversity community members from knowing your name is so important to you, then you can start a new Wikiversity user account. But rather than do that, why not proudly make an account using your real name? --JWSchmidt 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "We must be from different planets." My thoughts exactly. Now, measure which side you are on and then realize you are on that side because you reject the structures of reality. You can come back a any time but you chose not to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "which side you are on" <-- I am on the side that wants a fun and innovative experiment in online collaborative learning. Towards that end, I have worked for years to design the Wikiversity project proposal, get it approved, nurture and grow the Wikiversity community and defend it against invaders from Wikipedia. I sing a song of liberty and justice for the small. Now there are a just a few toy banhammers beating out a rhythm to a different song. Violence it a tool of the incompetent. This is a matter for community review. Ottava Rima, in the name of justice, please present your evidence to support your accusations about, "his attacks on others". List those "attacks". --JWSchmidt 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The failure of Ottava Rima to provide evidence of "attacks" is now the subject of community review. --JWSchmidt 12:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What block they are talking about?
Since nobody replied, above, I assume we all agree that there is no basis in Wikiversity policy for reverting Moulton's edits. However, both Ottava and Adambro have suggested that they either are or will enforce a current block against Moulton. Does anyone know what block they are talking about?ping--JWSchmidt 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this needs discussion - have commented here: . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Adambro to stop that, as far as "block enforcement" reverts, since, indeed, Moulton is not blocked. However, Adambro is still free to decide that an edit is disruptive, and to remove it, as we all are. It's a wiki. --Abd 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I request that the Wikiversity community and particularly responsible Custodians think about the wisdom of letting Adambro decide what is disruptive. His record brings into question his judgment and veracity. I don't think it is wise to allow him to access checkuser data. --JWSchmidt 04:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to checkuser data. All I have is the same as everyone else, the ability to see what the stewards might provide in response to a checkuser request on Meta. Are you suggesting I be prohibited from looking on Meta? Adambro 08:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's needed is not prohibitions (especially prohibitions which only apply to a single individual and no one else). What's needed are ethical guidelines which are uniformly adopted and scrupulously adhered to by everyone who holds a position of authority and responsibility. This is important to protect everyone from the direct and indirect damage that occurs in the wake of a lapse of ethics. —Moulton 10:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have ethical guidelines but you decided that only everyone else should obey them because you are a "victitm". You will continue to be banned until you give up your unethical ways. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, you were given the name of a Wikiversity user account that was obtained by checkuser. You then decided to reveal my IP address. Why did you do that? Why did you start a thread on this page where you revealed my IP address? Adambro, what Custodian action were you looking for when you invaded the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account? What is your interest, as a Custodian, in Beetlebaum? --JWSchmidt 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on Moulton's access
This is for a short statement about Moulton's access.


 * Stay banned - Moulton has shown an unwillingness to stop the actions that caused him to be banned - i.e. he insists that it is his right to harassingly use real life names, which has a proven ability to cause harm to people. He assumes that there could ever be a justification, which there can never be. He has shown himself through that to be unfit for an academic environment and a detriment to the project as a whole. I support any and all actions regarding removal of him and his content based on his unwillingness to take the minimum steps to ensure that he regards others appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "caused him to be banned" <-- Ottava Rima, please provide evidence that Moulton was banned. As far as I know, Wikiversity policy has only one justification for a ban (Create and enforce a new rule — based on use of certain words — that will allow temporary blocking or banning an editor using them more than a certain number of times). "harassingly use real life names" <-- Ottava Rima, please provide evidence that Moulton has harassed people. Moulton is the subject of a community review, discussions about blocks and bans should be in a community forum, not here. --JWSchmidt 03:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't quote things that weren't policy when we decided as a community to ban him. Also, evidence has been provided for you many times and you continue to pretend it wasn't. Therefore, any more requests will be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, if you don't provide a link to the community discussion where Moulton was banned then I will put in the review a description of how you have not justified your claim that Moulton was banned. --JWSchmidt 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Close poll. Tempted to delete this poll.... Polls should not be taken to confirm the status quo unless someone is proposing a change, and this is the Request Custodian Action page, so we are holding a poll to request nothing? Ottava has blocked Moulton again (and Adambro blocked Caprice), so what is the point of this poll? Moulton has not requested unblock. JWS has complained about the block but has not initiated process to either unblock or sanction the blocking admins (a pile of complaints about a pile of issues involing umpteen different persons over two years isn't such process at all, it becomes such a sprawling mess). I unblocked Caprice and that has been reversed by Adambro, prematurely, my opinion, and I'm not choosing to challenge it, so why is community time being wasted with this poll? Is there a desire to continue the disruption and debate? JWS is procedurally correct here, i.e., a CR would be appropriate, but only if there is a "plaintiff," someone complaining about the status quo, who starts it. Generally speaking, community consensus should never be determined on a custodian noticeboard, that's a major error that was made and institutionalized on Wikipedia (with AN and AN/I). This noticeboard is a place to request an individual custodial action, and is a poor place to debate anything. But that's just my opinion, which, before implementing, I should, with consensus, establish as policy or page policy. One step at a time. --Abd 04:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A straw poll is an opinion poll. There is no option to "delete" polls. If you don't like it, ignore it. There is also no "procedure" for JWS to be correct. He consistently makes it up as he goes along - if you notice, he likes to make things "policy" that never had any support and then suddenly ignore community standards because he disagrees. This is also not a debate but a poll without any power or effect. You started stating before about consensus regarding Moulton's ban, and JWS has also stated that there was no community support. If either were true, then it would be revealed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, you claimed that Moulton was banned. I simply asked that you support that claim with evidence. I repeat, Ottava Rima, please provide evidence that Moulton was banned. --JWSchmidt 12:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should try and be a bit grown up about all this. I'd probably support a policy which puts a moratorium on any sort of block for anyone for a couple of weeks - I think we'd see an improvement in everyone's good cheer around here :-) - on the narrow matter in hand, I'd support Moulton being unblocked. Privatemusings 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

JWSchmidt banned by Adambro
Adambro banned me from the #wikiversity-en chat channel. Adambro took his action without providing a reason or giving a warning, as is his usual misguided practice, a matter that is under community review. Adambro has not responded to my request that he explain the ban he imposed. Someone should reign in the rogue sysops who are disrupting the mission of Wikiversity. I request that someone unban me and let me continue my participation in the Wikiversity chat channel. --JWSchmidt 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS, you are starting to become obsessive. Take a week off. It might do you good. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, I don't trust your judgment. Why do you think you can impose a block without providing evidence that Moulton was banned? Why did you accuse a Wikiversity community member of being a sock puppet and do you seriously claim that you can do anything not forbidden by policy? Why do you think you can bully other Wikiversity community members and fail to respond to questions and requests from the community? Ottava Rima, why do you rudely dismiss my request? Are you suggesting that it is "obsessive" for me to want to know why Adambro is misusing his channel ops tools and disrupting the Wikiversity chat channel? The chat channel is not for calling someone out, issuing orders or bashing scholars with the banhammer. --JWSchmidt 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a comment made by Mikeu on Moulton's deleted talk page. It was as true then as it is now:
 * Quote: If anything, the fact that jimbo was the one to block you only makes it more likely that there would be consensus to overturn the block based on members of the community commenting that it was improper for him to have acted in this case. I see very little support (at this time) for unblocking you on the grounds that it was unjustified.  In any case, I did just undo his block of you and used the same reasons when reblocking that I would have used if he had not stepped in when he did.  You are free to respond to Community Review in any way that you'd like; I'm just informing you that this means is not likely to help you much.  Unblocking to "refute a hypothesis" is not a valid reason.  (Nor was it stated in "plain english")  --mikeu talk 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We had this community discussion for three months after the block and for two months before the block. Why do you pretend that we didn't? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Why do you pretend that we didn't?" <-- I have not pretended anything, and I find your insinuation that I have to be offensive. If Moulton was community banned then you should be able to provide a link to the community discussion where the community decided to ban him. I request that you please provide a link to the community discussion where the community decided to ban Moulton or remove your unjustified block against Moulton's editing. The link that you provided above (Community Review) leads to a page that says nothing about Moulton being banned. --JWSchmidt 15:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I quoted one user. You have my own statement about Moulton. I can quote others. There was community consensus to affirm the ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, either link to the community discussion where the community decided to ban Moulton or remove your unjustified block against Moulton's editing. Alternatively, another custodian should remove the block. --JWSchmidt 16:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Intimidating behavior
I received the following unsolicited messpage on IRC. Which I feel is a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation. I had made clear that posting personal details personal details being posted on wiki has caused wiki stalkers to become real life stalkers in the current Community review of JWS. Given my area of expertise has nothing to with his knol article this to me comes across as a blatent "see I know who you are and I could post it if I choose." I am not sure of the current block status of Moulton or his alter egos. But I thought I would submit this to the community discussion.

 Hi [thenub314]. I see you are a [academic position] in School of [subject]. Could I ask you to review this for me and give me your considered opinion on it... "Cognition, Affect, and Learning" http://knol.google.com/k/cognition-affect-and-learning#  There is space at the bottom for comments, or you can send me comments in E-Mail if you prefer. [his email]  Or possibly one of the other faculty would be interested in doing a review.  Many thanks.  JWS and I are chatting in #wikiversity-en-projects if you care to join us there.

Thenub314 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you weren't too stressed by such an experience, nub - I can see why it would be stressful. I hope you can understand too though, that the whole issue of anonymity, personal identification etc. is by no means black and white - I presume Moulton read about your academic position somewhere online through your own postings? Or maybe someone else somewhere else 'outed' you? - Either ways, whilst I would consider it discourteous for anyone to post details publicly that they have reasonable cause to understand would cause the editor in question distress (unless there's a direct and relevant connection to on-wiki behaviour - you're probably aware the the 'CoI' noticeboards over on en-wiki regularly discuss possible identities) - I'm not completely sure that intimidation is the only reasonable interpretation of the conversation above - I suspect Moulton was in fact attempting to engage you on a 'scholarly level' (so the offer to chat was likely genuine, and without strings - that's the way I see it anywhoo). Unfortunately, if your wiki-identity is connected to your 'real life' name, and you're not happy with that, probably the best thing to do is to take a short break, and return quietly to editing under another username. That's my tuppence.... Privatemusings 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad block of Beetlebaum
I created an alternate account so that I could explore my musical learning goals at the Music and learning learning project. The blocking sysop has some kind of vendetta against this harmless user account, Adambro having violated the privacy of this account by misusing checkuser data. Adambro has harassed poor Beetlebaum and not explained why any Custodian would take an interest in this harmless user account. Adambro falsely charged "Abusing multiple accounts" but Adambro gave no warning and has no evidence of any abuse. In the log entry for this block Adambro falsely charged "exacerbating problems by writing songs etc mocking other users", but there has been only been the creation of a harmless learning project about The Declaration of Independence and a love poem. I believe Adambro is trying to disrupt my musical learning goals without justification. After Adambro imposed this bad block without warning, Adambro incorrectly did not allow another Custodian to review the block nor did Adambro make any attempt to respond to the specifics of the unblock request. Can an honest custodian please unblock the harmless Beetlebaum account? --JWSchmidt 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feigning that the account is somehow separate from you or that you need it isn't going to win you any support. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Feigning that the account is somehow separate from you" Ottava Rima, what do you mean, "somehow separate from you"? "that you need it" Ottava Rima, if you want to discuss my learning needs please come to my user talk page. Ottava Rima, please explain why anyone should question my learning needs. --JWSchmidt 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that Adambro "has harassed poor Beetlebaum". There is no "Beetlebaum". There is JWSchmidt. If you want to say he harassed you when you used a second name, fine. But you don't. You are pretending as if there is another person. That either means that you have a split personality or you are being disruptive. Either way, cut it out. There is no problem with you having a second name. There is a problem treating it like a different person. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your recent learning activities seem to have mostly involved criticism of other users, often not particularly constructive, the writing of song parodies etc in which you mock other users which only really serve to exacerbate current and past problems, and the use of fictional characters. I am aware of a website where all of that is usual and you might wish to use that venue to satisfy your "learning" needs. It is called Wikipedia Review. It is unfortunate but Wikiversity cannot accommodate all learning activities but it is important that the learning activities of some on the project aren't detrimental to the learning activities of the majority. Constantly dredging up past problems for no apparent reason other than your own entertainment seems likely to be harmful to the atmosphere on Wikiversity and so impact on the ability of others to use the site for more legitimate learning activities and facilitating that. Adambro 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, why have you presented no evidence to support your accusations? "criticism of other users" <-- Adambro, please list those criticisms so that the community can decide, by consensus, if you have justification for blocking this harmless account. "you mock other users" Adambro, please list any users who were mocked by Beetlebaum. "exacerbate current and past problems" <-- Adambro, you are disrupting progress towards my learning goals without any evidence that I did something wrong. "criticism dredging up past problems" <-- Adambro, please list the "problems" you are referring to and let the Wikiversity community decide by consensus if you have justification for blocking this harmless account. "legitimate learning activities" <-- Music and learning is a legitimate topic in education. Adambro, your deletion of that harmless Wikiversity learning resource is a disruption of both the Wikiversity Mission and the Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation and the subject of community review. --JWSchmidt 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of Son of Beetlebaum
Why was Son of Beetlebaum blocked? "Don't know if this is ok, JW. You should wait until the situation is cleared up, please." What "situation"? Is this Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of Ottava Rima to prevent continued incivility.
Having warned Ottava Rima regarding incivility on this page, which warning was acknowledged as read by removal, and which behavior repeated, I have blocked Ottava for two hours to prevent the escalation of the behavior. I do not see the comments of SBJohnny, to which Ottava was responding, as uncivil. If Ottava has charges to make regarding SBJohnny's behavior, he should pursue a Community Review, not disrupt Colloquium discussions with them.

This is a very unusual block because Ottava is my mentor, and theoretically has the right to ask me to desist from any custodial behavior. However, my continued status as a custodian, in the extreme, is trumped by my understanding of what protection of this wiki and the community requires.

I am asking for an immediate review of this situation by other custodians. For obvious reasons, I cannot continue as a "supervisor" of this block, it was issued as an emergency measure (or I'd have blocked for 24 hours, probably). If there has not been other custodial attention and action on this before the lapse of the 2 hours, my intention is to extend the block, unless Ottava provides assurance that the behavior will not continue. This is simply because of the sometimes thin custodial coverage of Wikiversity, my preference is for this to move out of my hands as soon as possible.

If Ottava unblocks himself, which I have asked him not to do, and unless there is a showing of emergency, I'll note that this would be a violation of recusal policy, not allowed unless there is an emergency. Any other custodian may ask that I desist, and that will be accomplished simply by unblocking. But please do consider the issues. Evidence will be provided within a few minutes. --Abd 23:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence
prior edits in this sequence will be added below. --Abd 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * edit that was subject of warning
 * Ottava's removal of warning
 * Additional uncivil edit
 * mentions 3 disruptive individuals
 * continues w/o specifying individuals other than Moulton
 * (SBJohnny shows up, assuming that he was one of the three individuals -- which I also assumed was Ottava's intention from other known facts.) Ottava responded with the edit regarding which I warned him.

This was preceded by these edits on July 23:
 * accuses SBJohnny of lying.
 * follows up.

I was already quite concerned, and voiced this concern in the discussion. When it erupted again today, I decided to warn Ottava and to accept the consequences. --Abd 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Other related edits: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava's removal of Abd's block notice
 * Two block log entries were removed by Ottava (and subsequently reinstated by Adambro). They were:
 * Abd's block of Ottava
 * Ottava's unblock of Ottava

