Wikiversity talk:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd

Opposing, Ottava Rima wrote:
 * Oppose - he has abused the tools on multiple occasions. He stated he wanted adminship for rollbacks. He did not do any of the work he promised to do, and instead got into long fights with members of our community about various issues, such as making claims about policy that he lacked the experience to back up. Furthermore, with arbitrary acts such as unblocking Thekohser without discussion showed a lack of actually relying on community input before using the block feature. He was repeatedly told to stop fighting with JWS and stop being incivil to him through multiple emails and refused to follow through with that. There is plenty more, but I'm not going to make a multi-paragraphed statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottava is not obligated to answer, but I'll ask anyway.
 * If I abused tools on multiple occasions, could Ottava specify them, so they could be individually examined? There is a list of all my tool usage sat User talk:Abd/Custodian actions, it might be convenient to find and mark them there. Certainly I may have made mistakes, and so, even if I am not approved for custodianship now, it would be useful to know what the mistakes were.
 * I'm not aware of what work I "promised to do." Indeed, I wrote: I cannot promise to put in a lot of effort here. But I actually did more than I expected. Rollback isn't recorded in the logs, I know I used it when doing some Recent Changes work.
 * "Long fights." Those were discussions, not fights. And they did not involve the use of admin tools, and I will continue to discuss quite the same without the tools. Now, if I see serious incivility or other disruption on the part of a user (custodian or not), I would warn. The only difference is that then an actual block on ignoring the warning would be done by a different person, which is actually an improvement, I think. ottava would think of this as fighting, I suspect. It's just being straight.
 * The unblock of Thekohser wasn't arbitrary at all, and it can -- and will -- be justified before the community. Ottava, did Adambro, reblocking -- and surely blocking requires more consensus than unblocking! -- "rely on community input." Where? Can you point me to it? I asked him for justification, he gave a vague answer about Wikipedia Review. Which should be irrelevant.
 * Being incivil (sic) to JWS, I was telling JWS that he was likely to get himself blocked. Ottava has predicted the same thing. Again, if I was uncivil to him, as distinct from being straight with him and with the community, I'd like to know where. I think JWS has some examples diffed somewhere. In one place, I was accused of incivility, it was pretty mild, I think, but I struck it. Wikiversity has tolerated far worse, routinely, and that's part of what must stop. Again, none of this involved tool usage or threat of tool usage. If I was uncivil, why have I not been formally warned and blocked if I continued? Ottava is a strange one to claim incivility.
 * I have actually been working steadily to address the concerns of JWS and others. JWS was badly burned two years ago, and the community was badly damaged, as far as I can see. I have serious experience with dispute resolution, and was bringing these skills here. Sometimes it involves being very frank with both sides, and people don't necessarily like that at first. And sometimes my skills are inadequate or I forget.... At best, it takes time, and I'm not perfect.
 * Except for the first two items, the comments have nothing to do with custodianship, ops will not make the situation worse, and withholding custodianship will not make it better. So the most important thing here would be the alleged abuse of tools. I know of only three possible things, the block of Ottava himself for incivility (I'd think he'd disclose that!), and working with Moulton and Thekohser, representing long-term community problems. Ottava mentions Thekohser, but unblocking Thekohser, by policy, should not require a discussion, since it was not based on a discussion, there is no community ban here of Thekohser. Moulton is a much more difficult case, and I only unblocked Moulton as a very brief trial and did not heavily insist on it. I was disappointed that when Moulton was on his best behavior, he was still re-blocked, but I also understand that. I don't understand why Thekohser was reblocked, but that will go to a community discussion. Before I would start a community discussion on that, I'd want to know if it was necessary, and the fastest and, having been satisfied there there was very little risk, the least disruptive way to do that was just to try it. It's a wiki! If Adambro had not reblocked, we might have been done. But if he wants a discussion, he will get a discussion, where he gets to explain his action and, presumably, Thekohser may have some input too, as well as the rest of the community, including JWS. I don't need tools to start a discussion and even to facilitate it. And since I'm seeking consensus, I don't need the tools to decide the matter, someone else will do the close.
 * I was disappointed to find out how little Ottava and Adambro understand basic wiki process, particularly how to resolve disputes instead of inflaming them. Could this explain why certain disputes have been so tenacious? --Abd 04:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewarding drama creation
Some editors seem to always be the focus of a firestorm of criticism and drama. The community seems to assume, in such situations, that the person who is that focal point probably has a habit of saying or doing things that, if not patently inappropriate, are at least provocative and that therefore the person should not be elevated to a higher position lest such drama continually recur on an even larger scale. But this rewards drama creation by letting those who create it get their way when they seek to sabotage a candidate. In the end, the best interests of the community might be served by ignoring such drama mongers and judging candidates on their objective merits. That could set new and better norms, encouraging better behavior and improving the quality of custodianship discussions which in turn can ripple across the project to positively affect the project as a whole.