Comments on the block
I suggest that all blocks for anything besides obvious vandalism only follow a community discussion of the proposed block. --JWSchmidt 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This case is a good example of why no wiki has such a restriction on sysop discretion. Certainly obvious vandalism does not require prior discussion, but serious incivility requires immediate attention, and community discussions here can take days and even then have difficulty coming to any conclusions at all, the result being that editors are driven away. If Ottava were willing to simply promise not to repeat the action for which he was blocked, he'd be immediately unblocked. It's a cease-and-desist order, starting with a warning that was ignored, hence the block. What JWS proposes is appropriate for bans. --Abd 00:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I kinda think it'd really help - in fact I'd go a bit further and say that we should consider a complete moratorium on all blocks - possibly except obvious vandalism, except I'm not sure right now we're being grown up enough to be clear about what that means! - can we have a week off please? Privatemusings 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * something clever has occurred and it seems the block has disappeared? I still think it'd be best if everyone agreed not to block anyone for a little while... please? Privatemusings 01:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with JWS that proposed blocks for other than obvious vandalism ("emergency") should be discussed before being actioned. And agree with privatemusings that if we put the dangerous toys away for a while we may be able to get along a little better. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with below) Correctly or not, I judged that the situation was an emergency, which requires, then, action prior to discussion, with immediate referral for discussion. There are a number of ongoing situations where discussion is not finding consensus, and participation is inadequate. In such a situation, it is necessary for custodians to act first, under some conditions. (Such actions should be temporary in nature, pending discussion.) Otherwise there is, for example, no protection for the community from gross incivility, outing, etc. I considered simply removing the comments but decided that this was more disruptive and trickier, because the comments were coming quickly. Rather, I took the simple and quite ordinary step of warning, hoping for compliance pending discussion (which should be expected), then when the warning was removed and the incivility continued, I blocked. This is perfectly normal and necessary, and only that Ottava was my mentor made this such an unusual situation. In considering my qualifications for custodianship in the future, please understand that I'd do this again, unless I see some new arguments that I don't expect. The situation in which I intervened was not caused by "dangerous toys," and I expect that it could repeat. I.e., stopping blocks isn't going to stop the disruption, period, that is a false and naive hope. Unless Ottava recognizes what he's been doing, his behavior likely to repeat. (The same is true for at least one other, as well.) Hence stronger action was needed. --Abd 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That seemed to be the consensus last week also. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Adambro had been blocking without discussion, and so had Ottava. JWS had been vigorously advocating for the position now being stated of no blocks except for vandalism, objecting to the block of Caprice by Adambro for "outing." There was little or no support for JWS's position, except for some wish that people would stop blocking others. Actual practice was certainly that of frequent blocks for other than vandalism, with no discussion either before or after. --Abd 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I've had a review of the edits posted above as evidence. Personally, I wouldn't have interpreted Ottava's posts as being sufficiently clearly in violation of incivility as to warrant blocking without warning (was there warning?) or community discussion. Perhaps there's more to the story (I suspect may be there is), and yes more civility would have been desirable, but personally I think I'd set the threshold for "emergency" higher than what I'm seeing evidenced in the links. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this was where Ottava ignored the warning from Abd. --JWSchmidt 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think blocking Ottava was a particularly good idea. However, I also don't think probationary custodians should necessarily be dropped for making a single unwise tool use either. There was plenty of room to let either of them say "fine, I'll stop", rather than acting so quickly. --SB_Johnny talk 12:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava unblocked himself
He relied upon my promise in my Request for custodianship. He's free to do that, though it would have been better to respect the process because of his own involvement, unblocking oneself sets a very bad precedent. The warning was valid and this request for custodian action stands. And if this community cannot address issues like this, it is hopeless, lost. I suppose the sooner I know this, the better. --Abd 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And now Ottava removed this request for Custodian action, with the summary removed - abd has overstepped authority, disobeyed mentorship, acted outside of policy - contacted directly on and off site). Removing such a request is so abusive that I'm reverting it, and I urge him to leave it. I'm not using sysop tools now, and Ottava has no right to prevent this request for custodian review. Ottava claims that I "disobeyed" mentorship, but he has not pointed to any disobedient action, i.e., where I acted after he told me not to. He did not tell me not to block him. He could have done so. I did not use admin tools to file this request. What authority did I overstep? He has not specified it. Sad. I'll read his email before I comment again. --Abd 01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The logs of the blocks in Ottava's user history have been censored/oversighted, by himself. Adrignola 01:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear violation of recusal policy, no necessity shown. --Abd 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, Would you please explain why you've oversighted the block log? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He was told before doing it to stop and he did it anyway to make a point. He stated in email that he was mostly trying to make a point to wipe his hands clean or whatever. Admin ops are not to make a point, for political gain, or the rest. It isn't the first blocklog that was wiped clean for various reasons nor would it be the last. By the way, it isn't oversighted. OS hides something from everyone but OS users. This was only revision deleted, which leaves an entry there but hides who did what. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally know it's not "oversighted", but "revision deletion" applies better to a page history where there are actual revisions rather than a log. If you want to get technical, "ops" is for IRC and not MediaWiki. However, that's semantics and doesn't change the fact that you've modified logs pertaining to actions applied to or done by yourself and I find that to be a reduction in transparency and highly questionable. Adrignola 03:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "During my probation, I consent in advance to any reversal of my administrative actions, by Ottava Rima, and by any other administrator who has supported this nomination. In addition, prior to completion of probation, I will suspend usage of administrative tools in any area of activity upon specific request by any supporting administrator" - The lines apply to me and only me, and I told him to not pursue the action to begin with. Reversal means complete and utter, which allows for the removal of any existence of it. Transparency doesn't exist as part of mentorship, especially when mentees are a risk for potential abuse, which Abd entered by overstepping his authority, claiming a factual based statement was "incivil" and blocking to make a point as he stated even though he was told to stop. He was also told multiple times to stop his dispute with JWS as it was becoming highly disruptive and out of control. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant wikilawyering, ignoring substance. "Factual based statement" is irrelevant to civility. Blocking was not to make a point but to prevent repetition of incivility, per the ignored warning. "Removal of any existence of it" was not contemplated in my agreement and would ordinarily be quite suspect, rather the action to which I consented was reversal, so Ottava was technically allowed by this to unblock himself, as to my own consent. However, recusal policy, quite independently from my consent, should prohibit his action, and even more so his hiding of the block record. Further, the incivility itself was seriously unbecoming of a custodian. Ottava has demonstrated in this sequence that he cannot be trusted with the tools. It was unnecessary. He could, like any other user, have put up an unblock template, he could have waited for the original term of 2 hours to expire, it would only have been a few more minutes, and, note, I'd requested Jtneill look at the situation before I knew that Ottava had unblocked himself. If my action was improper, it would surely have been undone quickly without creating any recusal failure. To compound this, Ottava attempted to remove this entire report; but to his credit, he did not insist when I reverted. I did not use tools in the dispute with JWS, except in one case to support his request for copies of deleted pages. If you look at the overall activity of JWS, my participation has been trivial as to possible cause of disruption, and aimed at seeking community consensus. --Abd 04:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, I have the ability to tell a person who blatantly wheel warred against Jimbo and caused a month's length of disruption that he is a problematic user just as I will now tell you that you are acting in a manner that is completely unacceptable. You can toss around terms like "wikilawyering" all you want, but you acted in a manner that was unbecoming, against the promise you made, and serving no point except to cause disruption. You were advised multiple times that your behavior was becoming problematic and that you were aiding in disruption and not fixing it. You repeatedly refused to heed any advice. You were not recommended for an adminship vote because of that. The fact that you mention JWS while hiding from your own broken promise and past month of inappropriate position as an admin is rather disturbing. Your continuing to go on and on when you were told to take a break and then possibly be given a recommendation for full custodianship after you had a chance to get perspective shows that you don't really care at all for processes, for the community, or the rest. I am done talking to you about this as you have demonstrated no sense of perspective on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My custodianship is now moot, and what is unacceptable about my behavior now? (You used the present tense.) You were willing to tolerate the unfocused and general disruption of JWS, you unblocked him. You had the ability to prohibit me from taking any administrative action. You did not exercise that right. You gave me "general advice," and your action revoking my mentorship is not the issue here, I have not challenged that. I'm perfectly willing for my actions to be examined, thoroughly and in detail, and there is no rush. If you are done talking about this, fine. I'm not demanding any response from you at all. But I will ask, "Broken promise"? What promise did I break? And where? My promise was precise, I consented in advance to reversal by you (or any other supporting custodian) of any action of mine. That promise (which was actually unbreakable by its nature) allowed you to unblock yourself, technically. However, that did not make it wise, and my promise did not exempt you from recusal policy. My strong suggestion is that you take the medicine you are prescribing for me. Slow down. Stop responding. Keep to your intention not to respond for a while. The sky will not fall. I'll respond about the "wheel war against Jimbo" comment later, it shows a radical misunderstanding of the history and where it went. --Abd 05:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SB_Johnny undid a single block made by Jimbo. Jimbo called that wheel-warring and desysopped. This was not one of his finer moments. Regardless, I have made a proposed change to Custodianship policy, see [], which covers that kind of action. Jimbo restored the tools. (SBJ was also a bureaucrat.) This was not "blatant wheel warring," had Jimbo been considered a peer; SBJ assumed he had the right to disagree through action, as would be normal. It was, instead, resisting WMF managerial intervention, a different problem, and I see no sign of enmity between SBJ and Jimbo. Ottava has turned this incident, over and done with, into a justification for blatant incivility and other thoroughly inappropriate actions. SBJ resigned because, at the time, he feared that Jimbo's rough interventions would continue, and he could not support that. However, subsequently, Jimbo resigned the intrusive tools that would have allowed this to recur. Stewards still have those tools, but will be less likely to use them, and will generally respect local consensus, as long as meta concerns are addressed. --Abd 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "SB Johnny undid a single block" - no. He undid a block along with multiple undeletions without discussion, justification, or the rest and in direct conflict with the Founder over a matter that had major cross-wiki ramifications. SB Johnny knew what he was doing and who he was doing it against, so it was not some innocent action. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava is correct that there were some undeletions out of process. In the end, it was deletions out of process that sank Jimbo's Founder rights. As to "innocent," SB_Johnny clearly believed that he was within his rights and responsibilities as a Wikiversity custodian. Jimbo was also within his Founder rights to desysop. Wikiversity had -- and has -- no policy on "wheel-warring" with a steward or the like. I have written that into the proposed policy on custodian behavior. "Innocent" betrays a thinking that divides actions into "criminal" and "innocent," seeking to blame and condemn. It's poisonous thinking, generally, particularly where there is no necessity. Does it matter here if SB_Johnny wasn't "innocent"? Who, indeed, is "innocent"? I'm not a Christian, but don't we have a few around here who would understand the problem? Why is SB_Johnny being accused of not being "innocent," or, for that matter, of "wheel-warring," which Ottava alleges caused "a month's length of disruption." Seems to me that if we want to assign causes, the disruption was caused not by SB_Johnny, who simply tried to stop it, but by Jimbo's intervention and the community's inability to coherently handle it. SBJ was a bit player in that, he didn't cause massive discussion to appear here or on meta. Jimbo would not have created an appearance of a threat to close Wikiversity merely on the basis of what SBJ did. He was addressing an angry community, not SBJ. Ottava brings up the lack of "innocence" of SBJ to justify what he wrote above: I have the ability to tell a person who blatantly wheel warred against Jimbo and caused a month's length of disruption that he is a problematic user just as I will now tell you that you are acting in a manner that is completely unacceptable. Ottava has the right to say this, at least to a degree. But that is not what he said that led to my blocking him. It was his claim that SB_Johnny was a "liar" that led to the block, when he flagrantly disregarded my warning and repeated the incivility. It was gratuitous and unnecessary.
 * However, after Jimbo re-opped him, SB_Johnny resigned the tools voluntarily. There was no process under way to remove his tools. He was a custodian and bureaucrat, highly respected here. Ottava's blaming him for the disruption of March is highly offensive. He caused almost no trouble for Jimbo, directly, Jimbo easily and rapidly undid his changes and desysopped, then restored, after a short time, both privilege sets. There appears to be no conflict between SBJ and Jimbo, though the whole thing soured SBJ on Wikiversity, and now Ottava is maintaining "unpleasant" conditions here. That's harmful incivility, and it must stop. SBJ is a user in good standing, welcome here, and, my interpretation and probably that of the stewards, could request return of the tools at any time. --Abd 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottava, Thanks for explaining about the editing of your block log and removing Abd's block message on your talk page. I've reviewed the content of the log and the talk page message. Personally, I don't think either of these are sufficiently obviously problematic as to warrant removal without wider consultation. Persnally, I would prefer to see such logs and edits remain unless clear violation of policy is established or there is clear community consensus for removal. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Abd's temporary custodianship has conveniently expired at Ottava's request. Adrignola 01:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava had previously suggested that the probationary period be extended, as it was for Diego Grez. There was no opposition to this. Hence it was assumed done. Ottava did not disclose this at meta nor his conflict of interest and implied that withdrawal of rights was merely routine. However, please note: he had the unconditional right to revoke my adminship, withdraw his mentorship without giving a reason, and to reverse any administrative action. However, he has gone well beyond that by modifying the block log and attempting to remove the comments here. I have requested at Candidates for Custodianship/Abd another mentor, should any other custodian be so bold as to offer it. Otherwise, I'm content not to have the tools, it relieves me of responsibility. --Abd 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Ottava had the right to revoke mentorship, not custodianship, I think when I wrote the above I did not have in mind the 48-hour period for me to find a substitute mentor. The right of reversal was due to a special agreement in my application, but that did not extend to removing traces of the actions, the whole point of my probationary period would be to demonstrate what I'd be like as a custodian. --Abd 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd has demanded that I post on Wikiversity the proof that SB Johnny has threatened to harass me, has stalked me in the past, etc. Jimbo and members of the WMF already have that information. I don't need to post it here or make it public. Abd has lost perspective lately and I am not the only one who thinks that the drama got to him. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no such demand, AFAIK; indeed, I claimed it was moot. As to drama getting to me, methinks there are pots who think kettles are black. Had I been blocked, I can assure all of you that I would not have unblocked myself, absent emergency! What was the emergency? What justified revising the block log? Ottava could have gone to meta and revoked my custodianship without unblocking himself here, though, really, it was quite enough that he emailed me and told me he was terminating my custodianship, I'd not have used my tools again without getting another mentor (or, possibly, I might need to get permanent custodianship). I respect due process, it's very important. --Abd 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, look at the rate I've posted to various things and look at the rate you've posted. I am far more involved in the matter than you are. You should slow down on your rate of responding to things. You are also heavily involved and goaded at WR over the same matters. The rest I will say to you in private. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Involved. Yes. That's why I brought the matter here immediately. WR, however, is moot, I'm not "goaded" there, and I've been reading and writing there very little. Rate. What does this have to do with anything? As to private, you are still welcome to email me, as is any user here. I'll read it. I will not guarantee any response. A certain admin once wrote to me, when he was possibly making incorrect assumptions about my age, "You are trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs." Ottava, I'm more than twice your age, I suspect, and I haven't wasted that time. If I'm disruptive here, you know the ropes, and I couldn't stop you from pursuing your purposes if I wanted to. That's plain, even if your purpose is to saw off the limb you are sitting on, which you might have done. Or not. Depends. --Abd 04:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop using imaginary wiki terms that have no meaning. See, this is the problem. You are picking up rhetoric that is meaningless, allowing it to consume your mind, and you are disconnecting yourself from actions. Just slow down. JWS had the same problem of clinging to certain terms that have no real meaning, from posting at too fast of a rate, and assuming things without just taking it slow. It doesn't work out so well. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? If this is a coherent response in this thread, I'm completely missing it. No problem, though. Get some rest, Ottava, you may do better tomorrow. --Abd 05:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the situation
When reading this mess, one major thing that concerns me is that we have a probationary custodian blocking his mentor. Is this really a good precedent to set? Also, is it possible to move this discussion into a more productive direction? What can we learn from this issue and how can we prevent it in the future? Geoff Plourde 05:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty unusual, I'd think. However, I think it would be foolish to prohibit it. Normally, it would take severe provocation for a probationary custodian to block his mentor, for normally the mentored custodian will be favorably disposed toward the mentor, or at least deferential. The kind of action we worry about is blocking while prejudiced against the blocked user. As to preventing this in the future, what is it that should be prevented? Should a mentored custodian treat the mentor with special deference, tolerating what would not be tolerated for another user? I laid my custodianship on the line by that action, I was quite aware of it, and I wasn't personally angry, though I was certainly sad. What we might more closely look at is that nobody else was watching and dealing with the incivility that had become rampant. JWS was being generally more uncivil, but JWS is not a custodian; custodians are generally held to higher standards, and I'd already tried to bring community and custodial attention to JWS, with little benefit. I'd been seeing custodial abuse, had been calling attention to it, and nothing was being done. Then Ottava's incivility, over which I warned and then blocked when the warning was ignored, was so extreme, and so unnecessary (no issue was raised that required "exposing" SBJohhny's alleged crimes), that I finally felt I had to act or simply give up on Wikiversity. What this sequence showed was that not only was Ottava seriously uncivil, he is not trustworthy with the tools, he does not understand recusal policy or chooses to ignore it, and until he recognizes the problem, it is not going to go away, and it's very serious. That he was my mentor and I was the one to block him is just a detail, in fact. What if he had been blocked by another custodian? What would he have done? The failure of custodial behavior was spectacular, particularly with the attempt to remove my Request for custodial action and his hiding of the block log actions, the latter being a clear recusal failure. --Abd 06:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * it's a personal view, and mebbe a bit odd, but I'm not in the least worried about people being 'uncivil' - I think it's just a shame that no-one seems able to listen in all these broo ha has. I think we can fix this easily with some simple measures, and I may be bothered to suggest them when I get the chance :-) Privatemusings 06:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PM, incivility causes people to leave, frequently. It poisons the consensus process, which is necessary for wikis to function. You may not have a problem with it, but many, perhaps most, do. And when communities tolerate incivility, they become populated by people who, like you, aren't bothered by it, which generally isn't diverse enough for success. Incivility happens to be contrary to WV policy, as well, and there is very good reason for that.
 * My main focus right now is a postmortem. We can't change what happened, but is there a place that needs to be fixed to prevent a mess like this from happening again? Geoff Plourde 06:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be making suggestions, but, meantime, I suggest you get clear just what is mess and what is cleanup or attempt to clean up. --Abd 07:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this can be easily classified as a mess. We have a custodian blocked by the person he is mentoring, who then unblocks himself and summarily dismisses the probationary custoddian responsible. :p Geoff Plourde 07:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In itself, that's hardly comparable to massive belaboring of every administrative action that can be dredged up, accusing practically every active custodian of abuse, and piling heaps of argument and endless questions on everyone who questions the wisdom of it. This was quick. It may now be discussed, sure, but only if people are interested in deriving lessons from it. I suggest looking deeper. Mentored Sysop Blocks Mentor is certainly a dramatic headline, but, in the end, that relationship is only a detail. Trying to prevent sysops from blocking their mentors is the wrong approach. It's hardly ever likely to happen, and where it is, it will be quickly resolved, and, obviously, would be calling attention to some kind of problem, from there being a problem with the mentor, to the mentored sysop having a screw loose, or whatever. It will come out in the wash.


 * By the way, Jimbo has been blocked on Wikipedia on occasion. See the blocking admin 2006 AN/I report, and was still an admin as of 2009. May still be but he doesn't seem to be on the list, I didn't check more deeply. There was some discussion of the underlying issues at . The question should be asked, though, what if a mentored sysop sees mentor behavior for which he or she would block another editor? If we want to know how the probationary sysop will behave, shouldn't this actually be encouraged? What actual harm was caused by the block? (other than by Ottava's responses, which created a little flap, and properly so, they revealed what may not otherwise have been obvious.) --Abd 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethical Accountability, aka Thekohser, request unblock.
Primary account: Thekohser: Talk Contributions Block log.

Acknowledged alternate account: Ethical Accountability: Talk Contributions Block log.

Thekohser was blocked by Jimbo Wales on March 16, as one of a number of actions that caused disruption here. This account had no record of disruptive contributions here prior to that block. No local consensus was formed to block, no proposal to block existed, as far as I've seen. Thekohser had commented on Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments at 17:54, 16 March 2010; The block was at 22:48, 16 March 2010, with there being no more edits by Thekohser after what I've diffed.

The appearance is of an attempt to silence criticism. The reality may be mere clumsiness, Jimbo lost his intrusive Founder tools as a result of the sequence of events (including later intervention at Commons). We are here looking at the possibility of cleaning up the consequences of that period. I am offering no opinion regarding the behavior of Thekohser on other wikis or off-wiki, and I consider it, by strong tradition, irrelevant here, unless genuine (illegal!) harassment were involved, which has not been alleged here.

Jimbo declared that Thekohser was globally banned, and a global lock was placed on the SUL (linked) accounts, such that Thekohser cannot log into the account regardless of local block status. That global lock was lifted in order to allow local wikis to make their own decision; stewards went around to the local wikis to directly block Thekohser where he was not blocked (which was most wikis). Some unblocked. However, rather quietly, the global lock was reinstated by Mike.lifeguard on May 30, referring to "discussion." I asked Mike where this discussion might have been. It was not a public discussion, and with whom the matter was discussed has not been disclosed. As a result, I do not believe that this was based on a policy directive from the WikiMedia Foundation, but was rather the private opinion of Mike and a few others. We are under no directive from the WMF regarding how to handle Thekohser, we are free to make our own decision. (Mike pointed out that other stewards are enforcing the global locks by locking new accounts when found. That's routine and does not constitute a review of the propriety of the lock itself. I've seen no example of these new locks where the new account was established with local sysop cooperation and care, as is happening on Wikibooks, see . On Wikibooks, the device of a 'crat renaming the account and then renaming back, to unlink the account from the locked SUL, was promptly used, which is why the current unblock request being considered there is from Thekohser. The Wikibooks admins seem to be proceeding with caution as well, in a different way, asking the Steward who personally blocked to comment. It's a bit of a different situation from here. Knowing the history, I'd not interpret Pathoschild's action as opposing local unblock. But it's prudent to not revert a steward's action without discussion. Given the context, though, it was clear that the local block was only made to allow the local wikis to make their own decisions, not to actually enforce the global ban, against local consensus, except by default.)

The global lock prevents access to the account, the user cannot log in or use a watchlist, it is deeper than a block. It is unlikely that a steward at meta will lift this without a showing of local community consensus permitting Thekohser to edit (though they might!). Unless there is a stronger record of contributions to Wikiversity, I judged that it would be difficult to gain interest in unblocking, sufficient to go to meta with a request. A chicken and egg problem.

As a probationary custodian, I had been asked to assist Thekohser in negotiating with the community. I was familiar with him from Wikipedia Review, as a strong critic of the WMF, but often a cogent one. I was not willing to assist his unblock so that he could, unrestrained, use Wikiversity as a platform to attack the WMF, unless and until we have established ethical standards for such criticism here. But I was willing to assist him to become a useful contributor here, and for him, as well, to participate in developing the standards, it is his area of expertise, it seems.

I first revised the block of Thekohser to allow Talk page access, which had been abruptly closed off by Adambro, for no clear reason, at least none that was explained in situ. Nobody objected to this, and it stands. However, Thekohser still could not log in there, because of the new global lock; this is how I found out about that (I'd followed the earlier discussions and the release of the global lock.)

I discussed the situation with a number of users here, on my Talk page. How I proceeded was largely based on that discussion.

I asked Thekohser to create a new account, and to promptly inform me of the account, before using it, so that I could block it, allowing Talk page access. Nobody objected to this at the time. (And, in fact, Diego Grez seems to have imitated it with Moulton/Caprice, which, in my view, was premature; Moulton was not seeking unblock; Thekohser was.) Thekohser complied, thus demonstrating the first cooperative action, quite different from that of a normal block evader.