I would also like to draw your attention to Weaver's study (described at 6:07 of this video). I think there is a certain individual who is repeating his opinion over and over in this discussion, and we should not let that distort our impressions of what the consensus is. Granted, I know we hold the opinions of custodianship mentors to be important, but still... Tisane 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that in this discussion one person has over-participated, except maybe for me and, after all, I'm the candidate and I assume that the community would want to get a glimpse of how I think and act. Nice video, by the way, presents some excellent arguments for atheism, but posits belief as a straw man, ultimately. And that's not a discussion for here.


 * In my probationary period I acted *exactly* as I'd act as a permanent custodian. I did not refrain from controverial actions that I'd feel free to make as other than a probationer. There are, contrary to what one might expect from some of what is being said, only a handful of such actions, and my arguments are being mistaken for problematic custodial action. The status quo at Wikiversity is that it's still in trouble, and most custodians are inactive, and the two most active custodians are generally *not* acting consistently with community consensus. The best immediate solution is not to prevent controversial editors from becoming custodians, but to restrain abusive custodial action, and provide balance. Some of the best custodians were removed or resigned based on outside interference. The active custodians left were those who seemed aligned with that interference, but, overall, the Wikiversity community and the whole WMF community spoke out firmly against it, which is why Jimbo resigned the intrusive Founder tools that allowed him to personally interfere.


 * I do not need custodial tools to act. It is claimed that I should have discussed certain actions first. That's an error, and would only be correct if reversing these actions were difficult or disruptive. Because, even as a permanent custodian, I do not and will not wheel-war, there is no harm in bold and controversial actions provided they are not maintained with stubborn insistence, which would include wheel-warring. We have two present custodians who will, in fact, wheel-war. The most efficient way to confront this is not with shotgun allegations (JWS's) approach, but with specific, immediate examples. If there is no custodian bold enough to assert a contrary position, there will be few specific examples, and when there is only an isolated custodial position, with no opposition expressed through a contrary action by another custodian, many wiki participants will assume the norm: a disgruntled single individual. When it is a dispute between custodians, they will perk up and take more notice. That's my experience. Hence having bold custodians, who do *not* wait for community consensus, is necessary, and proper, provided they do not wheel-war.
 * But it doesn't have to be me. It could be anyone bold enough to clearly and patiently oppose the actions of those who appear powerful. There are a number of custodians who might eventually do this, and more will do it if provided with clear support from the community.