You can see the discussion that ensued. There was actually little conflict. Eventually, Thekohser agreed, at my suggestion, that he make "self-reverted" IP contributions in situ. This is not the place to establish what I will attempt to establish elsewhere: such contributions are not, in themselves, block evasion, and when made as Thekohser made them, they represent cooperation, not defiance. They leave behind no mess to clean up, and I'll be trying to write policy that says that these kinds of edits don't violate blocks and bans (unless there is some egregiously disruptive character to them that does cause actual disruption and wastes the time of custodians who must then clean up with revision deletion). This sequence shows the value of self-reverted edits by blocked editors; this could also be applied to edits under a topic ban, and the process was originally designed on Wikipedia for the latter purpose. Some of us forget the purpose of blocks and bans, which is to prevent disruption; any possible disruption from an edit (with exceptions like outing or gross incivility) is immediately removed by the self-reversion. The edit, then, is easy to review and accept or reject, but the review need only be done by those willing to do the work. It leaves the rest of the community, perhaps irritated by a user's prior antics, free to ignore them.

Thekohser made a series of edits as 68.87.42.110. Two pages were edited, Survey about Wikipedia and UFO research. I had not anticipated page creation, in the experimental process. The first page was deleted after having been blanked by Thekohser per the agreement; I restored the page (Adambro did not object), leaving it blanked, with a note explaining why and requesting that the page not be deleted. I wanted an independent review of this. Geoff Plourde did that, and accepted the page. Thekohser then did some more editing on it, in the same way, and I accepted those edits. The edits to UFO research were helpful and completely uncontroversial.

Having seen an ability and manifested intention to cooperate, over a two week period, I responded to the unblock request that Thekohser, as EA, had made, and unblocked, given that I was convinced it was reasonably safe. Adambro, however, without discussion, blocked the account. This was effectively wheel-warring. (Remember, Adambro was the last person to block Thekohser, extending it to prohibiting Talk page access, Jimbo had not gone so far.) (However, Adambro did not this time disable talk page access for EA.)

Adambro then commented on the Talk page:

''I think this little experiment has run its course. Abd wanted to see whether you would comply with his instructions and make some useful contributions.''

This was true. However, this was, in fact, extra caution. Normally we do not block a user without current disruption or reasonable current fear. An exception may be made where there has been a community ban discussion (but this is a concept that should be carefully reviewed, there can be a better way.) There had been no such discussion with a block conclusion.

''That seems to be the case. However, I don't conclude from that, as I wouldn't from the way Ottava suggests you contribute, that a few useful contributions means an unblock would be appropriate.''

There is no practical difference. Both Ottava's suggestion (that Thekohser add stuff to his Talk page which Ottava would review) and mine (that Thekohser would self-revert elsewhere) involve the editor proposing changes on-wiki. The question is which is more efficient, that's all. The minor edits to UFO research would be quite cumbersome to handle with Ottava's method, they are trivial with mine. Adambro is saying here that useful contribution makes no difference. In the absence of disruption, what would? I'm unconvinced that offering to unblock someone if they make a few useful contributions is a particularly useful way of determining whether someone should be unblocked.

There was no such offer. There was merely an implied promise that I would review what he'd done, and an opinion that positive contributions couldn't but help. Adambro has lost sight of the purposes of blocking, to prevent damage, and of the purpose of all our legitimate behavior, to improve the project. At this point the risk of harmful contributions had become very low. There had been no community consensus for blocking, the only community action of blocking was from Adambro himself, cutting off Thekohser Talk page access. That's why I say this was wheel-warring; Adambro was clearly involved and repeating his own position, using his tools. Because? He's only stated "cross-wiki issues." Absent content being placed here that causes problems elsewhere, that is not a legitimate reason for blocking a Wikiversity user.

''I don't doubt the ability of Thekohser to make useful contributions so any demonstration whilst blocked that he can do so doesn't help me. The question is whether any useful contributions would be overshadowed by other issues.''

What other issues? Unstated, i.e., nothing specific. And this kind of action (based on unstated reasons) is the kind that causes disruption to continue.

Unfortunately it seemed that Abd wasn't really that interested in discussing some of the concerns that I raised.

Abd, in fact, was simply not accepting what were unclear or preposterous arguments, appearing to be based on a hidden agenda. That's what "cross-wiki issues" has become. This is a claim that, absent genuine disruption of one wiki by activity on another, has been rejected whenever it's been considered by the communities. This is why a user who has been considered quite disruptive on Wikipedia, banned there, can be a custodian here, as one is. Behave here, you can stay here. It's a very clear principle, widely accepted, but sometimes not accepted by those who may, for example, have an axe to grind elsewhere. I suspect this, but won't assert it except as a question: Adambro, have you engaged in personal conflict with Thekohser elsewhere than here? Are you basing your judgment of this user, and the need to block this user, on off-wiki behavior?

To conclude, this editing by proxy, whether by Abd's or Ottava's methods is pretty pointless.

What Adambro has missed is that useful content was being created. Poinitless? Isn't content the point? Adambro unilaterally declared the "experiment" over. Why? It was creating good content. It could have continued as long as Thekohser was willing to cooperate. Sure, he was getting restless, but he made no demands.

''As I've said, I appreciate that Thekohser has the ability to make useful contributions and I'm not aware that anyone has suggested otherwise. Therefore, I suggest we just assume that Thekohser is able to make useful contributions and instead focus on discussing some of the behaviour concerns I've raised. We can have a community discussion about those concerns and any others and decide whether it would be appropriate to unblock. If there is consensus to do so then a 'crat should act to deal with the lock on Thekohser's account so he can edit properly.'' Adambro 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But a 'crat is not likely to act on that account without a consensus, as described. We can and will go there, if needed, but this is how wiki process works. It starts with individual actions. I've seen no relevant behavioral concerns raised. Adambro will be free to raise that, but if we cannot resolve this more directly, this will require Community Review, I'm afraid, a more disruptive process. Here, the opportunity exists for a single custodian to resolve this issue. If that fails, of course, we will go for wider discussion. By policy, my understanding, Adambro, disagreeing with my decision, should have come here, asking for reversal, or should have gone to Community Review to initiate the discussion.

Adambro blocked an account that had been, as IP, making positive contributions, and that, once unblocked, had made no contributions at all. Adambro blocked before any edits could be made off the Talk page. The block reason: 09:25, 22 July 2010 Adambro (reinstate per concerns at User talk:Abd)

That is a reference to. That note was placed there after the block was placed. It was not discussion, it was explanation, neglecting the arguments that had been made on User talk:Ethical Accountability. Note that much of the discussion on my Talk page was about (and some was from) Moulton, which is an entirely different situation. There was prior community discussion with a close, right or wrong, for blocking Moulton. That did not exist for this user. I had exercised extra caution, Adambro behaved as if the default was block and that community consensus was required for unblock.


 * 04:08, 22 July 2010unblock of Ethical Accountability by Abd.
 * 09:25, 22 July 2010 block of Ethical Accountability by Adambro.
 * http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=586089&oldid=586030 09:25, 22 July 2010] Adambro's comment on my Talk page.
 * 13:57, 22 July 2010 Adambro's comment on Ethical Accountability Talk page. No formal notice of block.

Thekohser continued to make self-reverted contributions with the same IP until it was blocked by Adambro, enforcing his own block, and without any disruptive editing.

He then made a contribution with a different IP. Also self-reverted, also helpful. This IP was not blocked.

(Note that Thekohser had previously, while blocked, evaded the block, he was using the same IP in this experiment as previously used to evade.) What my work had done was to convert true block evasion, which causes disruptive enforcement -- Drini is a steward -- into cooperation with the block, easy to detect and stable at the same IP, thus much easier to monitor, and creating no need for enforcement action. It's trivial to tell that an edit is actually reverted, no detailed examination need by made by someone interested in enforcing the block, and if there is no disruption from an IP, there is no reason to block the IP and cause possible collateral damage. Even if an editor is to remain blocked, this is a very good trade-off. Truly disruptive editors will not agree to self-revert. So far, no luck persuading Moulton, he's fairly strongly disagreed with the suggestion off-wiki. But hope springs eternal. If he were to start cooperating in this way, I predict, the rift and the long-term disruption could start to heal.)

I submit this on this page, seeking a neutral custodian to review and unblock. I will agree to watch the account's contributions closely, not allowing any disruptive contributions to remain, and anyone concerned about "cross-wiki issues" may do so as well.

I was not rushing to deal with this, because it was not an emergency, and the mode of making self-reverted edits remained open for positive contributions to be made. Adambro was attempting to shut that down by blocking the IP, even though the IP was not being used for true "block evasion," but he'd let the last IP edit slide. When he came to my Talk page today, requesting that I stop reverting in the edits of blocked editors, that I stop "encouraging them," I decided that it was time to bring this issue to the community.

Thanks for looking at this.

Summary: Wheel-warring block of Ethical Accountability by Adambro, after careful unblock by me, without stated cause based on local disruption, no evidence provided of "cross-wiki issues" justifying a local block. ("Wheel-warring" is based on prior action of Adambro with User:Thekohser). User was showing active cooperation in spite of the block, contributing useful content. No reason to expect disruptive editing. No danger of unnoticed disruptive editing, user will certainly be closely watched. No prior community decision to block, hence default condition is unblock. Blocking custodian may be basing expectations of user behavior here based on judgment of off-wiki behavior, or outside conflict with user.

Please unblock [Ethical Accountability]. --Abd 22:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) add user to be unblocked, in brackets, to clarify. --Abd 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why User:Ethical Accountability rather than User:Thekohser? Adambro 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the block of EA was wheel-warring and should be examined, like all wheel-warring that can damage Wikiversity by inhibiting good contributions. Because there was no reason to block EA, no reasonable fear of disruption that would not be quickly addressed, no community consensus being opposed by unblock. Unblocking Thekohser is fine, so if this is your preferred action, why don't you do it, Adambro? It will still, then, require a 'crat to act, because of the global lock. Surely you know all this, Adambro, don't you? I suggest unblocking EA because non-abusive alternate accounts are allowed and it only requires a single custodian making a decision either in the absence of consensus or in alignment with consensus. The desired step, if EA does not misbehave, would then follow, I presume, if a 'crat agrees. --Abd 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Because the block of EA was wheel-warring" is not necessarily a justification for unblocking. If your motivation here is to enable Thekohser to return then why mess about with EA? Why not go straight to discussing Thekohser with a view to demonstrating to a 'crat or steward that there is consensus supporting them assisting sort this out properly. I support that, if there is consensus that Thekohser should participate that it should be done using User:Thekohser. I don't support unblocking so am hardly going to do so myself nor would it make any difference as we are all aware. I have no problem respecting community consensus. The problem I have with EA is it seems to be an attempt to bypass a full community discussion. I think the community should have been more involved with this. I don't think it is appropriate given the context and the expressed concerns for one custodian to see a few good edits by a user they've invited to evade a block and decide to unblock. You've said on a number of occasions that these situations, Moulton, Thekohser, need to be dealt with but it isn't clear why. Before your recent involvement in those situations, there was a few months when, if I recall correctly, neither were involved in evading their blocks and disrupting Wikiversity and the community could spend time developing learning resources instead of messing about dealing with troublemakers. Moulton/Thekohser have only become a more significant problem because of your recent actions yet you seem to use their block evasion, prompted by your actions, to suggest this needs dealing with. You seem to suggest that the only solution is to unblock them. I disagree. The solution is to stop disrupting Wikiversity by stirring up old problems and move on. It really is quite bizarre that Abd is so enthusiastic about getting troublemakers back on Wikiversity and seems to devote the majority of his time to this. Is there a reason for this? Abd calls them critics but criticism isn't the problem, it is how people go about it. There's a line where it becomes disruption. Adambro 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed how people "go about it" is an issue. Adambro doesn't seem to understand normal wiki process, and that "unblocked" is a default condition, requiring good  and ongoing cause to reverse. In any case, where there is disagreement between custodians, or between an editor and a custodian, not resolved by direct discussion, where some custodial action might be called for, seeking another custodian review here is precisely what policy suggests. Adambro believes that discussion is necessary first. Fine. When it became clear that he'd have to wheel-war to implement his view, why did he not start discussion? The "old problems," unaddressed, have continued to cause disruption, I did not start this, but I'm trying to end it. I invite Adambro to join in that process instead of impeding it. --Abd 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * support unblock - thanks :-) Privatemusings 02:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Thekohser should be allowed to return to normal participation as Wikiversity community member. I request that a Custodian unblock all accounts that have been created by Thekohser. I also request that a Custodian explain why there have to be requests made in order to have policy-violating blocks removed from the accounts of Wikiversity community members and why Wikimedia functionaries are allowed to disrupt Wikipedia by violating Wikiversity policy and imposing bad blocks. --JWSchmidt 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unblocking Thekohser would be a futile gesture as his account is globally locked. He would need to have his Wikiversity account severed from the global account in order to get around the global lock. This is something that a bureaucrat would likely have to deal with, so he should request that a bureaucrat take the appropriate action. Geoff Plourde 06:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You sort of imply that you would you support his editing if technical means are found to allow it - is that your position? - I think it would be great to make that clear, because really we need to try and demonstrate a clear community consensus one way or the other :-) Privatemusings 09:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note: what has been requested here is unblocking Ethical Accountability, a declared alternate account. There is an alternate path: a 'crat could delink Thekohser from the SUL, thus allowing Talk page access or full access. If you look here, you'd think that Thekohser can edit his Talk page. Not as long as the account is linked. (Renaming it to something else and then renaming it back delinks. This was just done on Wikibooks so that Thekohser could request unblock directly there, and last I looked, discussion of that seemed headed for unblock. The situation there is quite similar: no local misbehavior was alleged, no specific harm to other wikis from Wikibooks activity was alleged, block was, there, by a steward, at the time when the global lock had been lifted, the apparent attempt at that point was to allow local wikis to make a decision. The later global lock was implemented without open discussion, so the justifying cause is unknown, though we could speculate. We should not speculate. It's clear, though, that this action was taken because some local wikis had, indeed, unblocked. It was, again clearly, an attempt to reinstate the block, in effect, without actually discussing it with the local wikis. We should discourage this. If the WMF wishes, as a matter of policy, that this user be blocked, it is crucial that it state this in public, preferably (but not necessarily) with justification provided. Individual stewards should not, absent policy direction from the WMF Board, or an authorized representative, substitute their personal opinion(s) for local consensus. The public position was that local wikis could decide, and this was completely in line with subsequent review of Jimbo's actions on meta. The later global lock was contrary to the public position. --Abd 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Adambro 09:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am uncomfortable about the original (Jimbo) block of Thekohser - there was no local discussion or consensus - it was imposed, with obvious threat of desysop at the time for going against Jimbo's actions. Given that (if I understand correctly from Abd's forensics) that the block is now local, it seems only fair to unblock. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I understand, Jt. Unblocking Thekohser as-is would be ineffective. I requested unblocking Ethical Accountability. I already reblocked Thekohser to allow Talk page access, but given the global lock, that accomplished nothing but demonstrate the conflict between local action and the global lock.


 * There are two approaches. Not wishing to proceed to "fix" the global lock without a demonstration of possible usefulness and a willingness to cooperate, I took one approach: setting up an acknowledged sock, blocking it, but allowing Talk page access, and then negotiating and setting up demonstrations of cooperation. When it seemed that Thekohser was straying into unnecessary criticism, I warned him, and he cooperated. Having proof of ability and intention to cooperate, and with a record of positive contributions, I then unblocked and would have watched contributions closely. Then, with a record of good behavior, I'd have gone for the steps to return him to Thekohser and making the global lock ineffective here.


 * Meta may still not wish to lift the global lock, because they may not want unprepared small wikis to have to deal with Thekohser. Wikibooks has gone for the second approach, which was a possible step in my approach: a 'crat renames the account to something else, then renames it back. This delinks the local account from the SUL, so that the global lock no longer applies to it. This then makes the only effective blocks be local. That could be done immediately, so that any custodian could unblock Thekohser, if the arguments for that seem cogent. And if a steward disagrees, the steward can pop in and reblock. My guess: none will, unless actual cross-wiki disruption and damage appears as a result.


 * It is not necessary to determine if Jimbo acted properly or not. He had his concerns, he was acting to protect the WMF as he saw fit, rightly or wrongly. Like all of us, editors, custodians, functionaries, he is allowed to make mistakes, if it was a mistake. However, we now must face the situation ourselves: the principle is strong that a user who has acted horribly elsewhere may be a full participant in this community, even becoming a custodian. If we are going to violate that principle, we might need to apply the violation more widely! What I see as the strongest reason for Jimbo's action was that there was lack of supervision here, lack of willingness to carefully consider "cross-wiki issues," which properly would refer to the possible abuse of this wiki as a platform for improper criticism of the WMF and users at other wikis. Jimbo's action clearly pointed up the need for that supervision, that local consciousness and caution, and was, in that sense, quite proper. But those conditions justifying that block no longer apply. We are now aware and willing to act, more than one of us. Ordinary editors, not just custodians, can prevent disruption, through reversion or balance or other editing -- or call attention to it to custodians if tools are needed. --Abd 14:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimbo took that unconventional action to protect Wikiversity from someone who only popped up here when he saw an opportunity to further his personal dispute with Jimbo. Their issues are well documented. Whilst Thekohser was being critical of Jimbo and Jimbo acted to block him (oh noes censorship, recusal failure etc.), it was appropriate because that is why Thekohser actually popped up on Wikiversity, to try to score a few points over Jimbo rather than actually further the project. On 23 March 2010 I declined an unblock request on pretty much that basis and his reaction in my view confirms the block remains appropriate. His reaction was to create a number of socks, add content to Field and tab as User:Want to be a serious project, or not with one of these then remove it a few weeks later with the edit summary "Removing the contributions of a banned troll. Banned means BANNED!" as User:Not acting as an agent of the Board. When I reinstated the content Thekohser tried to claim that the user that added the content wasn't him and pointed to a post on his blog which it subsequently emerged he'd gone to the effort of backdating to try to use it as evidence for copyright violation. Checkuser confirmed that he was lying. More recently, I've highlighted to Abd some posts by Thekohser on Wikipedia Review which seem to reinforce my perception that he wants to be unblocked to win one over Jimbo. Abd was quick to mock me for doing so but I remain of the view that, whilst acknowledging Wikipedia Review is well and truly off-wiki and and informal venue, it all contributes to a picture of Thekohser which helps judge whether an unblock would be appropriate. Abd's experiment with Ethical Accountability has shown that Thekohser can make some useful contribs but I've not doubted that he could. My concerns are more to do with his behaviour and attitude than his ability to make useful contribs so I'm unconvinced of the value of this experiment. What we haven't had is a serious discussion about these concerns and any real attempts to convince me that I am unnecessarily worrying. I can only assume that Abd thinks I wrong to have these concerns. I'd like to hear why.
 * Thekohser remains subject to a global lock of his account so simply a lock unblock won't allow him to participate anyway. To sort this properly requires a crat or a steward to act which would likely require community consensus in favour. Adambro 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above post demonstrates, particularly if we are aware of other facts, why Adambro should be recused from handling this with his tools. You will note that Adambro makes no allegations of abusive editing here, beyond minor and open socking, a common reaction to a block perceived as unjust. Thekohser is indeed a public critic of WMF ethics, mostly elsewhere, and some think that the WMF is protected by blocking criticism. That is not a mature view. It is protected, in fact, if it, and those who support it, rigorously follow ethical principles in dealing with users, and especially critics. I have made no claim that Jimbo improperly acted in blocking Thekohser, it was (arguably) within his discretion, and this is not a review of Jimbo's actions. That has already happened on meta, and the result was that Jimbo lost the intrusive tools. He could not repeat the block. This is really irrelevant.