 * Wikipedia went the supermajority consensus route for custodianship, and the result? Too many custodians who, as soon as they are promoted, or not much later, are actively promoting their own agenda, once they are free of substantial review. It's understood there, and accepted as routine, that if a bold custodian were to go up for an adminship vote again, the vote would be negative. That is an admission and an institutionalization of a problem. Rather, I'd suggest, clearly guidance about recusal policy, and stricter enforcement of it, done efficiently (not with a sprawling RfAr that consumes massive resources) and fairly (deliberative in character, soliciting the best arguments, not the most !votes), would allow far more people to become administrators. I suggested ways on Wikipedia as to how the community could move beyond the impasse, but on Wikipedia, the impasse favors a certain special group, what Jimbo called the "administrative cabal." And ArbComm is entirely composed of administrators, the foxes guarding the henhouse. I'm not saying that administrators are "bad," but that unrestrained power corrupts. Always. I'm under a so-called "MYOB" ban on Wikipedia. Permanent, not a one-year ban. Why? Well, ArbComm didn't actually explain it, they just did it. My guess is that they were uncomfortable with an "outsider," not an administrator, one of them, was suggesting how to fix the problems, but they have set up conditions that require that becoming an insider means a long period of non-controversial work, and passing RfAr. There is the claim that adminship is "no big deal," but that is good theory and not actual practice. I made it to 50% in my last RfAr, on Wikipedia, with most of the oppose votes saying, "you have too few edits (1400 at that time)," come back in a few months and we will happily approve." I didn't need admin tools and I didn't come back. What would the vote now be? My guess is that it would snow oppose, because those who vote in these things are those who pay attention to the community process activities, which is heavily biased toward administrators and, in fact, people taking advantage of the system to promote their own agenda. I was pushing them out of their comfort zone, without violating any policies, no revert warring, no incivility (at least not on-wiki!) but their comfort zone is an institutionalized problem.


 * Same here. No wheel-warring as a custodian. That ought to be noticed. A custodian who does not wheel-war won't cause major disruption by the use of custodian tools, except possibly for hidden actions, and there is no example of that from my history. The alleged problem actions were transient, and immediately reversed. Problem? That I'd do something that another custodian disagrees with? I'll point out the consequences of excluding people who would do that from being custodians: the freezing of the custodial community into a biased position, biased by those who may be acting against actual community consensus. I am probably exactly what this community needs: someone who will boldly test these positions with a single action, which can then be discussed and resolved, if it is reversed. No custodian here was trapped into a long discussion attempting to justify his reversion, beyond some Talk -- not necessary for that custodian! -- on User talk:Ethical Accountability. I have not begun community process to discuss what's controversial, which would be the two standing effective bans, but I did start process to discuss the issue of Ottava: Custodian feedback, because of what I saw as the seriousness and urgency of that situation. And that was filed as a community member, not as a custodian. It is only slightly more efficient if I'm a custodian, it's not necessary, as far as these controversies are concerned. I do assume that if there is no custodian willing to act, I should not assert a position with review process.


 * There is a contrary position, that of JWS, who, in the Ottava Rima feedback, has claimed that no custodian will dare oppose Ottava, and he points out that Ottava has, elsewhere, claimed to be the main organizer of Wikiversity, and I do think it's necessary to nip that in the bud, it is what I saw as Ottava's attitude quite without seeing his explicit statement of it. If he's right, it will be very difficult to address the problems that face Wikiversity. But I don't think he's right, and I think that there may be custodians who have been waiting for a proper opportunity to clearly express what they know and see, without it being complicated by all the personality crap and blame that gets tossed in. --Abd 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One abuse of tool was egregious enough to warrant an oppose - your attempt to unban/unblock Thekohser without community discussion, etc. It is one thing to talk to a globally locked/banned user and it is another to suddenly unblock them without discussion and community consensus. It is ironic that you try to challenge me on whatever while you, yourself, takes unilateral actions. Examine my actions and you'll never find one instance in which I imposed a block or anything like that with large scale ramifications without thorough discussion and negotiation first. You have taken unilateral actions and imposed your own view of what is right and wrong upon the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being clear. Thekohser was not blocked based on community consensus, so policy requires no restraint from unblocking. Sysops take unilateral actions all the time, but it gets dicier when the unilateral action is contrary to block policy. Mine was not contrary to block policy for Wikiversity, and meta has no authority over whether or not we block users. They may apply a global lock because of "cross-wiki issues," but those do not have authority over us. In the case of Thekohser, the broad "cross-wiki" consensus, including an agreement of stewards, was to remove the global lock on Thekohser. Quite some time later, and without any public discussion, a single steward re-imposed the global lock, thus defeating a number of local project who had explicitly decided to unblock Thekohser. If the WMF wants to impose and enforce a true global ban, it can do so explicitly, not by some isolated, unilateral action by a single steward, one whom I know is considered a problem by other functionaries.