 * We make our own decisions here, and a steward is likely to intervene only if we neglect possible improper damage to other wikis or to the WMF itself. By following ethical standards ourselves and by requiring these of participants, including Thekohser, we will properly protect not only ourselves but the other wikis and the WMF. Adambro is not "wrong to have these concerns." But he abuses his tools by using them without appropriate caution and discussion. There are legitimate concerns, and my unblock very much considered those, and Thekohser knew that if he abused the opportunity to criticize the WMF or other users, outside of established ethical standards, he'd be blocked. It would have been "blocked by me," except that, courtesy of Ottava, I'm no longer a custodian.


 * But I would not need to be a custodian to Request custodian action. And if I requested a block, here, I believe it would be promptly honored. Further, any ordinary editor can revert edits that violate policy or risk damage without obtaining consensus. The risk to Wikiversity (manifesting as Jimbo's unfortunate bluster about discussions to close Wikiversity -- there was never support from a Board majority to even talk about this) would only come from a lax community that does not address problems and allows them to fester until a steward feels forced to intervene. As long as I'm an editor here, and as long as consensus does not prevent me, I do not plan to allow that to happen.


 * Two more points: Adambro does not disclose an important point. He did not merely "decline an unblock request." He reblocked to prevent Talk page access, so that Thekohser could not request review by another custodian. He did not leave behind any explanation of this, it was abrupt and without warning. Further, I have never "mocked" Adambro. Adambro is mistaking careful criticism for mockery. That's a serious problem, and I hope he can rethink this. If, contrary to my memory, I have somewhere "mocked" him, I hope he will point it out specifically so I and others can review it. --Abd 14:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely think unblocking is appropriate. I suspect it's true that his motivation for wanting to contribute is to thumb his nose at Jimbo by making good contributions, but why should the WV community care what his motivations are so long as he's making good contributions? It's not as if there aren't other contributors here who have issues with figures or bodies elsewhere in the WMF (certainly Ottava and Adb, but iirc I think Adambro had originally came here frustrated by something that happened on another wiki), and we haven't imported those sanctions afaik. --SB_Johnny talk 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SBJ. My analysis is quite the same. I didn't come here to escape anything, though. I've disclosed issues on my user page, but I'm not using this wiki to pursue some WP agenda, and I'm not blocked there. I'm under two kinds of topic bans, one due to expire in about a month, the other is the weirdest thing I ever saw, and indef, which is also strange, but ... I haven't appealed it to ArbComm directly because it simply isn't worth the effort, and what I prefer to work on is mostly too difficult on Wikipedia.


 * The immediate cut-the-Gordian-knot action, here, is to unblock Ethical Accountability, and this would implement rough consensus at this time. And to watch EA contributions to make sure that "cross-wiki" problems are not allowed to be created and to fester. He'll be responsive to warnings, if they are needed, I'm sure. There is no danger of any substance. The other approach, to resuscitate Thekohser, does take a 'crat. --Abd 21:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is an unblock it should be of User:Thekohser not User:Ethical Accountability. There are about 30 people that could arrange that and a few of them are active here. A 'crat (hello Jtneill, that's you) could take the initiative and sort it. Those enthusiastic about seeing Thekohser back will be happy, Thekohser will be happy because he'll be able to edit properly through his normal account, I'll be happy if he makes useful contributions, and I'd be happier seeing him unblocked properly rather than using User:Ethical Accountability. Perhaps it is time to stop messing about, let's have a 'crat unblock Thekohser and see what he has to contribute. I trust those who do want Thekohser back won't hesitate to deal with him if he were to deviate from making useful contributions, not inflaming situations or brining Wikiversity into disrepute. Adambro 17:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Thekohser has not agreed to solid behavioral guidelines and terms of editing, so there is no way to guarantee anything regarding him. His willingness to buy accounts, use sleeper accounts, and the rest to perform various instances of mischief to prove that there are problems with the system show that this is not a decision to take lightly and with little precaution. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * (e/c, this @ Adambro) Well said. Do we need a whole separate "!vote" on that? Just get it done: there are too many issues on the table right now, and this one really should be dealt with and put aside.
 * I think Mike would be the 'crat to ask. Jtniell is "under review", it seems, and so it's a bit unfair to ask him to do something that (a) certain person(s) will use against him.
 * I really doubt he would bring the project into dispute. He fights fair, on principle. He also has a lot to offer as an expert in his own field and as a dabbler in many others. --SB_Johnny talk 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c: this @ Ottava) He hasn't done anything on WV that would make "behavioral guidelines" necessary. He also hasn't used "sleeper accounts" or bought admin accounts here on WV.
 * If we are going to swallow the edicts of the WP people, you yourself would be "indef blocked". Please let's don't recreate that here.
 * And Ottava, imagine how you would feel about an admin on ANI, in responding to one of the several threads devoting to whether or not you should be unblocked, gave the one-word answer "No". Would you have respected him for his no-nonsense approach, or would you have thought something else? Think about it. --SB_Johnny talk 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would not personally object to Jtneill doing the renaming trick, given a supporting consensus here, it's not an urgency, at all, if EA is unblocked. Acknowledged socks are quite legitimate; probably we'd want to formally unblock Thekohser at the same time, just so we don't have the weirdness of one sock on and one sock off. (The block shows up when people look at the SUL status; right now, if you look at the SUL status for Thekohser on all the wikis, it looks like Thekohser is blocked here, by me. In fact, I unblocked the Talk page access.... If the user is not blocked, the SUL status should show that. The current review of Jtneill was started by Ottava for very obvious reasons, shown there, and there is no community support for it; but Jtneill seems to be quite scrupulous and careful, he might wish to stand aside for the time being. I'm not going to approach Mike or any other 'crat at this point, because we can get the basic job done without 'crat action, and start to reap good content, if Thekohser cares to contribute it, and there are some unnecessary IP blocks that can be released, etc. It will do no harm, only create possible benefit. --Abd 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro suggested the simple solution. You (Abd) seem to be suggesting the Rube Goldberg machine approach (and plugging your gripe). KISS. --SB_Johnny talk 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Plugging" is irrelevant, SBJ. "Machine" is in place, functions, and can be turned on by one custodian. The supposedly simple solution you favor -- and which I do not oppose -- takes a 'crat, and may involve more than the rename process to provide full function, if there is a title blacklist problem (I don't know). Sure. K.I.S.S. Love that slogan, and what I did was in pursuit of it. I don't care which way is done, so ... what is your goal here, SBJ? I'm confused. --Abd 22:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confused? Okay, I'll make it clear: Greg Kohs has done nothing to harm Wikiversity. In fact, and quite to the contrary, he's made it clear on numerous occasions that it at least has some potential. Like most of you, Greg believes in the promise of "anyone can edit" (I don't believe in that promise anymore, but support those who do).
 * Greg Kohs is a real-life person, a husband, a father, and an expert in his field. Just unblock all of his accounts, please. He's never done WV any harm, and has made it quite clear that he wants to make positive contributions. Please just stop playing silly games related to silly Jimbo Wales dramas, and move on to more important things. Clearly there are more important issues to deal with, starting with how to make WV a less hostile place for people who are simply looking for a community of learning. --SB_Johnny talk 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be the neatest solution, allowing Thekohser to have his edits under one account. I don't believe there are any title blacklist issues here but I am an admin on Meta so can deal with such issues. If there is "rough consensus" to unblock Ethical Accountability as you suggest then it shouldn't be too great a leap for a 'crat act here since I, for example, whilst opposing an unblock of EA have expressed support for the unblocking of User:Thekohser (rather than EA) if Thekohser is to be unblocked. Sure, there isn't overwhelming consensus in favour but that also means there isn't overwhelming consensus in opposition. A 'crat should just bite the bullet and sort out User:Thekohser global lock. Adambro 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What he said. Except for the overwhelming consensus part... looks to me like there's only one oppose vote if Adam sees this as a battle worth not fighting :-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "He's done no harm" is an opinion disconnected from fact made by a person with a competing Wiki and by someone who has done quite a lot to cause problems and disruption at Wikiversity in order to make a point against the Foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Thekohser has done no harm and caused no disruption. All his accounts should be unblocked. If Ottava Rima and Adambro want to make accusations against User:Thekohser then they should do so in a community forum where User:Thekohser can defend himself against the accusations. --JWSchmidt 14:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disappoint but there is only one Adambro. That Thekohser has "done no harm and caused no disruption" is simply your opinion, just as that I disagree is my opinion. We don't have to allow him to comment to be able to discuss him. I would argue that the majority of what I've said is based upon facts and evidence, I could provide diffs if anyone doubted what I've said. It is for the community to decide how to interpret those facts and Thekohser is unlikely to have much influence. Anyway, this could be all irrelevant if, sensing support for the unblock of Thekohser, a 'crat would bite the bullet and properly sort out his account. Then we won't have to worry about my "accusations". We can see what he actually has to contribute and judge him on what he does. Adambro 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is in response to Adambro: "Perhaps it is time to stop messing about, let's have a 'crat unblock Thekohser and see what he has to contribute." The current status is that Thekohser is globally locked on all Wikimedia projects. It does not appear that an unblock of User:Thekohser would allow contributing to wikiversity. --mikeu talk 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A 'crat can unblock User:Thekohser, it just involves more than clicking unblock. It requires, and this is why I say a 'crat would be needed rather than a custodian, the account to be renamed and then renamed back again to detach the local account from the global account and thus the global lock. I'm not saying it should be done as such, just that if consensus existed to unblock Thekohser (aka Ethical Accountability), then it should be his proper account that is unblocked not Ethical Accountability. Adambro 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Adambro is correct. (there was ec with above.) Unblocking Thekohser and User:Ethical Accountability will implement local consensus, as seen below, and EA may be used immediately. Thekohser may be used if a 'crat renames and then renames back to delink the local account from the SUL. That 'crat action is what SB_Johnny is proposing below. --Abd 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mike. Simply unblocking Thekohser, that's true. This is why this request is to unblock Ethical Accountability. However, if this community wants Thekohser to be allowed to contribute, it has two quite decent options: unblock EA, and unblock Thekohser. (I'd recommend both, and if Thekohser is not blocked, then the EA acknowledged sock is legitimate.) Without a 'crat action, unblocking Thekohser does not directly allow editing, that's true, but it does show the intention of the local community if such an unblock stands. If it were true that global locks were global bans, that would be valuable in itself, and grounds for asking, at meta, for the lock/ban to be lifted. However, meta is unlikely to respond to that request unless there is some showing of support for unblocking from local wikis. There already is some showing of support, and additional support is helpful. But it is not true, either, that unblocking Thekohser will be ineffective for allowing editing. As has been shown on Wikibooks recently, the account can edit if a 'crat renames it to something else and then renames it back, thus de-linking it from the SUL. Unblocking EA can be done by any local custodian. Completely unblocking Thekohser requires a 'crat. It appears that there may be two 'crats willing and ready to do it if there is sufficient community support. There is apparent rough consensus for unblocking, one way or another. On Wikibooks, there was only one person opposed to unblock, the same person who is the steward who, without public discussion, set the global lock again on May 30. And who wheel-warred, then (with an unblocking 'crat), and who by a kind of procedural trick, removed checkuser status from that 'crat as an obvious retaliation for daring to follow expressed community consensus instead of his opinion. (That local 'crat was asked if he was acting as a steward or as a local user. He answered that this was not a steward action. Stewards aren't behaving like this, as stewards, not yet, at least.) This gets ugly quickly, and that disruption must be resisted (carefully!) or we don't have any real self-determination left.
 * The overall WMF consensus is clear: we can make this decision ourselves, and the rest is technical details of how we do it. The exception would probably be if we neglect critical WMF concerns. We won't. If the WMF wishes to require the communities to block Thekohser, or any other user, it has the means to let us know. Until then, the strong presumption is that we can make this decision ourselves, and Pathoschild went around, in early May, to all the communities, as did some other stewards, to set local blocks, before lifting the global lock, precisely for that declared purpose. "To allow each wiki to decide." Mike.lifeguard effectively undid that, and stewards are not going to wheel-war without support from the communities. Hence, the ball is in our court. Do we or don't we?
 * Links: discussion of unblock on Wikibooks, rename log for Thekohser there, rename log for Thekohser (temp) there, block log for Thekohser there, meta removal of checkuser access, unexplained. --Abd 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As to your last comment, I'm not really clear on what procedure SBJ is proposing below. As to the rename to break SUL, we have a hard time agreeing on when rename should be used for usurpation never mind for other purposes. I would not be comfortable using rename in this case. It really comes down to two questions: 1) should the person who edits as User:Thekohser be allowed to contribute at en-wv, and 2) how should this be done (assuming that the community agrees to the first part.) --mikeu talk 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no usurpation involved in this. Yes, it's an "off-label" use of rename, but if done with consensus, that should not be a problem. Because global locks in controversial situations are so rare, I'm sure there is little pressure to add a lock whitelist to the software, and this is simply a known workaround. The real and presenting issue here is whether or not this community chooses to allow the person to contribute, quite as you say. How it is done, if we so decide, is not actually the issue; there are two or three ways. So, first of all, we need a closure here on the "allow contributions" issue, because the rest is details. Any custodian could close this, at this point, if the custodian has not yet !voted, my interpretation of recusal policy. There is consensus shown. If it is a closure for "allow," then it would be simple and consistent to unblock both accounts. The 'crat action is a separate issue, and would be supporting Adambro's position, then, as to consistency and for other reasons I detailed. --Abd 20:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note the comment below by Mu301. Unblocking either would be pointless. I'd suggest this is well above the pay grade of anyone on Wikiversity and that it should be raised on Meta if anyone so wishes. Alternatively, we could forget about this whole thing and find more useful things to do with our time than try to get troublemakers back on the project. Adambro 21:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unban discussions last longer than 24 hours. Why would you even try to claim that the discussion could be closed? You still have at least 3 more days before anyone could even consider closing the discussion yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there were consensus to allow editing here, I would be inclined to unblock and then request that a steward unattach the local account from the global account.   --mikeu talk 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stewards only lock and unlock based on the Foundation and not through any project. I've asked about that before. Regardless, the point you were responding to was Abd trying to close a discussion that just started instead of giving a week or at least 5 days of discussion. That is highly inappropriate, especially here where things take their time. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest requesting global unlock, I was referring to a possible request to unattach the local account from the global account. Basically asking a steward to do what the double rename thing would do, but using the proper tool. The point I was making is that I don't consider the double rename hack to be a valid tool in the 'crat toolbox. I'm not sure that your statement about locks is correct, see Requests for global (un)lock). --mikeu talk 13:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As Adrignola notes below, the global lock was only re-imposed on Thekohser after this trick was discovered (and it's even in the instruction manual on meta now). If I understand correctly, the account was first locked at the request of Mr. Wales, then unlocked by consensus of the stewards, then relocked after the 'crat trick was discovered (on wikisource, iirc). There's some sort of high-level wrangling up on high about project independence, related to this and some other issues that came up a few months ago. --SB_Johnny talk 10:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want, I can provide multiple diffs where Stewards state that you cannot request such locks or the rest and that they go through the Foundation. The only ones that are locked without direct foundation statement are cross wiki abusers and those are locked based on what the Stewards were already told they can do. Regardless, you still responded again to a statement about Abd saying this could be closed early. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the primary obstacle to Thekohser editing here is actions taken on the account globally, and it also seems logical that any solution to enable editing here would involve addressing this issue at meta. The community can choose to remove the local block, and maybe also choose to request changes in the global account situation... But we do not have a legitimate means to resolve the global lock that would permit participation here. Yeah, well it is obvious that it would be premature to close this so early.  --mikeu talk 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: It now seems that User:Ethical Accountability is globally locked. --mikeu talk 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason given for the account lock seems to be false. The account lock appears to have been imposed in violation of the rules that govern when steward's tools can be used. --JWSchmidt 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the term "sockpuppet" is a bit iffy when used for an acknowledged sock. Definitely, there is something screwy going on here. Mike.lifeguard replaced the global lock, May 30, based on "discussions," which clearly refers to private discussions, unknown and unstated participants. The better understanding of likely consensus at meta would be the sequence at Wikisource.
 * There was a discussion on Wikisource, and the lack of explicit messages or open discussion on this. That is, there is no consensus for a "global ban." If there were, it would be openly described and discussed. See the noticeboard discussion on Wikisource and the block log for the final outcome. Notice that the unblocked status is confirmed by Pathoschild, a steward. Thekohser is not now blocked an Wikisource, and is editing there, including yesterday. The local account had previously been detached from the global account for independent reasons. Note that the final unblock was by Pathoschild, a steward, who apparently realized that a local decision had been made.
 * On Commons, the Kohser is also active. The block log shows the routine block during the massive going-about to local wikis blocking to replace the lifted global lock, with the unblock being by Jayvdb, a former member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. As with Wikisource, the global lock was not effective there because of a prior renaming that delinked it.
 * On Wikinews, Thekohser was locally unblocked, as a result of a discussion, but is not editing, probably because of the global lock, he was editing up to a few days before May 30, leading to a surmise that the global lock was reinstated as a result. They would not necessarily notice.
 * Thekohser was also unblocked on de.wikipedia, and is unblocked on some other wikis, but the global lock may be still effective in these places, all those where the account is linked, while the global lock is in place. --Abd 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * August 10 comment by steward Pathoschild on the Kohser unblock discussion at Wikibooks, "I have no objection to any action taken by local consensus." Pathoschild had blocked Thekohser on Wikibooks, and was here explicitly permitting unblock, if that was local consensus, which it was. The situation there is that Adrignola delinked the account and then unblocked. Mike.lifeguard, the one who placed, as a steward, the global lock, again, on May 30, then blocked, again asserting that there was a global ban, which is in direct contradiction to Pathoschild's statement, which was also repeated in the many blocks at local wikis, that this was a local decision. Mike claims to be acting as a local admin, and he is also a 'crat there, but he is blatantly defying local consensus, and the natives are restless.... Note that nobody at Wikibooks or at meta has challenged 'crat Adrignola's delinking of the account to allow local unblock to be effective. --Abd 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is because precedent has been set at Global blocking whereby local administrators can override global blocks of IP addresses. It follows that local administrators should then be able to override global locks of accounts.  That there is no means to do so without a bureaucrat delinking the account is simply a technical detail. Adrignola 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

KISS version: unblock TheKohser
I've taken my tools back, in part to try to get us out of this particular rut. It's really not worth spending all this time and energy on what seems to me to be a rather trivial issue, so let's just have a snap !vote on the issue and be done with it. --SB_Johnny talk 01:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should TheKohser be unblocked?:
 * Yes: If he causes problems, I'm sure we can deal with it. He hasn't caused problems so far, so there's no particular reason to keep him blocked. Let's move on to the bigger and better please... we're all of us far too focused on the trivial lately! --SB_Johnny talk 01:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No: Long history of cross wiki abuse. By re-crating himself before a direct vote and making it known, SB Johnny has violated the part of the Crat proposed policy stating that Crats should not be making such statements like that which give undue weight to their personal view, as they are supposed to only follow the community consensus view. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually interesting, Ottava, because I actually agree with you to a certain degree. However, being a 'crat shouldn't mean that I'm not allowed to voice my opinion. As long as I don't give my own opinion more weight than anyone else's, of course. As a counter-argument: do you think it would be better if I just kept my opinion secret? It's not as if I'm never going to have one, and it seems to me that it's better to just "put it out there" rather than keeping it secret. We really need to be a lot better about openness here, IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 02:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: This is not a judgment against the original block, and we should try to respect Jimbo's intentions, but whatever reason there was, I'm sure we can handle the situation in the future so that there is no more concern or necessity for interference from Stewards. I'll be watching the account's contributions to help keep things on track, and I believe that, should concerns arise, Thekohser will be appropriately responsive. He's demonstrated the capacity to do that, already. And if not, some of us have tools and others know how to request their use. Please, though, for future reference, if he does something you think is harmful, fix the edit and ask him to stop. Give him a chance to respond. If he doesn't respond, and continues, treat him with respect and give him some time to think about it and get advice from his friends. He's not going to come unglued from a short block, if it's needed. I think it won't be. It's an indef while being called a "troll" that tends to get some people excited. Let's not do that or allow that to happen again. --Abd 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes repeating my support for an unblock :-) Privatemusings 01:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Endlessly repeating support for unblocking all of his accounts. User:Thekohser has done no harm and caused no disruption. --JWSchmidt 14:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No Thekohser has done harm as I've described but if he is to be unblocked then it should be done properly and it should be User:Thekohser that is unblocked, not EA. Adambro 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: I support and feel like helping unlock someone at the stake while hating whoever looks like helping burn that one to death. My feeling as such would be no queer fantasy but sheer analogy to the Inquisition allegedly in the good old days. Either way is to shut the mouth even of truth, shamefully and shamelessly "ignoring the context" (Hayakawa 1949) in real life such that we are free as little as aware, so that living is almost trial and error, and that "to err is human and to forgive is divine" as per their own tongue (inconsistently) at other times. I would better have sit back longer. Or, I would be improper to bother voting rashly like this as I know little of Thekohser, should I not so strongly suspect this situation of:
 * making a straw man of some ones while
 * making a hero of some others and
 * making a fool of everyone else stop. -- KYPark [T] 02:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: The KISS proprosal is to (locally) unblock Thekohser. As far I can tell, he has done en-wv no harm - resistance to his unblocking seems to be mostly based on expecting harm to arise. Well, I'd suggest Thekohser deserves benefit of the dobut - let's see. The original block was imposed by Jimbo wandering in (and thus attracting Thekohser in the first place). In part, because of his actions here, Jimbo has been subsequently been stripped of his ability to take such actions. The Thekohser has done little as far I can tell to warrant being blocked on this project - at the very least, he deserves a second chance to contribute at some point down the track - such as now. So, I agree that the Thekohser should be unblocked locally. Currently this will not allow him to edit, so the issue would then need to be taken to meta to follow-up on the recent action that lead to global re-blocking with little explanation: "16:20, 30 May 2010 Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Thekohser@global": Set locked; Unset (none) ‎ (per discussion)". Until such global discussions are made more transparent to the community, I find the global block unsatisfactory. As for "detaching" a local account from the global block (a separate issue), such a step would seem to be unprecedented, in which case the circumstances in which taking such a procedure should be discussed as a separate topic. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The stripping of various features on Jimbo's Founder status was based on a dispute on Commons and not Wikiversity. By the way, Mike.lifeguard is still given the privilege of his local custodian status, so keep that in mind before questioning him like that. He is still one of us and has the right to intervene. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your mistaken. Mike.lifeguard requested removal of local Custodianship back in January 2009. -- dark lama  23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he meant that he can request them back, like I did. --SB_Johnny talk 23:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. Mike has also declared that he's "not a Wikiversity participant." Yes, he could ask. Knowing what he'd intend to do here, based on the example he's showing at Wikibooks, do we have a 'crat who would immediately grant it? Maybe, maybe not. Stewards won't touch it, I'm sure. We'd cross that bridge when we come to it. He can use his steward tools, risking them if he uses them here contrary to consensus, and with no emergency. --Abd 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (Bangs head against wall). Ottava says all this stuff off the top of his head, based on selective memory and impressions, and doesn't look. It takes me a long time to write comments because I check stuff. The RfC at meta that led to desysopping was filed by our own custodian, Juan de Vojníkov and mentioned the disruption here as a big part of the cause. Sure, the Commons flap attracted more attention to it. But it started with our situation.


 * Mike.lifeguard is not a custodian here, and has renounced being a Wikiversity participant, he is explicitly not "one of us." He is a 'crat and admin on Wikibooks, but that is separate from his meta steward flag, which he used to set the global lock there. He is currently acting on Wikibooks as a "local user," he says, and he's an admin and 'crat there, but he's blatantly attempting to enforce, there, the supposed "global ban" that Jimbo declared here back in March (look at the global rights log for Thekohser, I've cited it above, it's all based on a WV diff), in spite of unanimous local consensus (except for him) to unblock, and an actual unblock by the only other 'crat there. The other 'crat seems to be in despair over the wheel-warring involved. I predict that Mike.lifeguard will be facing severe criticism at meta, soon, or, it will come directly from functionaries, behind the scenes, he's destabilizing the situation, fomenting discontent at Wikibooks. He's a lesser light than Jimbo trying to do what Jimbo was not able to do, ride roughshod over local consensus.


 * If anyone wants to see how a steward, supposedly highly trusted and trustworthy to be sober and careful, has come to believe that he "owns" the entire WMF colletion of wikis, and his word is writ, read Mike's comments on Wikibooks. It's truly embarrassing. The Wikibooks community is flabbergasted. Panic has been there since 2004, and the only other 'crat is flummoxed. There are links and diffs above. --Abd 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As an active member of wikibooks at the time of that conversation I find this characterization of what was going on completeley a misrepresentation. Yes, Mike's sudden strong opinion was a bit unexpected.  But he certainly took the time to explain it to me when I asked him. There was nothing embarrasing about it.  As far as I know there has been no unblock of Thekohser at wikibooks despite some requests.  To say the community was flabbergasted is a misrepresentation of the feeling at the time, at least from my perspective.  Perhaps Darklama or Adrignola will correct me. Thenub314 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with below from Adrignola) The conversation was recent, Thenub. Have you been looking at the links provided? You did not participate in the recent conversation at . You participated in a discussion in May. The "embarrassing" comment would apply to the old discussion as well, as asserting personal control in complete disregard -- in advance -- of local consensus, but that was not my reference. Please look at the recent actions. Adrignola delinked the Wikibooks account from the global account, per the discussion, and then unblocked. Mike.lifeguard then reblocked and acted to yank Adrignola's checkuser status, a blatant retaliation. All this was described and linked above, you are demonstrating that you have not been paying attention. Please do, less time will be wasted. --Abd 18:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus at Wikibooks is to unblock Thekohser but Mike.lifeguard has decided that he will not be unblocked under any circumstances. I unblocked him in following consensus and Mike took my CU bit away in retaliation through procedural means.  Because Mike is not active here, he can act here as a steward and will reblock regardless of local consensus.  When he does so in violation of stewards policy, you can call for his removal.  If you want more information you'll have to get it from me privately. Adrignola 18:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems I am out of the loop. Admonishment accepted.  I have have very limited internet connectivity at the moment and didn't have time to go through the whole thread as closely as I would have liked.  My appologies. Thenub314 12:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I am personally against the notion of taking active aims to unblock a globally banned user until the reasons for the global ban are fully understood.  We are part of the WMF family and should and should not (IMO) lightly undo the work done at meta or other places in the WMF family. Thenub314 14:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * request: Thenub314, please link to a policy that explains a "global ban". Thenub314, please link to a community discussion where it was decided to ban "Thekohser". --JWSchmidt 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no policy or explanation of a "global ban." The only apparent source of global ban was a possibly hasty comment, by Jimbo, here at Wikiversity. A global lock was set, there was controversy, and it was then unset to allow local wikis to make their own decision, and that's what we are doing here. Certain stewards then went around to local wikis setting a block as the default condition, so that local sysops could reverse the status. That's what we are discussing here. It is clearly our decision. See the block records accessible through the global user manager, the justification for the blocks refers to "Reason: requested by Jimbo for disruption/trolling at (global lock changed to local block to let local community change it)." We should decide if we want Thekohser blocked or not. Deciding that we want it because they supposedly want it is circular. The clear decision was made, with multiple stewards participating in implementation, to allow local decision. We do not know if Jimbo requested the relock on May 30, and Mike.lifeguard has not disclosed anything like that.
 * The WMF can surely act to undo whatever we do, or to warn us about undoing what would could normally undo, but I'm not personally willing to assume that the action of one steward, a volunteer, without public discussion, is an action of the WMF, when I already know that that particular steward is willing to flagrantly disregard local consensus while denying that he's acting as a steward, on Wikibooks. I very much doubt that the WMF is going to hide behind a single steward "taking the heat," nor will Jimbo, I assume. --Abd 17:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, JWSchmidt but no. I don't have the time nor ability to do as you ask at the moment.  My opinion will have to stand as exactly that, my opinion. Thenub314 12:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Diego Grez 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes User:Thekohser should only be blocked to prevent disruption on this wiki. He hasn't done that. &rarr;StaniStani  17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What about his use of multiple accounts to claim material he contributed was a copyright violation of his own copyright? Adambro 17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Users who are arbitrarily blocked frequently do disruptive things. It is no measure of what they will do when treated with respect. I haven't reviewed those IP edits, they are basically irrelevant. That behavior is old and did not continue, and will very likely not recur as long as the editor is being fairly considered for unblock. Adambro has been blocking his IP, recently, when it was only being used for constructive contributions, self-reverted and self-identified to boot. This was maximally cooperative, in fact, and unusual for a blocked user. --Abd 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above user, Stanistani has an incredibly small amount of edits, especially cross wiki, but supported Thekohser and here in some of his first edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say Stanistani supported Thekohser here? Adambro 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with below) This user first edited Wikipedia under that account name September 1, 2006. The user has 918 edits standing undeleted on Wikipedia. I don't find that an "incredibly small amount of edits." Sure, he's not been editing here much, he had only 8 prior edits, but they go back to March, and appear to be establishing some serious participation. Adambro is right to ask about that second edit, it supported J.delanoy as a Steward, not Thekohser; J. Delanoy was elected, 283:14. Rather, Stanistani voted strongly against Thekohser for steward. The first edit is also to meta, and supported keeping Thekohser listed as a speaker about the WMF, which is, after all, consensus there at this point. This is not a "support" of "Thekohser," but of procedure for the Speakers list, which allows critics to list themselves as well as others, and was a moderate comment that I support 100%. --Abd 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Copy and paste fail. This was the one I wanted. The sarcastic oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I opposed Thekohser for steward, and my sarcasm was aimed at him. As far as my low number of edits, thank you for valuing my contributions at Wikipedia. I'm not running for office, just contributing my opinion. &rarr;StaniStani  19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no sign that the sarcastic oppose (really not sarcastic, but rather hyperbole) was actually "support." Ottava should stop this tenacious search for reasons to discount the obvious consensus. Stani, in both edits, was solidly with the consensus, and he is in the same position here. Welcome to Wikiversity, Stani. We have a small temporary problem, but we will soon return to our regularly scheduled programming. Thanks. --Abd 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does being "solidly with the consensus" have to do with anything? Adambro 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a great deal. But some. If you need an explanation, you'll have to get it somewhere else. --Abd 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's quite all right with everyone, I'm going to go back to researching and writing about the partnership between author and reader, which is a paper I'm drafting offline to publish on Wikiversity. You all can decide how to run the joint. <_< Although I may go to Ottava's talk page and have a cordial word with my colleague. &rarr;StaniStani  20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. This matter has consumed far too much time already. Mr. Kohs should have the opportunity to hang himself through his own actions here. Geoff Plourde 04:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

✅ There was a supermajority of just over 75% to unblock after 5 days, so I've de-linked the account and unblocked. In the future, I would hope we would want a supermajority to justify maintaining a block, rather than requiring one to overturn a block... "not blocked" should be the default, IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring by Moulton.
User:Abd/Request_custodian_action has links. Revert warring, IP shift after first 2 blocks by Ottava Rima, so check additional IP, and short-term protect pages. Thanks. --Abd 02:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Adambro, mostly. Note by Abd 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User page, Request custodian action, activity

 * User:Abd/Request custodian action has three requests for action by a neutral custodian. Please review and decline or respond if appropriate. Thanks. --Abd 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will, in the future, note here new requests on that user page, until it is adequately watched, and this section may be used to note requests for custodian action that arise elsewhere on the wiki, as noticed, so as not to create new sections here with every one. --Abd 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously I've not reviewed the request for unprotection since I put it in place and I've said I would not be happy removing it since it would enable a blocked user to evade their block and edit that page. As for the two undeletion requests, both pages are primarily the work of a blocked user or at least his characters "Albatross" and "Montana Mouse" and not of any real value. I see little real merit in restoring either. Of course though I may not meet the "neutral custodian" critiera but I am not in favour of restoring either of these pages so I won't be doing so. Contributions by users evading a block should be removed. Where an existing page is concerned then this can be by undoing the edit but for new pages this should be speedy deletion. Blocked users should not be editing via proxy, whether that be a proxy server or a user acting as a proxy for them, so pages created by them shouldn't be left for someone else to unblank or whatever. Adambro 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Adambro and I have discussed this without resolution. A request for neutral custodial review is the next step. This is quite simple. --Abd 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The request pointed to the final denial by Adambro of an unprotection request. Further, a prominent option on that page is not Yes/No but Take. I.e. a custodian may state that they will investigate and decide. That would be a point for protests to be lodged, with the Taking custodian, on their Talk page (which could include requests to reverse an allegedly hasty decision). That custodian should be neutral, by policy. The point is to avoid having many custodians investigate a single situation! Not to start, anyway! --Abd 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the Abd/Request page moved to Talk. --Abd 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Two requests for action remain on User:Abd/Request custodian action, one from me and one from Thenub314. I'm looking for a brief response from a neutral custodian for those requests. That page isn't for discussion; anyone filing a request there who does not receive a satisfactory response may file a new one here. A done or denied request there will be archived. Custodians may also "take a case" for investigation there, moving it to the Taken section. Anyone wishing to present arguments can then present them to the custodian who has taken the case. But I think the two standing requests could simply be answered. One, in my view, should be routinely granted, per common practice, the other routinely denied, per defacto policy. But that's just my opinion. --Abd 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect request for Motivation and emotion/Textbook/Specific emotions
Since I am involved with editing this page (and have a preference that it be unprotected), I am asking for the current semi-protection status to be reviewed by non-involved custodians. I would personally like to welcome productive edits to this page from any users. I would also like the page to be available for editing by students in Motivation and emotion who will not always be logged in. This has already been discussed with the protecting admin User:Adambro (User talk:Adambro) who has confirmed that he doesn't wish to unprotect. I am happy to unprotect it myself, but wish to be clear that if I was to do so, that such an action would be with community backing (or not). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ --SB_Johnny talk 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Problems like this should be discussed in a community forum. Wikiversity continues to be disrupted by a few sysops who violate Wikiversity policy by imposing blocks, deleting pages and protecting pages without following Wikiversity community procedures or consensus. A few sysops are allowed to falsify logs, for example claiming "Excessive vandalism" on a page that has never been vandalized. The disruption of Wikiversity by rogue sysops should be discussed at the Colloquium, not hidden here on this page among sysops who have failed to protect Wikiversity from outside interventions during the past two years. --JWSchmidt 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. JWS, proper procedure here is much simpler than "discussion" in a community forum. This was a relatively routine request. The problems or alleged problems you refer to are far deeper than a routine request for custodian action. Please do not complicate this page with such complaints. What is going on is all visible. I disagreed with Adambro's protection, as did others, but that does not make it abusive. I disagree with other actions, but there is a process for addressing these disagreements, and it doesn't start with Community Review. Please try to understand how wikis work; apparently, in spite of your experience, this never was made clear to you. If everyone discusses everything, the wiki will be paralyzed. And, indeed, that is pretty much what happened in 2008 and earlier this year. This page, here, is for routine requests for custodian action, which would include an initial review of a decision by a custodian by a single other custodian.


 * You are correct, JWS, that this is not the place to "discuss" "problems like this." Unfortunately, it tends to become that, which makes this page less useful.


 * This is simply a place to request that a neutral custodian review a situation and make a decision. If the matter has progressed to the point where such individual decision is no longer appropriate (usually, two custodians have already acted), but it is filed here, it should be bumped from here quickly. There are two places to go from here if someone is not satisfied with a custodian's action, and if the dissatisfied user cannot directly resolve it with the custodian, and a neutral review is also not satisfactory ... or no custodian responds within a reasonable time. The first is Custodian feedback. This is a place to start gathering community opinion, in a kind of mediation process, and, in theory, that page should not issue sanctions, but only recommendations. The place where the rubber hits the road is Community review. That's the last step, not the first or second. If you jump straight to Community review without having done the preparation, you will get what you've seen so far there, recently: lots of heat and no light. Lots of wasted complaints with no focus, and, increasingly, a community that ignores Community Review because it's being used for endless and unfocused discussion. --Abd 15:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of Moulton
In 2008, Moulton was singled out for his use of real world names when others such as KillerChihuahua were allowed to make statements such as "My experience with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to work with him." (see this discussion). The decision to ban Moulton from Wikiversity was made in secret, off wiki by just a few people. In blocking Moulton (21 July 2010), Ottava Rima claimed that Moulton was banned by the community, but there is no evidence that Moulton was ever community banned. Ottava Rima has failed to respond at the community review and provide evidence to support his accusations against Moulton. I call for a Custodian to right this wrong and remove the block that was imposed on Moulton by Ottava Rima. --JWSchmidt 02:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support an unblock, and ask that folk who've made a block in this area before recuse from making a block (of anyone) in the future (I'd also support a complete moratorium on blocks for a week or fortnight to help restore some mellow) - let's try and de-escalate and move forward (if you're aussie you'll be sick of hearing 'moving forward' ;-) Privatemusings 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Flogging a dead horse. Adambro 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * um... ok, how's about 'off with his head!'. Privatemusings 08:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I'm sure you're not editing naked... ;-)

Well, this will be long, because there are deep issues involved.

It is generally an error to point to process errors in blocking. Custodians can do the right thing for the wrong reason, or can fail to communicate the reasons well. A block should never be reversed simply because of bias or arguments like those JWS has given. Rather, the issue is always the protection of the wiki; custodians are charged with that responsibility, and must have discretion in how they exercise it. I could assert that there was evidence of a ban, but then it would be argued endlessly how valid the ban was, that "outsiders" participated, and we could go on forever. The issue on a wiki is always today and tomorrow, not yesterday. Wikis do not punish, at least not sensibly. Wikis are fault tolerant, because errors can be fixed.

An opportunity was wasted with the most recent block of the acknowledged Moulton sock, Caprice. For technical reasons, and to make the matter clear, Caprice was unblocked for a short time by me. Caprice was reblocked without any evidence of current misbehavior, but only on an allegation that unblock was improper as prior consensus had not been obtained. This is an apparent belief that there is a standing ban; but bans are not mentioned in WV policy, AFAIK, there are only blocks.

Administrators generally can lose sight of the purpose of providing them with privileged tools, and can become personally attached to enforcing decisions, seeing failure to comply as a personal affront; for this reason wikis generally have some kind of recusal policy prohibiting administrators from making decisions regarding conflicts where they are personally involved. This policy has often been ignored, because it comes into conflict with administrative discretion, and emergencies can justify action in spite of involvement. In the Moulton situation, or with JWS, as examples, there is hardly an uninvolved custodian, but relatively uninvolved custodians seem to have tended toward unblock, at least on a trial basis.

In a way, the establishment of Caprice was a trial, and at the outset, it seemed that the trial failed. JWS confuses the issue greatly. It is not the usage of real names that caused the earlier blocks of Moulton, it was such usage where the usage was offensive, tantamount to harassment. Moulton is openly a pseudonym for Barry Kort, it is no secret, it is not "private information," and the actual outing policy refers to private information, not "real names." Further, private information can be revealed, by WMF policy, if such is necessary to consider action, and then we could argue endlessly over whether or not Moulton's "outing" was necessary, all of which would continue to obscure the fact that Moulton, as Caprice, used Ottava's real name in an offensive manner, clearly to provoke. Caprice was properly blocked at that point.