 * In order to challenge the global lock, however, it would be easiest if one or more local wikis come to consensus on unblock. A discussion like that on meta can be premature and disruptive, I've already seen what happens there when Thekohser is involved, there are some admins there who will even be deceptive to keep something seen as favoring Thekohser out. So I didn't want to go to meta until we had a local consensus. Now, without some demonstration that Thekohser might be able to make positive contributions to Wikiversity, even though JWS is correct that there was no local reason for a block, I felt that a discussion here would be premature and premature discussions are disruptive. So I set up a means for Thekohser to nondisruptively make contributions. He did it, fully cooperating, and the method involved him explicitly cooperating with the block. Think about that. This procedure has been suggested before to a banned user, who rejected it out of hand, probably precisely it involved cooperation, and who wants to cooperate with a community that is banning one? But I also saw other banned users do it, and the result was cooperation between those who were banned and those who were not. In the Wikipedia example I have in mind, the cooperating unblocked editor was the very editor who had asked for the ban in the first place, and I saw another example of that as well. The technique builds cooperation, and a banned editor who used it to put up junk would simply be ignored. Waste of time for him, not for anyone else except maybe those who trusted him and who will then walk away in disgust. Natural consequences, as a parent, one learns to work this way.


 * So, we have a single unblock that caused no disruption at all, and that would have been likely to cause minimal disruption if Thekohser had turned into a disruptive editor. See, Ottava, I was not about to tolerate disruption from Thekohser, and I warned him even when straying into unnecessary controversy on his Talk page. I was watching. What an admin can do, the admin can always undo. If my unblock turned out to be unwise, I could immediately reblock and walk away.


 * You have, unfortunately, lost all perspective on this. I'm confident that the community, when it looks at the actions, will support my position. If I'm so badly wrong about that, frankly, I shouldn't be a custodian. Or perhaps the community, as distinct from someone who has clearly become attached to a position, will show me the error of my ways. I always do consider that.


 * Suppose Adambro had not reblocked. What harm would have been done? A discussion can involve a lot of back and forth, and this one could prove to be disruptive. If the user had become disruptive, any custodian could have blocked, and it would have been quick; I was personally committed to watching closely. And I had developed a positive relationship with Thekohser, I believe that he would have remained cooperative -- and he has remained cooperative, even after the reblock! See, Ottava, this method of dealing with blocked and banned users works, period. It cannot be stopped except by draconian measures which would not be accepted by the community, and it is non-disruptive by design. That's why it was immediately accepted by an arbitrator on Wikipedia when proposed, and it was never clearly rejected there, it's never been really tested with a focused and adequate discussion. It will be discussed here. In any case, if Adambro had no reblocked, and if Thekohser continued to be cooperative and responsive to warnings and corrections that are issued with respect, the controversy here would have been over without a disruptive discussion.


 * That's wiki theory which newcomers to process like yourself and Adambro don't understand. It's highly effective and efficient. You'll see. It's pretty hard to stop someone like me. But -- I would never do this kind of action contrary to consensus, I'll just appear to do it when I see a warped local consensus, warped by participation bias, that is contrary to what I understand the larger community of users will accept. And I stay within policy and guidelines, so if I'm blocked, I'm blocked contrary to policy (or in error, something different). You might spend some time looking over my history on Wikipedia. And consider the fate of administrators who tried to push me out. Wikipedia is extraordinarily conservative, the general thinking on Wikipedia Review is that it's hopeless. I don't think it's hopeless, merely quite difficult, and I moved on. I was last blocked by two admins. The first was in clear recusal failure and I could have taken this all the way up, but I didn't. It had become too much trouble. The next was more interesting, it was a ban enforcement action based on a self-reverted edit. That one was more likely to be appealed, but, again, I didn't. Just simply too much trouble, for not enough gain. But WV is smaller and simpler and I think I can be more effective here. That, however, has practically nothing to do with use of tools. With Moulton and Thekohser, without tools, I'd have simply asked an admin to do the deed. I bet I could have found one, fairly easily, especially with Thekohser, the basis for the unblock was very clear. And that is getting easier. Ottava, you are trying to hold back the tide. It won't work.