However, Darklama unblocked Moulton, knowing that the global lock would prevent Moulton from editing here anyway, under that account. The motive for this was unclear, but I'd speculate that it would be an attempt to wash our local hands of the block, to be able to point to meta and say that this was a meta issue, not our issue. No flies on us. But if Moulton is not blocked locally, there is no offense in his having a local acknowledged sock, such socks are permitted, if not used abusively. Because part of my work here was to enable and establish local sovereignty (within negotiated limits), it was important to me that our community take a position on Moulton, that, if Moulton was to be blocked, it should be local, not deferred.

Caprice should not have been reblocked without current abuse, that's the general principle. Wikis can easily afford to give any editor another chance, particularly if the editor's actions are likely to be watched closely, as would be the case with Caprice. However, I did not then again unblock, because that would be wheel-warring, and if there is to be any wheel-warring, it should be very clearly founded in policy and only as an emergency action pending broader discussion and consensus.

In my view, because of clear prior involvement in conflict here and elsewhere, Adambro should not have reblocked Caprice (and Ottava should not have reblocked Moulton) without current misbehavior after unblocking. (Ottava has been correct, however, in insisting on an agreement not to "out.") We have practically institutionalized the use of tools while involved, and have failed to maintain an open consensus process. Above, Adambro refers to beating a dead horse. This is a common response of involved administrators who consider their own decisions to be writ. It might be correct, but on Wikipedia, I've seen that sometimes be the last gasp of a defeated position that still thinks it is controlling.

The real underlying question is whether or how an academic community can incorporate -- or reject -- "action research," or "teaching through dramatic demonstration," or "theater of the absurd." In my view a real university not only can do this, it must do this. A real university will set limits on this, will establish context and guidelines for what can and cannot be done, and those who teach with this kind of modality are free participants in the process of negotiating the limits, and will voluntarily restrain themselves from moving outside what the general community can accept. The general community, in turn, will allow this kind of work when constrained within social norms.

Children will shout "The emperor has no clothes," and sometimes adults with social disabilities will do the same. Normally, however, we expect adults to understand and respect social norms. In the classic fable, it took a child to reveal the truth; an adult would have been arrested, because the shouting would be disruptive and lese majeste. However, in a free society, an adult would properly begin with private communication, not with public announcement that fails to respect the "face" of all the other members of society. And this private communication would eventually have extended to the emperor, unless the emperor was so isolated and aloof from all others as to be unapproachable, a terrible condition for any human being.

I saw the essential missing element preventing this situation from healing as being a lack of coherent communication and negotiation with Moulton, who must be, as must all participants here, treated as a peer, and with respect.

However, Ottava offered to unblock Moulton, as Caprice, if he would agree to not "out" others. We may debate (and will debate) whether or not full WV participation should require real identities to be established, but we are currently bound by WMF policy to protect privacy, and by his flouting of that policy in response to Ottava, Moulton fully understood the consequences, he'd be blocked. There is no way around this at this point, there will be custodians who will enforce the policy, and, if not, the WMF will intervene, it is a legal obligation. Moulton had in his hands, at that point, a choice: he'd be readmitted to this community, by action of Ottava, if he simply agreed to follow what WMF policy requires. Note that WMF policy does not exactly bind him. He can violate it and not be punished. But because such violations require custodial action (by us or by stewards or Foundation staff), it is disruptive, and thus requires, for efficiency, blocking. In my view, Moulton still has that option open. He could make the agreement, and the original and very substantial reason for the block by Jimbo would be gone, as well as the basis for whatever exists of a community ban here. That Moulton is a WMF critic is actually a red herring. Criticism of the WMF is allowed, and there are strong critics who are not blocked. I'm an example, actually. But when criticism extends into disruption, requiring that scarce administrative resources be allocated to handle it, blocking becomes a necessity.

I support unblocking Moulton and Caprice, immediately upon a documented promise by Moulton of an agreement to not "out" editors. That promise is merely agreeing to respect a restriction which is already effectively binding on all of us; that is, if we violate it, and continue in this after warning, we can expect to be blocked. Moulton has not requested to be unblocked, this is something that JWS generally ignores in his demands for undoing the injustices of the past. It is entirely possible that Moulton prefers to be an outside actor, not part of the faculty here, leaving him with nothing to lose if he stands up in the middle of some class with a clown outfit on and hectors the professor for being a stuffed shirt or whatever. Nothing to lose, that is, except that he will be escorted from the campus by the police and, at least temporarily, barred from entry. It's his choice. If he wants to establish a course in Action Research, having first established and gained acceptance from the community for ethical guidelines to govern such a course, it could be a great thing, and the course can be in our "catalog." But if he prefers what I heard called "Unschool" at the AERO Conference I just attended, that's his choice, as well, and we need to establish our own guidelines, making them clear and finding consensus or at least clear majority agreement regarding them, as to how to respond to "disruptive users."

I have proposed a way that we can handle positive contributions from such users. This way has been opposed by some; it is opposed by those who think "a ban is a ban is a ban," and it has been opposed, interestingly, by some of the disruptive users, because it involves some level of cooperation between the banned and the banners, and some disruptive users really do see the world in black and white terms, and anyone banning them must be on the dark side.

Summary: I support unblocking Moulton and Caprice immediately upon Moulton's agreement to not reveal, on-wiki, private information about users, as is required by WMF policy, and to refrain from linking to specific off-wiki pages that reveal private information. This is Ottava's expressed position, and I see it as satisfying most of the objections to Moulton's participation. I can understand that some may claim Moulton will break the promise, but, while I think that unlikely, it is trivial to block immediately for a clear violation or to warn for something marginal. I prefer to trust that he -- and any user -- will keep faith with voluntary promises. --Abd 16:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think all of this overlooks that Moulton himself does not wish to be unbloked. Why are we trying to go against his wishes? Thenub314 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not overlooked, I specifically mention that fact above (in collapse). "We" are not coherently united on this. I agree that Moulton should not be unblocked unless new facts appear, such as an agreement; however, he clearly does wish to make contributions, because he does so regularly as IP; thus leaving us with an immediate issue: what do we do about the contributions? Essentially, what I and Ottava have proposed is that Moulton be clearly offered conditions for unblock. If he "wants" to be unblocked, he can agree to the conditions, or he can reject them and hold out for something "better," which might simply be the status quo, i.e., no conditions and, more or less, open "warfare." If he is unblocked, his contributions, presumably, can no longer be deleted just because they are his contributions. JWS disagrees with the principle that contributions of blocked editors can be reverted without further ado, mistaking this for censorship. It's censorship if the revisions are hidden, and possibly if pages are protected. As an example of what was going on, see the following sequence, mostly on this page:


 * 20:17, 16 July 2010 Darklama unblocks Moulton account. User:Moulton contributions remain impossible because of global lock.
 * 00:34, 21 July 2010 I unblocked Caprice for technical reasons and as a trial, hoping that Moulton might show self-restraint, at least with User:Caprice contributions.
 * 02:09, 21 July 2010, 02:54, 21 July 2010, 03:51, 21 July 2010, 04:36, 21 July 2010, 04:40, 21 July 2010 series of IP comments by Moulton, signed as him. At this point Moulton was not blocked, so these were disclosed IP edits by an unblocked editor, which are normally allowed. And they were all reverted by Adambro using rollback.
 * 10:38, 21 July 2010 Moulton makes positive contribution (my judgment) as IP.
 * 13:53, 21 July 2010 Adambro reverts using rollback, normally reserved for vandalism. But all contributions of blocked users may be treated as if they were vandalism.
 * 13:53, 21 July 2010 Caprice restores edit. This was the only contribution of Caprice after I unblocked and before reblock, and it was a positive one. I fully agree with the point he made, and it is, indeed, one of the central issues we must face.
 * 13:55, 21 July 2010 Adambro again uses rollback, this time using rollback to revert the positive contribution of an unblocked editor, Caprice.
 * 13:56, 21 July 2010 Adambro blocks Caprice, block prohibited Talk page access as well.
 * 14:23, 21 July 2010 JWSchmidt restores Caprice contribution. This was completely proper, and the text stands. This shows how routine deletion of a blocked editor's contributions, or those of any editor, in fact, is not censorship, it is merely requiring a "second" from someone else.
 * 15:50, 21 July 2010 Ottava protects page from IP editing, To prevent short term socking. This would prevent Moulton from continuing comment in situ, it is, in fact, closer to censorship than Adambro's reversions. Note that there was no socking yet, after the Caprice comment, and the IP editing wasn't abusive socking, either.
 * 15:08, 21 July 2010 Ottava blocks Moulton.


 * What we can see here is the following:
 * Unblocked Moulton IP made "controversial" contributions, with some level of incivility that probably should be prohibited, my view, but, as Moulton makes clear in the last edit (restored as Caprice), civility and other standards should not be preferentially imposed. These contributions were mild compared to other routinely tolerated incivility, and the line between incivility and strong criticism can be difficult to discern. Many of these contributions contained or were positive argument.
 * All these contributions were reverted by Adambro using rollback, treating the contributions of an unblocked editor as if it were vandalism.
 * The page, being used to criticize Ottava, in part, was protected by Ottava to prevent such editing as IP, and Ottava blocked Moulton as well.
 * There is flagrant disregard of recusal policy, which can be predicted to lead to continued and tenacious conflict. No emergency existed, there was no "outing" going on, which is the kind of "attack" that had led to blocking in the past.
 * If the community cannot police its own custodians, I'd say Wikiversity is lost. We have some immature, hotheaded custodians, and we are not providing them with guidance and, indeed, guidance is being actively rejected. JWS is imbalanced, which is unfortunate, but he's basically correct in many ways, as is Moulton. How can we channel criticism and complaint into positive results, avoiding unnecessary disruption? That's the crisis and problem we face. --Abd 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd feels free to say, "JWS is imbalanced," and I'm the one that needs to be blocked? --JWSchmidt 00:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird. I propose that Moulton should be unblocked (JWS's position), and then he nitpicks the wording of my comment, or alleged incivility, diverting attention from the issue (Moulton and custodial response), a sign of personal involvement. I apologize for any incivility in that comment, please allow me to restate: "JWS's activity on Wikiversity has been imbalanced." The very comment above is an example. Whether or not JWS is personally and psychologically imbalanced is irrelevant here, it is the actions that we deal with, and we slide down a slippery slope when we attempt to divine personal psychological states, as Moulton has often pointed out. Note that this divination of personal states ("intentions"), based on uncited off-wiki behavior, is the only justification I've seen for the current block of User:Ethical Accountability and IP for this user, see User_talk:Ethical_Accountability. --Abd 18:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When JWS sees hypocrisy, he goes after it regardless if it is an ally or foe. Perhaps you should learn to stop throwing stones and being nasty while previously trying to claim that others were being "incivil". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, the topic here is? ... unblock of Moulton. So it becomes JWS and me and, indeed, if I take the bait, Ottava. Nope. But I'm striking the comment about unbalanced, it was not intended to cause offense, and was not central at all. Better? --Abd 02:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New block of Beetlebaum, talk page access denied, talk page full-protected.
Block log
 * Note that Adambro had previously blocked Beetlebaum, Beetlebaum was unblocked by Diego Grez. The reblock by Adambro is therefore wheel-warring. The block shift by Geoff Plourde has an accidentally misleading summary; it was done because the block of Beetlebaum had included an autoblock of IP, which then prevented User:JWSchmidt from editing. Geoff removed the IP autoblock. This was not a confirmation of Adambro's action.

Beetlebaum is an acknowledged sock of JWSchmidt. User are allowed to have acknowledged socks, for sure, and even unacknowledged ones if they are not used abusively. Abuse of an acknowledged sock is clearly abuse by the known user, and it is contrary to policy to prevent a user from editing non-disruptively using a sock, and if the sock edits are disruptive and block-worthy, so too would be the primary account. If a custodian is barred by recusal policy from blocking the primary user, the custodian would be barred by the same policy and for the same reasons from blocking the sock. Adambro is clearly involved with JWS and certainly should not be touching his accounts with tools.

Beetlebaum contributions show that there had been no edits by the sock for 11 days or so. Thus the block was not a response to an emergency, which might justify recusal failure or even wheel-warring. I have requested that Adambro unblock, and I was waiting to give him time to respond.

But Ottava Rima has now removed an unblock template, put up by IP because the Beetlebaum account has been full-blocked, Talk page access not allowed, preventing JWS from using that account to place a template. Then Ottava full-protected the Talk page to prevent anyone from editing that page. This is way excessive, and, seen together with the out-of-process deletion of Dramaturgy, see page history, must be seen as harassment in effect if not in intention. (See Requests for Deletion for current discussion of the deletion.)

It has been argued that JWS is a disruptive editor and should be blocked, see Community Review/JWSchmidt 2010. There is no consensus for block there. If JWS is to be blocked, it should be by a neutral custodian, and certainly not Adambro or Ottava, who are up to their eyeballs involved. A neutral custodian, if deciding on block, could set specific conditions for unblock, or could simply warn of block if set conditions (perhaps even negotiated conditions) were violated. It is possible to resolve the disruption that has been maintained here for two years, but it will take decisive, clear-headed, neutral action to restore this place to sanity on all sides. Please review this situation. I request unblock of Beetlebaum and unprotection of User talk:Beetlebaum, plus review of the deletion discussion, there are grounds for speedy action there. There was no current disruption taking place there or elsewhere using this account. --Abd 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS already has one account and one talk page that are both usable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. So? Alternate accounts are allowed. I'm asking for an independent review of this from an uninvolved custodian. You are involved, Ottava, very involved. --Abd 03:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The ability to edit is a privilege, not a right. JWS has a history of creating abusive alternative accounts. He was desysopped with that being one of the reasons. His main account was not blocked so there is no recourse that could be demanded. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a privilege, and there is a process for denying that privilege, and you are not following it. And that is a crucial concern. There was no emergency. The account had not been editing at all. The account had been considered on this page before, with no indication that it should be blocked, and no warning. Ottava, you, and to some extent Adambro, are on a rampage, and it must stop. You are continually provoking JWS, without necessity. That's disruptive, so a Community Review has indeed become necessary. In the meantime, I request neutral custodian review of this set of actions. This is due process, minimally disruptive. Thanks. --Abd 03:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Apparently Beetlebaum had edited the deleted page, not visible to me, so I struck the error. --Abd 13:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No blocking policy = no process. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Ottava is denying that requesting that an admin reverse his action, and then seeking neutral review, doesn't exist, that it is not "due process"? Perhaps he'd prefer that I fill random pages with lengthy and incoherent complaints? Ottava is arguing against recusal policy. That, all by itself, should be grounds for suspension of sysop privileges, it means that we are not safe from his arbitrary actions, unless he clarifies this in some way that will reassure us to the contrary. --Abd 13:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, I'm noticing several things here. One, there is no blocking policy, so we're pretty much stuck dealing with "common law". Can you link me to a policy requiring recusal? Also, JWSchmidt is fully able to edit from his main account, so why can't he request that the account be unblocked? Is it really necessary for you to intervene here? Geoff Plourde 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Common law, which is aligned with common sense, is rooted in actual practice in deliberated situations. Recusal policy is explicit on Wikipedia, but with a weak description, and most abusive admin actions there are really recusal failure, I argued there that the policy should be made more explicit, but enough of the admins scream about such attempts that it's impossible, so far. (So consequences from recusal failure are limited to situations where someone has actually dragged an admin before ArbComm, which is relatively rare and very difficult and disruptive. It has almost always involved a case where one admin blocked another, or blocked a very popular editor.) Yesterday I proposed to add explicit description of recusal failure and wheel-warring to WV:Custodianship, see . As to the necessity of my intervention, I am seeing a pattern of incivility, harassment, and recusal failure. It is not just one incident. I requested that Adambro reverse his action before coming here. Unfortunately, he seems to have been off-line, and may not have had the opportunity to review that request. Procedurally, it would be cleaner if JWS requests unblock from the Beetlebaum account, so that identity isn't even questioned. Is he supposed to place an unblock template on User talk:JWSchmidt? --Abd 13:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Yes, it is. Common law" - Common law does not exist here. Due process does not exist here. None of the things you keep going on about exist here. This is not your imaginary world or a place of your creation. You making pronouncements does not mean that things suddenly exist. You accuse others of Wikilawyering when you don't get your way then you go on and on about what is and what should be without even having a real background and connection to this place. You need to stop. At the very least, it is utterly arrogant. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I am neutral, but I am a custodian - loathed to get involved in this saga. I agree with Adb, that this particular action is linked with numerous other actions, and should be considered in the wider context. I've stated elswhere that I disagree with deletion and blocking generally, especially blocking JWS or his alternative account, set up for reasons relating to the context (as far as I can tell).. I hope that we'll undertake something like Privatemusing's suggested on Adambro's talk page recently - a total cease fire, with all involved agreeing to leave each other alone, withdraw from policy development, drop tools, and work constructively on separate projects for a time. Of course, it won't be as simple as that, because the things that cause you all to intersect and fight will be the same things that arise again. At which point I think you should all disband tools permanently, leaving disputes where they lay, and allow the a new user community to grow in your place, and hopefully for you to develop trust for one another again. The way it is now, you all are simply eroding what little trust there is left for your work, motives and identities - and Wikiversity on the whole. Of course you should all continue contributions, just without the ability to delete or block, and hopefully voluntarily withdrawing policy and procedure, and focusing on more constructive work. Leighblackall 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Leigh. I don't know whether it is from prior disruption here, or from normal attrition, but we have too few sysops and too many users "reluctant to get involved." I fully understand why, but if nobody addresses the situation, it will simply get worse. We need users who will take the time to soberly assess what is going on, reflecting on solutions that will resolve problems and not just ignoring them or attempting to sweep them under the carpet. A squeaky wheel points to a lack of lubrication maintenance in general, but the most shallow solution is to put in ear plugs; better is to grease the wheel, and much better is to address the systemic problems. That's my major interest, off-wiki and on other wikis. I do have personal projects to work on here, but I'm not going there at this time, because I consider administrative recusal failure to be crucial, this is not a safe place until that problem is addressed. I was poised to invite major academic involvement, until I realized what was still going on. I would not put my reputation on the line by subjecting academics to the present situation. --Abd 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS's main account isn't blocked, so JWS isn't blocked. His alternative account is disabled. By the way, JWS has been asked to work on regular projects for a while now and has refused. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity users are not slaves. When users have been harmed by abusive sysop actions that are allowed to stand, it causes reluctance to work on "regular projects." Ottava's comment is typical of what I saw on Wikipedia from abusive sysops, when someone questions their actions. Recusal policy does not entirely interdict the problem, but it can make a huge dent in it. The problem still remains when more than one sysop becomes allied with another, so they can avoid the instant appearance of recusal failure. Here, recently, though, I'm seeing that even simple, single-custodian recusal failure is becoming routine for one or two sysops. Others scrupulously refrain from it. If this is not confronted, Wikiversity's growth will continue to be inhibited. It is not complaints about sysop actions that are causing inhibition, it is a loss of a sense of safety. --Abd 13:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A block of an alternate account without blocking the main is not "harmful" so your hyperbole is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is harmful for a custodian to assert the custodian's personal opinion, repeatedly, using tools, against the opinion of an ordinary editor. It is an assertion of personal power, and where this is not clearly rooted in community consensus, it is highly offensive and damaging. It will drive less-determined people away. The action is, in effect, saying to the user, "I'm in charge here, not you." This is the very opposite of the proper concept of a custodian, who is a servant, and who, we often hear, has no superior rights over other users except ad-hoc, under narrow circumstances. Ottava not grasped the perspective needed if this wiki is to grow beyond the personal playground of his "family," see User_talk:Abd. --Abd 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "acknowledged sock" <-- I'd prefer the term "alternate account". "no edits by the sock for 11 days" I made a harmless edit with the "Beetlebaum" account to the Dramaturgy page today. "the block was not a response to an emergency" <-- True. "I request unblock of Beetlebaum and unprotection of User talk:Beetlebaum, plus review of the deletion discussion" <-- I request that my harmless alternate account be unblocked. I request that a Custodian respond to the unblock request that was deleted. "Ottava Rima protected "User talk:Beetlebaum" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) (inappropriate secondary account for disruption - not needed talk page)" The claim by Ottava Rima, "inappropriate secondary account for disruption", is incorrect, there was no disruption, and I request that the page be unprotected. I also request undeletion of Dramaturgy and Music and learning. "JWS has a history of creating abusive alternative accounts. He was desysopped with that being one of the reasons." <-- I have no history of abuse of any kind. The decision to desysop me was made in secret, off-wiki, and 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? "there is no blocking policy" <-- How the block tool can be used is described explicitly in Wikiversity policy: "A Wikiversity custodian is an experienced and trusted user who can protect, delete and restore pages as well as block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community consensus." There are four policies that explain how the block tool can be used. This latest block is a violation of Wikiversity policy which requires that blocks be made by consensus. "JWS has been asked to work on regular projects for a while now and has refused" <-- Ottava Rima, link to an edit where I have refused to work on regular projects. I was working on Dramaturgy today when the page was declared "beyond scope" and I was blocked from editing. "you should all disband tools permanently" <-- I agree that anyone who has misused custodial tools or misused IRC channel operator tools should have access to those tools remove. --JWSchmidt 06:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for clarifying that you did edit Dramaturgy. Without custodian tools, I can't see that edit. Perhaps it was abusive, perhaps not, I can obviously have no opinion on that. Deletion in this case hides the basis for custodial action, it's practically guaranteed to cause disruption. If the edit was abusive, it could have been reverted, and a warning would then have given the diff. Instead Adambro made a threat to block, with no diff, and only a vague description of the allegedly offensive behavior, also quite improper given his involvement. This sucks. --Abd 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JWS, it is odd that you go on and on about IRC abuse when you were desysopped and removed from IRC ops for your own abuse there. By the way, constantly adding positive modifiers to your actions and adding negative modifiers to other people's actions does not help your cause but hurts it. You seem unable to discuss things without subject characterizations, which isn't good at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "it is odd that you go on and on about IRC abuse" <-- Ottava Rima, I have no history of abuse of any kind. The charges you pointed to are a joke, particularly: "activating his channel operator status to intimidate his opponents and give newcomers an enhanced view of his importance". That is complete fabrication. As I recall there was one day when someone asked if anyone in the channel had ops. I activated my ops to show that I had ops. The decision to desysop me was made in secret, off-wiki, and 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? --JWSchmidt 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have no history of abuse of any kind." The review that lead to your desysopping shows otherwise. You can disagree. But you wont be persuading me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It says a lot about Wikimedia that it attracts "leaders" who set up show trials where the accused is not allowed to participate and then, even years later, such show trials are pointed to and used to condemn people and further extend injustice. According to Wikiversity policy, that show trial could not have been the basis for desysopping me. The decision to desysop me was made in secret, off-wiki, and 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? --JWSchmidt 23:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is evident that, by your post, that you were not actually kept from being able to edit. As such, you don't really have much to go by in this all. The rest is off topic stuff, which doesn't make sense to add if you really cared about your alternate account. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

God, this place is a battleground, isn't it! unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195, 17:44, 9 August 2010


 * Lucky guess? "Battleground" is practically inevitable when sysops do not understand and properly apply recusal policy, but come to insist on their personal views and enforce them with tools. That they are allowed (and need) to do this ad-hoc is mistaken for a permission to continue when they have clearly become involved; recusal policy, to avoid inflaming disputes, requires recusal when there is an appearance of bias or prejudice; it then allows emergency action even when such an appearance exists, but only if the action is immediately referred to the community, and I'd certainly advise custodians to avoid tenacious argument, it creates, again, an appearance of bias. --Abd 18:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can come to insist their personal views are the only way and cause disputes to become inflamed. I've seen that happen where there are no system operators. A more complete solution needs to take more than system operator resucal into account to prevent an environment or discussion from becoming a "battleground". Resucal should only be part of any picture. -- dark lama  18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, there is no recusal policy and this is not Wikipedia. We do not utilize Wikipedian precedent and policy, because we have substantially different needs and a substantially different demographic. Geoff Plourde 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doggonit, I've really been trying to stay out of this mess you folks have gotten yourselves into. Geoff, recusal is actually just a common sense thing, not something invented on Wikipedia. And yes, it's almost impossible to follow on WV, because the community has become so small that everyone is involved to one degree or another.
 * You people need to stop using the friggin tools for a while, step back a little, and think. --SB_Johnny talk 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SBJ. Involvement can be a matter of degree, i.e, substantial or not substantial, and in the matters involved, JWS seems to claim that every custodian is involved, but there are a couple where even he might have difficulty. Yes. It's a common sense thing, which is pretty close in meaning to "common law." When one custodian repetitively is blocking or sanctioning or deleting or protecting, with respect to one user, something has gone awry, and the custodian, to be in this position, should be backed by clear, ongoing consensus, not merely some kind of failure to find consensus, if this is going to be the situation. Recusal policy, as proposed, would require spreading these decisions out. Rare would it be that a dispute would eat through seven active custodians before there is some clear community consensus! Where a custodial action is clearly supported by policy, no question, recusal requirements aren't created. I blocked Moulton IP, but that was simply assisting with block enforcement. Moulton was blocked at that time! And the last action I took with respect to Moulton was to unblock his declared sock, Caprice, the Moulton account itself was already unblocked. So for consideration of blocking him, if necessary, I wouldn't be considered "involved," and if someone wanted to challenge my "involvement," it would probably be in the other direction (i.e., "biased toward Moulton," though, in fact, I'm firmly in the community welfare camp.) When Caprice was again blocked by Adambro, but without immediate cause, I did not re-unblock, because that would have been wheel-warring. Wheel-warring and recusal are similar requirements. We have been seeing some wheel-warring recently. This filing, in fact, was an example. Adambro blocked Beetlebaum. Diego Grez unblocked. Adambro again blocked, without discussion. We need to put in place the policy so that this stops happening. The proposed policy is easy to interpret and enforce, the only "vague" thing is "emergency," and if a sysop is calling everything an "emergency," Houston, we have a problem. In this case, here, there was no emergency and there was no claim of emergency. --Abd 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe everyone can take a week or so off to read Art of Community. -- dark lama  19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, may take that advice. JWSchmit, if you read this, forgive me for not answering your questions at your community review, but if I did it wouldn't be taking time off. :). Thenub314 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama is such a spammer. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad you recommended the book, Darklama. link to page that links to pdf. It's a bit shallow or narrow, but at least it addresses the topic, it's a starting place. The experience in that book is from communities that share certain common values that aren't necessarily shared here, though, I'd argue, they should be. A good deal of attention is paid to "governance," with various models proposed. He points out that a community of ten probably doesn't need "governance." That's correct. He points out that governance is a huge topic. That's also correct. At 100 contributors, he thinks that governance becomes more necessary, and at 1000, along with governance, he suggests muscle relaxants.... In my experience, with some organizations, a serious need for governance kicks in well below 100, unless people want to spend all their time discussing what to do, or surrender control to a smaller group (one of the solutions).


 * Ad hoc consensus process can work for, say, thirty people, but look at this same group five or ten years later and they are burning out, tired of "endless meetings" and the work of finding consensus, especially where the status quo benefits some minority, and where prior consensus has been considered to continue until changed by consensus.


 * In fact, the size where the need for governance kicks in depends also on the nature of the community and the level of desire for unity, as well as other factors. As a sign of the need for governance, he points to "increasing conflict," involving "multiple people." He points to many of the issues I've studied for years. One important aspect of successful governance is that the governed feel heard, feel that their opinions and views are important, and whether or not these opinions are followed, they understand that they were fairly considered. It should be said that what is governed, here, would not be the users, but rather the wiki. Governance can lead or inspire or advise, but, here, it cannot command, not alone. The WMF can command, legally, and it can buy the performance of those commands if it can afford the labor. What governance mostly would cover here is the development of "recognized recommendations" regarding actions, such as deletion of files, sanctions regulating user behavior, assignments of privileges, and the hosts of decisions about policies and guidelines so that the site has an appropriate degree of uniformity (what degree? That's part of it.)


 * The author of the book is aware that there are many solutions to the problem of governance. Wikiversity has only applied the lowest level of this, solutions that might be appropriate for a very small community. He points out that "an essential function of governance is the ability to bring peace to your community." That's the classic reason for government in general! While it is possible for a governing body or method to imagine that it is bringing peace by excluding "disruptive members," this must, instead, be understood as a failure. Sometimes we will fail, to be sure, but chopping up the community, which is what exclusion amounts to, in order to have something left that is "peaceful," is a very temporary and unsatisfactory solution, weakening the community, which is why I've been trying to explore ways to heal the rifts that tore this community apart. Some here oppose those efforts because they imagine that those excluded were the problem. No, they were part of the problem, the other part is here, and part of the other part is in charge here, that is, has privileged tools. Nobody should take this personally, in fact. This is totally generic, it's what happens with wikis that do not develop functional governance that is widely accepted, that does not continually represent true consensus. The solution is not to exclude the "problem participants," neither those that have been excluded, nor those that remain. The solution is structural, combined with an ethos (neither one is likely to be effective alone when the scale has become relatively large). --Abd 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of this report and comments
This is a report of an allegedly abusive block, apparently wheel-warring, of an acknowledged alternate account, Beetlebaum without a block of the primary account, JWSchmidt, and requesting unblock from a neutral custodian (or any custodian following consensus, if no neutral custodian can be found). While the block included autoblock and thus apparently blocked JWS temporarily from editing, that was corrected by Geoff Plourde. The issue here would be a use of admin tools to harass an editor and prevent the editor from doing what the editor could otherwise, within policy, do. It was claimed that the account Beetlebaum was being used for disruption, but no evidence of that was provided, and if it were true, then appropriate warning, and block if necessary, would be applied to the primary account, JWSchmidt, not just to the alternate account. There is an open poll on blocking JWS, at, and there is no consensus there for blocking. Here, on the request to unblock, there have been comments from 8 editors. They can be classified as follows:

Classification of comments

 * Unblock
 * Abd (filer)
 * User:JWSchmidt (owner of blocked account)
 * Leighblackall (implied)
 * SB_Johnny (implied)


 * Block
 * Ottava Rima
 * Adambro


 * Procedural question
 * Darklama
 * Geoff Plourd

Any user is welcome to move the classification of their comment, though I would appreciate explanation if this is done. --Abd 15:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Review and significance
Wiki process is designed to be "quick," the meaning of wiki. When conflicts arise, it is important to resolve them, through a formal or informal dispute resolution hierarchy. The basic wiki process involves at least three stages, and it functions well if the participants exercise due caution, seeking resolution of conflict through consensus and not simply victory for one position or other. Ultimately, however, some conflicts are not ripe for a true consensus to form. In that situation, the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" applies. This is behind "majority rule" as a principle. Communities damage themselves if they rely upon majority rule and fail to seek deeper consensus, this is a point covered in the book that was reviewed above. With this in mind, common-law wiki process (and guidelines on Wikipedia) provide for stages in dispute resolution. On a small wiki, some of these stages might be skipped, though skipping stages can also be disruptive.
 * 1) Discussion between those involved.
 * 2) Involvement of a third party attempting to mediate.
 * 3) The parties seek broader mediation.
 * 4) Request for comment from the community at a low level.
 * 5) Administrative decision (single administrator)
 * 6) Review of decision by another administrator, typically on request. (WV, this page is an example)
 * 7) High-level review by the community. Decision by another administrator. (WV, Community Review)
 * 8) Formal arbitration with a traditionally binding result. Majority vote among those qualified to vote. (ArbComm on Wikipedia).
 * 9) Appeal to the site owner. (Here, the WikiMedia Foundation.) (Rarely successful).

In this case, the dispute is over a single administrative action, and there had been much prior discussion, and there was already a review by an independent administrator (Diego Grez), who unblocked. Instead of filing this request, I could have gone, under the circumstances, to a high-level review, which is, here, a Community Review, a process that can, by policy, find for removal of sysop tools. However, it is my belief that if a custodian closes this with an unblock, this particular matter would end here, and the goal of minimal disruption should always be kept in mind with dispute resolution process. We do not start with a Community Review because we don't like someone's action. (Though one of us seems to do that! -- it's disruptive, and I've pointed that out.) Likewise, we do not properly appeal to the WikiMedia Foundation until and unless we have exhausted local process. It's rude and wastes their time.

If Adambro and Ottava, the only custodians supporting the block, accept an unblock close and action here, or do it themselves, this is done. Only if they contend with it, either by again using tools (I strongly suggest otherwise!) or by going to Custodian feedback (to complain about a custodian action) or to Community Review, would disruption on this point continue. As Leighblackall has noted, there are larger issues involved than a single, possibly point-making, alternate account.

If there is no close here, this, I predict, will go to a focused Community Review, with broader solicitation of input. That is "disruptive," but a necessary disruption.

It is important to get quick decisions at this level. I had hoped that a neutral custodian, and there are some, would have simply responded to this request, within a day or two, with a Yes or a No, i.e., unblock or a decline to unblock. Instead, this is allowed to fester, as more dramas arise. Some here, including some custodians, apparently wish that the conflicts would just go away, so we could all return to collaborating without distraction on this wonderful project. They won't just go away, that has not happened for two years. Resolving conflicts that are like those that have come up takes work and it takes time. It does not need to take everyone's time, all the time, but neither will it happen spontaneously. There are those who are willing to work on the problems, seeking consensus, and those who are not. I urge those who would rather avoid this to nevertheless support those who do seek resolution, or else disruption will grow. We protect the project by creating functional dispute resolution process.

Wikipedia made the mistake of allowing debate on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. That turned what should have been 911 for administrative help, into a monster that trashes anyone's watchlist who keeps it on. Imagine calling an emergency report line because of, say, a domestic dispute that is turning violent, and having to debate the issue with whoever shows up on a conference call. Instead, a real 911 will immediately dispatch an officer (neutral administrator in this case) who will investigate and act as necessary for the immediate public welfare and safety. That decision is ad hoc, per discretion and law, and not ultimately binding if it is disputed. It's just a quick protective response. We need to understand this.

Please be careful, but, please, any reasonably neutral custodian, close this. --Abd 15:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. If you devoted your time to developing learning resources instead of stirring things up I'm sure you could produce some great stuff. Seriously though, you want to waste more time with Beetlebaum? Unbelievable. A pointless account which has only made pointless contributions. It is a shame you seem so obsessed with unnecessary drama. Move on. Adambro 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A month ago, I was writing that Wikiversity, in spite of prior disruption, was highly collegial and collaborative, but there was this little problem with JWS, the institutional complainer, who was clearly suffering from stuff that had happened long ago. But then I started finding that the stuff was still going on. It wasn't so visible because the abusers had simply driven everyone bold enough to question them away, except for JWS, who was ineffective because he was complaining about two years of abuse, all at once, and over and over, without focus. There were three active custodians, two of them were clearly ready to abuse common-law recusal policy (which is common sense). That's a Bad Situation, and if not fixed, Wikiversity was dead. Looking back, participation here has drastically declined, and that happened before I became involved. A community which cannot address disputes and resolve them, by efficiently finding true consensus, is, long-term, doomed, I've seen it countless times over the forty years I've been observing this stuff (I'm 66, and have been involved with voluntary organizations, including many communities operating on consensus, and others using rule-based systems, since my mid-twenties).

I'm raising issues, one at a time, normally, following prescribed process. The community is -- slowly -- responding, and my positions are being confirmed, one by one. And the two custodians don't seem to have noticed that, and they treat my comments and contributions as somehow disruptive. Sure. Disruptive to their illegitimate control of Wikiversity. But only to that extent. Look at what they allow, and at what they try to stop! They allowed a massive explosion of complaints at Community Reviews created by JWS, specifically allowed by the unblock of JWS by Ottava, supposedly under some kind of agreement that was never enforced, and the reason is obvious: those reviews will lead nowhere, they are purely disruptive, because not preceded by necessary lower-level process. They are undisciplined, unfocused, and generally don't seek consensus, but only argument and more disagreement and complaint, and when questions are answered, the response is even more questions, without any agreement being made explicit. That's radically dysfunctional. I'm not really blaming JWS, I'm blaming the whole community for not responding to his real complaints, and for not acting to facilitate a genuine consensus. It's work, but it is truly necessary work. It only takes one good facilitator to transform a community. I have some experience, but I'm hardly the best person who could be found.

This filing is a simple one, in fact, and will be closed by a single custodian, I assume, making a decision. It doesn't really matter (to me) what that decision is! But standard wiki process suggests that the first review of a problem custodial action is review by an independent custodian. That should be quick! And only if there is wheel-warring, or if someone is seriously dissatisfied with the final result would it be necessary to have a broader discussion. There was wheel-warring involved here, but with a probationary custodian (Diego Grez), so I started this at a lower level than Custodian feedback, simply to get the view and decision of a more experienced custodian.

The arguments presented by Ottava below claim that Wikiversity is not "quick." He's right, in a way. And that is very much part of the problem. Dispute resolution process, in the early stages, must be quick, or else it becomes way too cumbersome to ever maintain a dispute against abuse or possible abuse or just simple disagreements. Abusive administrators learn to subvert dispute resolution process through endless argument, they just don't give up. But recusal policy can ameliorate this by providing for independent review of actions. It seems to me that there are only two custodians here with substantial recusal problems. Note that recusal or "reluctance to get involved" will lead other custodians, often, to refrain from acting with a long-term dispute, sometimes leaving the appearance, or the reality, that abusive custodians are firmly in control. And that leads people to leave. And that may be just what an abusive custodian wants, at least, if people who disagree with the custodian leave. --Abd 00:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Wikiversity is not "quick". If anything takes less than a few weeks to even get a handful of responses, something is very wrong and disasters can happen. The only time anything problematic has happened is when discussions are rushed to a close. JWS is not affected in his ability to edit right now so there is no legitimate need for a rush. The sheer amount of text you put up undermines any argument or attempt to claim your statements are legitimate. Please limit yourself to less than 100 words per post in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a normal request for custodian action, requiring only a single custodian look and act.
 * Can we imagine a security guard at a University demanding that someone making a speech at a community meeting limit themselves to 100 words? To describe and discuss a topic takes what it takes. If the community wants to set rules on length of posts, that's fine with me, though it can be severely limiting. I write what I write to express what I consider is important. It could be edited down, but it would take three times as long, not less time as some imagine. I already spend too much time writing. Anyone who wants to may put what I write into collapse, if they actually believe it is too long, and I've not likely to protest, as long as it's done in a neutral way (and I'll fix it if it is not). This is the kind of argument that has been used to dumb down Wikipedia.


 * Again, if someone thinks that my arguments are cogent, but I write too much, they are most welcome to boil it down: put the original in collapse or even delete it with a reference to history and place one's own signed contribution there as a summary, and I'll either accept it or not. In reality, these objections come mostly from those who are actually upset with the content, not the length, and the proof is that they are even more upset when I'm brief.


 * There is no "rush" being demanded, only that an independent custodian review this and close, which should be routine. Because this is not a final process, there is no serious harm if the "wrong decision" is made here. This was a Request for Custodian Action, not a Community Review, and I've been pointing out the difference. --Abd 23:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Adambro says, "A pointless account which has only made pointless contributions." <-- The purpose of the account is stated at User:Beetlebaum. Adambro, is it your contention that Music and learning, Metacognition and Dramaturgy are pointless? "JWS is not affected in his ability to edit" <-- Ottava Rima, I prefer to use the Beetlebaum account for work on some topics. That is my personal preference and should be of no concern to any sysop. I asked the sysop who imposed the existing block on User:Beetlebaum to remove the policy-violating block, he has not done so. Ottava Rima removed the unblock request and protected the page from editing. I'd like a Custodian to explain why Wikiversity continues to be disrupted by policy-violating sysops. --JWSchmidt 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the blocked user can request an unblock. That requires logging in. I don't recognize the legitimacy of IP claims when we do not have a Check User on staff here to verify any such statements nor should it be acceptable regardless. My statement was "if you want to make an edit, log into your real account instead of hiding as an IP". You did not do so if that was you, but I do not have proof it was you so it wont matter. As JWS was not blocked, you could have used it to request an unblock, which you did not do. Your main account was not blocked so there is no real lack of ability to edit. The fault was only your own. If you want to play games and violate standards, then that is your problem to deal with. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, as you know, Adambro violated Wikiversity policy and imposed a bad block on the Beetlebaum account. Adambro prevented Beetlebaum from editing the talk page and requesting unblock. Ottava Rima, you removed a valid unblock request from the user talk page and you violated Wikiversity policy by protecting the page from editing. "play games and violate standards" <-- Adambro and Ottava Rima are violating policy and vastly disrupting Wikiversity, in this case, disrupting development of the Music and learning, Metacognition and Dramaturgy learning projects. --JWSchmidt 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The phrase containing the word "blarney' struck per objection from Geoff Plourde on my Talk page, even though "blarney" was, I thought, a synonym. Objecting to allegedly abusive custodial actions is not a "personal attack," but I assumed that it was the word "blarney" that put Geoff off his feed. My apologies. The original header can be read in a removal diff by Ottava.--Abd 00:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can see, in this, Ottava's all-too-common wikilawyering that avoids the substance. As soon as it was known that JWS had actually made the request, as confirmed by comments of the logged-in account, the request should have been restored if not acted upon, but Ottava full-protected the Talk page, making what Ottava has demanded impossible. Why?


 * We know here that JWS is Beetlebaum, and that was previously confirmed by checkuser anyway, as Adambro obviously knew, and certainly Ottava knows. Ottava writes, "I do not have proof it was you." The history of the account and the massive discussion of it here, previous to this comment, makes avoidance of considering that request as being from JWS preposterous, an excuse, a rationalization, not a reason. Did Ottava have a straight face when he made this comment? I don't know. I have no proof, in fact, that Ottava even made the comment above, since, perhaps, his password was compromised or he left his computer logged in and someone else has been editing. And isn't that a preposterous suggestion, unless he's claimed it? --Abd 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JWS's main account was not blocked. He knows how to contact me. You know that. Strike your disruptive comments now. It is bad enough that we have to put up with lines and lines of nonsense and inappropriate accusations from you without any contribution to the educational part of this community, it is even worse when you claim about wikilawyering when you are probably the worse wikilawyer I've ever seen. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about collapse boxes moved to Talk. --Abd 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Abd, above, somewhere, probably hidden in one of your collapse boxes you said "JWS is Beetlebaum, and that was previously confirmed by checkuser anyway, as Adambro obviously knew". I'd like to hear how you can be so sure that I obviously knew JWS was Beetlebaum. I've previously stated, as I did in my checkuser request, that I thought it was Moulton. When I saw the daft songs that Beetlebaum was writing I assumed it was Moulton as he seems to be fan of writing nonsense. Are you suggesting I lied about thinking it was Moulton? Do you have any evidence to support that or are you just struggling to assume good faith? Adambro 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was perfectly reasonable for Adam to have suspected that it was Moulton, IMO. I would have guessed better, but only because I know the parties involved better :-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it was reasonable. But that's irrelevant here. He was quickly informed by checkuser that JWSchmidt = Beetlebaum, and then reported this here, and JWS acknowledged the alternate account. That is why I stated that "Adambro obviously knew." I was referring to his knowledge when he later blocked. That he converts an obviously true statement, when understood with an assumption of good faith, into a suggestion that he was lying is a symptom of how the situation has broken down. I'll find the original statement in a moment, perhaps I misworded it or something, to make it seem it was referring to the time before the checkuser report. But what Adambro quotes above doesn't carry that implication. Adambro "obviously knew" about the checkuser report, since he brought it here! I don't see how to parse that statement in a way that would lead to what Adambro is complaining about. --Abd 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I hadn't realised what point in time you were referring to. Adambro 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adambro. Here is the diff: . It was in the collapse box immediately above. The full statement was We know here that JWS is Beetlebaum, and that was previously confirmed by checkuser anyway, as Adambro obviously knew, and certainly Ottava knows. Ottava writes, "I do not have proof it was you." As you can see, the main point here was about Ottava, not you. If Ottava does "not have proof" that the IP that requested unblock, before Ottava full-protected the Talk age, was JWS, he has not been paying attention, or he doesn't want to see it. --Abd 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, I see. I'm not sure why Ottava seems to have been suggesting that Beetlebaum might not be JWS. Adambro 16:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never suggested JWS was not Beetlebaum. An IP posted an unblock request. JWS did not post an unblock request. The JWS account name could have contacted me in many ways. IPs do not have the right to post unblock requests. It is that simple. Abd's statements claiming about what I said above are factually inaccurate and he -knows- it is factually inaccurate. He was told to stop multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Decision and action
(reserved for closing custodian)

Range block requested for vandalism-only range.
See User:Abd/Request custodian action. I request that custodians watchlist that page. Anyone may start a "private request" page like this; this one is intended for anyone to use. It's in my user space for reasons described on the attached talk page. I'm using this page, and Diego Grez may use this page, for all requested actions that I would perform directly as a custodian, so one could think of it as a non-mentored mentorship, i.e., a list of every action that I'd have taken directly. If I see something reqarding which I should recuse, I will add "[would recuse]" to the request. Thanks. --Abd 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you highlight the particular IPs involved here so the range required can be calculated properly? I'd prefer if requests like this for custodian action were made here rather than on another page because it seems likely to make it harder for others to understand in the future why a particular action as taken if it is potentially spread across a few pages. Perhaps instead of making requests on this page in your user space you could make the requests normally here to keep everything together and then just add the diff of you making the request to a list in your userspage to document what actions you've had to ask a custodian to do rather than been able to do yourself? We already have a place to request custodian action, that is here and so if there are issues with this page then they should be discussed rather than just creating another page. Adambro 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the page, you will see, at the top, a TOC. There is a signed and dated request visible there, at this point the only request on the page. It links to contributions for a range. Every contribution shown is vandalism. That should be quite enough. I could have copied that information here, and copying such here is, in fact, what I'll do eventually if there is no attention to the page.


 * There are very strong reasons for doing it the way I'm doing. It's scalable. This would work on Wikipedia, far better than AN/I, which is so badly broken that the user who started it later regretted it. If you don't like it, you are not obligated, at all, to watch that page. If you watch the page, it will provide functionality for you, in terms of less traffic to review, without necessarily watching all the argument on this page. I'll venture that there are custodians who stay away exactly because of that problem. Adambro, your suggestion asks me to do double my work, without lessening your own work at all, should you want to handle this. If you don't want to handle it, don't "take the case"! Simple. You and I are volunteers. You volunteer what you want to do, I volunteer what I want to do. We are free, as long as we don't break stuff. Isn't that a great system?


 * And it seems that you would want us to discuss this page, but before there is any demonstration that something else would work. Sure, eventually, this page could become something like my experiment, but it's entirely possible that what we end up with will look more like my experiment! There can be very good reasons to avoid centralization. And if you want me to explain why, consider that people are already complaining that I write too much. Well, here, I'm doing something. Don't like it? Well, you are certainly free to object and discuss it. If you think the page is useless, you know what you can do. That will bring it to the community's attention, surely, and presumably the community will make a decision. Or we could simply let it happen, no disruption, no fuss, no argument. Is that page in my user space doing any harm? If I want to waste my time making reports there about real vandalism, isn't that my choice? --Abd 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re 202.45.119.*, your link to this returns a blank page for me. Am I doing it wrong? On the more general point of User:Abd/Request custodian action, I just don't see the benefit of doing this. It makes sense to have requests for custodian action on one page in my opinion. One page to monitor. Adambro 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, you need to go to Gadgets in My Preferences and check Contributions Range to enable wildcards in ip ranges. It is a handy tool.  I agree that having requests spread in multiple places will cause confusion. Most custodian have (or should have) this page watchlisted and any requests in a user space page are unlikely to get noticed in a timely manner. --mikeu talk 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this to Adambro. Of course custodians should have this page watchlisted. I did and do. However, I'm looking ahead, plus serving several other purposes. Explaining it all here just isn't the point. In fact, that this discussion is taking place here is part of the point! A custodian request page should not have discussion. Period. If something doesn't belong there, it should be moved or deleted. An attached Talk page can have discussion. Or what I've done with my Requests page has the Talk be a separate page, so that watchlists don't show discussion. Basically, this is what the page does: any user can serve as extra eyes for custodians. Custodians will come to reasonably trust certain users, but that's quite a personal decision. Adding a user page to a watchlist is not a burden! In fact, if some custodian doesn't trust me, one would think they would add the page, to make sure I'm not up to mischief! And this could turn mistrust into useful actions. I like tricks like that. If I abuse the page by making frivolous or disruptive requests, I'd be responsible for that. Mu301, this page is an experiment for a process that could take the place of the present process here. I know wikis, folks. It's very hard to propose a major change if people have no experience with it. How will they get the experience? Got a better idea? Then, by all means, propose it! --Abd 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! I wasn't aware there was a tool available for doing that. It makes a lot more sense now. Well I'll certainly look at Abd's suggestion to block but I haven't got the time at the moment to look through their contribs and figure out an appropriate range and period so someone else might get there before I do. Adambro 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The contribs shown are *all* vandalism, for all 254 IP addresses, or is that 255? You can see immediately from the link I provided that edits only exist on .11 to .21. I haven't done a range block and don't know how to optimize the range, and, since I can't do range blocks, I'm not exercised to learn! --Abd 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I only see one edit after June 7. Certainly something to keep an eye on as there is vandalism coming from those ips, but perhaps not so urgent. --mikeu talk 21:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say that this was an emergency? Well, perhaps I need to spell it out. Since some reading this may not have the tool enabled, here is the display:

(It first displays as just a list of the IPs, so you can immediately see all in the full .255 range, but copy and paste picks up the whole thing.) 202.45.119.21 8 found


 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition (/* Lesson 1: Framing */)
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition (/* Lesson 1: Framing */)
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.21 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition

202.45.119.20 1 found
 * 2010-05-21 202.45.119.20 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition (/* Lesson 1: Framing */)

202.45.119.18 1 found


 * 2010-06-01 202.45.119.18 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Human Rights */)

202.45.119.17 1 found


 * 2010-06-01 202.45.119.17 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Courts and Criminal Law */)

202.45.119.16 3 found
 * 2010-06-01 202.45.119.16 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Social Inequality */)
 * 2010-06-01 202.45.119.16 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Family Law */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.16 (talk) edited (diff) Zen koan quote

202.45.119.15 2 found
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.15 (talk) edited (diff) Zen koan quote
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.15 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition

202.45.119.14 1 found
 * 2010-06-07 202.45.119.14 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Courts and Criminal Law */)

202.45.119.13 1 found
 * 2010-06-01 202.45.119.13 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Works Cited */)

202.45.119.12 1 found
 * 2010-06-01 202.45.119.12 (talk) edited (diff) Moonlanding (Created page with 'MOONLANDING WAS FAKE YA FAG, DUN BE STOOPID AND LISEN TO DA NASA KHUNTSZZZ')

202.45.119.11 10 found
 * 2010-08-20 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Photographic Composition
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Zen koan quote (/* See also */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Zen koan quote (/* Discussion */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Works Cited */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Works Cited */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) World War I/Lesson 2 - Europe explodes - The crisis which lead to World War I (/* Discussion */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Rights */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Courts and Criminal Law */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Governance */)
 * 2010-05-24 202.45.119.11 (talk) edited (diff) Australia (/* Basic information */)

If you want to do vandalism patrol, I highly recommend using the spiffy gadget. --Abd 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is only one recent edit. But there are a total of 29 vandalism edits and no other activity at all. The edits started on 5/21 and extended to 6/7. Then there was the lone edit yesterday, something that didn't even look like vandalism. The IP was testing the water, to see if anyone was watching. I was, and I checked contributions; the same IP had edited that page before.
 * But there is more. This user managed to create persistent vandalism. Look at revision history of [[Australia]. See my [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=prev&oldid=572292 revert on May 24. I didn't have rollback. And somehow I missed the earlier vandalism. (I do know to look for this, but perhaps I got distracted.) The IP kept vandalizing and Diego Grez and Jtneill reverting, until Jtneill finally noticed the total garbage on the page. The vandalism lasted two weeks. Interesting that he kept hitting that page. If he hadn't, it might still be there.
 * This is so likely to be the same user that it's not worth considering the alternatives. I don't like Range blocks, and I've seen a certain people who has used Range blocks for, what, 128,000 IP addresses or more? to stop what are really mostly harmless edits, just to make a point about the editor being blocked, but some (others?) don't think it would be useful to block, say, a dozen addresses, for actual vandalism? I'm fine with leaving it alone, it's no skin off my teeth.
 * Folks, it was just a report. Do with it what you like. Prefer to play Whack-a-mole? Nobody is obligated to act. Period. --Abd 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I doubt that it is the same user. All the ips in that range are schools in Victoria, AU. Based on some of the edits it looks like two or more students vandalizing the pages to engage in name calling. A range block would prevent all students at the school from editing. I didn't see any valid edits from that range, but would prefer not to exclude the possibility unless the activity escalates. See Help:Range blocks for the nitty gritty details of range blocks, however it is probably simpler to just jump to the external links at the bottom of that page and use one of the online tools. Cut and paste the ips into the box and hit enter. It gives a range of 202.45.119.0/27 that will cover the above list, but blocks 32 ips in all. That is about 20 too many. Personally, I think "whack a mole" is the best strategy in this case to prevent vandalism without too much collateral damage. --mikeu talk 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. I'm going to take that as a "decline" and deactivate the request. My point was that, given that there have been no edits from that *entire range, much larger than the narrower actual vandalism range*, for years, since WV started, that weren't vandalism, it's likely that this is, in fact, the same user or perhaps a group of friends. Or a school that just isn't going to have a Wikiversity user. Yes, I saw what the IP covered. Now, why is it that we are not getting *any* constructive edits from this entire range? Anyway, I don't know if you can block something like 212.45.119.11/21, or if it would be better to block just the 10 individual IPs -- as I said, I've never done or experimented with range blocks -- but ... I've done my job. Thanks.
 * Meanwhile, I am not going to bring every request here. That's totally silly, in my view. Look at how many words ended up on this page. Just for a little vandalism report. Was this a reasonable report? I can say that as a custodian, I'd have blocked. Would that have been a poor action? Looking at the record, just how likely would it be that one single person would be inconvenienced? Yet, as I mention, huge range blocks have been put in place, and recently, where, in fact, no truly disruptive edits were being made, and where the only purpose was to "enforce a block," yet *many* good Wikiversity edits would have come from the range. Something is uneven here. Ah, well, not for today. The format here encourages me to argue the case. There, not. --Abd 23:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, you brought this one here, and you learned something about investigating ranges. Seems like the kind of collaborative learning experience we're all here for.
 * Agree with you about the "other" rangeblock, but are you going to do something about it? I have serious "COI issues" (as a friend of Barry), and I get the feeling you don't like those COI things :-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I still have something to learn. Big surprise. If I look at contributions for a range, directly from a range block, I get nothing, even though I know there were contributions in the range. The contributions page instructions do say You may enter a CIDR range or append an asterisk to do a prefix search.. Special:Contributions/18.85.0.0/18. Nothing. What's going on? That range is from the range block itself, see . Yet, the block was intended to catch, I think, Special:Contributions/18.85.28.163. (CIDR converts to 18.85.0.0 - 18.85.63.255. By the way, see Special:Contributions/18.85.46.235. What has been blocked is a chunk of M.I.T.. (However, nearly all edits from the MIT range are from Moulton,Contributions/18.85.*.) --Abd 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the rules are for using ranges in the gadget, but do know that ranges such as 18.85.0.0/16 and 18.85.63.0/24 work. That is, /number is a multiple of eight. --mikeu talk 23:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (unindent)Sure. I learned something, as did Adambro. I'm not objecting to that, but ... the process here won't scale, and look at how Wikipedia got stuck by not preparing for scale. As to the "other range block," Yes, I'm planning on doing something, but one step at a time. I might, for example, make a request to lift that block on my page, but I'd also put [recuse) there. In other words, I certainly would not act myself were I a custodian. If nobody will take it and accept or decline, then I'll need to raise the issue in a broader forum. And probably not here. I'd go first, as to the placing of that Range block, to the Custodian feedback page. I still have a request there that hasn't been resolved or closed, that may need to go to Community Review. One step at a time. We have, shall we say, some Situations.
 * More detail on the range block. We are talking about Moulton, folks. Unblock is not the proper action with Moulton, not yet. I did unblock Caprice, and Moulton wasn't given a chance to show some kind of constraint with Caprice, which was unfortunate. But I unblocked for technical reasons. There is a prima facie ban from prior discussions, and if not for the fact that User:Moulton had also been unblocked, I'd not have done it. It's complicated, eh? However, with Moulton, there is a step prior to unblocking, which is simply setting up better response to IP socking. IP socking can be more or less disruptive. If on the "more" side, even large range blocks would be justified. Moulton has not been disruptive like that lately. On the minimal side, to take it to the edge (i.e., just short of unblock), if a blocked or banned editor makes only self-reverted edits, identified with "will revert per block of BlockedEditorName," and then reverts promptly, this editor is making no mess needing cleanup, and especially if the editor is making only positive or harmless contributions, there is a quid pro quo we can offer. If you do that, we will not block the IP. Moulton is in between these extremes, currently closer to the harmless end. Thekohser was fully on the "heading for unblock" end. This "self-reverted edit" business is not accepted yet, though, frankly, it was accepted when first proposed on Wikipedia, and it was only when it was actually used by that horrible monster, Abd, to make a harmless formatting correction to an article under a topic ban, that suddenly the chorus started singing, "a ban is a ban is a ban." It was designed (for other cases!) to allow harmless edits while not complicating ban enforcement. (I.e., if it's been self-reverted, nobody needs to review the edit to see if it is "harmless" or not. Unless they want to.)
 * Moulton did, finally -- it took me a huge amount of off-wiki communication to encourage him to try it -- make some self-reverted edits. You can look at permanent link to discussion on my Talk page. Whether or not Moulton ever is unblocked, he often makes contributions of interest, and I very much doubt he is going to stop. Therefore, my position, make the best of it. If I get a lot of flak for reviewing and restoring decent self-reverted edits, just because he's blocked, then I'll stop. And he will stop self-reverting, I assume. He might stop it anyway, I can't predict Moulton precisely, nor do I want to. But if he continues, there is less work to do. Self-reversion is cooperation, and we should honor that. If we don't, the editor will definitely not honor us and our efficiency. I've been dinging him for revert warring. I think that if we treat him with respect, he will treat us with respect. Otherwise, we have a sore here that will not heal.
 * Summary: not unblock yet, but maybe unblock range, don't reinstate unless actual disruption, which would mean lots of edits that have to be reverted or, worse, edits requiring revision deletion. Harmless edits, possibly helpful opinions that if expressed by an unblocked editor would not cause a block, should not occasion IP blocks. Especially if self-reverted. If they are self-reverted, then any editor can review them. Moulton can still contribute without that, even legitimately, by emailing an editor, but that brings up other complications and is very inefficient. --Abd 00:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)