 * From my point of view, Ottava, you are committing wiki-suicide, at least as far as your ops here are concerned, it will simply take time, unless you change your course and attitude of ownership. As to your account here, the claims you made that SBJohnny was lying would have been quite adequate for any custodian paying attention to block you, and what would you have done? From what I've seen, you'd have converted it into indef pretty quickly. You don't know when to let go.


 * Look around at what I did. I'm not attached in the first place. There is voting going on now, not because I requested it, but because Darklama thought it was time, enough was visible to the community, and I agree, as long as the community actually looks. Sometimes it doesn't. As a custodian, I have no special rights, the way I interpret policy, I only have the ability to act, carefully, in advance of consensus, to anticipate it, and even the right to be wrong about that, as long as I don't insist on my error and keep repeating it. That's something that you apparently don't understand, Ottava. Understand it or you will lose your ops, my prediction. --Abd 18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You've said "Thekohser was not blocked based on community consensus, so policy requires no restraint from unblocking. Sysops take unilateral actions all the time, but it gets dicier when the unilateral action is contrary to block policy." Could you clarify exactly which "block policy" you are referring to? As far as I am aware Wikiversity doesn't currently have a "block policy". Adambro 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thekohser's block/lock is not your call. An unblock would have major ramifications for both this project and the WMF. You, as a probationary custodian without community support for full custodianship and without even bothering to talk to the community about it, do not have the right to put Wikiversity into a potentially problematic position. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "Horseshit" one word or two, so I can know that I'd be giving a one word or two word response?


 * Aw shucks, I'll go on. I know for a fact that there will be no problem from nondisruptive participation of Thekohser here. If Thekohser uses WV as a platform to attack other users or the WMF, outside of carefully crafted guidelines, and we don't do something about it, yes, some risk, basically of intervention by stewards. If this became a burden from repetition, then there might be some pressure to close Wikiversity as a pain in the ass. Ottava, you turned the bluster of Jimbo about discussing the closure of Wikiversity -- I had direct confirmation from him about the real situation, which I had correctly inferred -- into an unrealistic threat that then justified your personal control. Jimbo's concerns are my concerns, and I'm not going to allow his concerns to be neglected. I just know alternate ways that can be less disruptive. In a way, though not directly, I'm mediating between Jimbo and these critics of WMF policy. Jimbo knows that there are problems with our wiki reality. I believe that he wants to see true constructive criticism, and he will be quite tolerant of it. I know what happened between him and Moulton. I don't know so well the situation of Thekohser, but I know enough to know that he is not a lamebrain vandal and troll. Outspoken, yes. Uncivil, sometimes. But so are a lot of bright people. When we have a face to face deliberative meeting, we sometimes show such people the door, but it's only temporary, until they can stop disrupting procedure, talking out of order, so to speak. It's not about censorship, it's about process, very necessary process, and the order that it requires.


 * My unblock and Adambro's block of Thekohser gave the local community something to discuss, a specific action to review, entirely local in nature, and that was my goal, if the direct, simple solution didn't work. The global lock is indeed not my call. But the local bloc of User talk:Ethical Accountability certainly was, as it was also Adambro's. That's how a wiki works, when it isn't being run by self-involved self-defined prime movers. The policy gives probationary custodians no reduction in rights, beyond the right of a mentor to regulate their behavior.


 * I'm satisfied that the ultimate judgment will be the community's not yours, Ottava. Are you? --Abd 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Above, Adambro wrote, As far as I am aware Wikiversity doesn't currently have a "block policy". <-- The Custodianship policy says that Custodians can, "block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community consensus". There are four Wikiversity policies that prescribe how the block tool can be used. The only problem is that a few people ignore policy and misuse the block tool. In order to protect the Wikiversity community from further misuse of the block tool, there should be an official policy on blocking that would provide a more detailed description of how the block tool can be used. --JWSchmidt 00:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottava reverts !vote.
I had !voted to support myself. Unusual, perhaps, could be considered voting twice, because of my statements in a formal and featured position outside of the voting itself, but so could the !vote of the mentor who was opposing, who had already outside the vote expressed opposition in a formal and featured position. Simplest way for me to address this was with my !vote in the poll, to show that there were three community members in favor of my promotion, and three against (as it stood with my !vote). Simple. This is what I'd voted:


 * Support. I'm guessing that if my mentor, who is hardly unbiased, can !vote against me, I can vote for myself. Obviously, a closing 'crat can consider any problematic !votes. --Abd 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing deceptive there. Ottava reverted. He should be the last person to touch that. I'm not going to revert, because I don't revert war, I discuss. Someone, any editor, may decide to. Or not. --Abd 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ottava's actions here. It seems quite bizarre to vote in support of yourself being given custodianship but particularly when the reason given for doing so is to try to cancel out the opposition of another member of the community. Clearly however, the closing 'crat would have considered that so it would have been unlikely to have influenced the outcome. The closing 'crat is expected to do more than simply count the votes so if they do consider there to be an issue with Ottava's vote they will give it the weight they consider appropriate in deciding what the community feels should happen. By removing your vote, Ottava has actually done you a favour in my view, by hiding what seems to be an example of an error of judgement on your part. I'd suggest not drawing more attention to it. Adambro 18:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's look at precedent. I know that it's not normal for a candidate to vote, I certainly did not vote for myself in my two RfAs on Wikipedia. But there could be a reason for it, and it's not prohibited, to my knowledge. What inspired it was this consideration. I don't vote because I'm the candidate, though in a real election by secret ballot I'd be able to vote for myself. In every process vote I've seen, in real life, a candidate may vote, though in a contest face-to-face, sometimes all candidates leave the room. That's considered inferior to secret ballot, which allows everyone to vote. I have, however, a privileged position, a "bully pulpit," so to speak, from which I can express my position. So, too, does the listed mentor. Normally, I'd have gained a substitute mentor or this vote would not be held. I preferred that, but also agreed that Darklama had a point. So, then, what about the mentor's voting. The mentor has already made a featured recommendation. What's the precedent on that, does the mentor also vote in addition, which is a kind of redundancy, a kind of double vote? Secret ballot, no problem, the mentor and the candidate may vote if they meet the voter qualifications.


 * Candidates_for_Custodianship/AFriedman. Recommending mentor: Jtneill. Mentor did not vote.
 * Candidates for Custodianship/Pmlineditor. Recommending mentor: Ottava Rima. Voted, but did not bold vote and questioned if it was proper.
 * [Bureaucrat Jtneill] There was a recommending mentor, thought that is not provided for in 'crat policy, it's unclear. The mentor was Mu301, and the mentor did not vote.
 * Candidates for Custodianship/Leighblackall Recommending mentor: Jtneill. Mentor did not vote.
 * Candidates for Custodianship/Trinity507. Recommending mentor: SB_Johnny. Mentor did vote for the candidate.


 * Normally, the issue of an opposing mentor voting would not come up, because process provides for the process to close if the mentor opposes and is not replaced. In this case, there was no replacement period provided as policy provides. The vote is out-of-process, as has been noted. But it's happening. I'd say that the bolded !vote of the mentor adds undue weight, given that the same person has a whole section opposing. Just my opinion. How about my vote is restored, without bold and "candidate" added, and Ottava's is also unbolded with a note "mentor" or something like that? Whatever. --Abd 20:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you ignore Terra's nomination where the mentor did not recommend and also voted oppose? That is the precedence and it has been mentioned quite a lot lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because I didn't go that far back? That was more than two years ago. I did the most recent cases, all of them, no cherry-picking, and you know quite well why an example of a mentor voting against a candidate would be rare: normally the rejection of the mentor, if there is no replacement, finishes the process without voting. It's not clear to me what happened in the Terra case, why it wasn't simply closed. It certainly would have been simpler! --Abd 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Terra had 1. rejection by mentor without an extension of the probationary period, 2. a vote on full custodianship and 3. oppose by the mentor. That is the only equivalent case. None of the others are applicable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That you, Abd, are continuing to suggest you should be able to vote for yourself in this situation is surprising me. As I've said, the closing 'crat won't just count votes. Do you not trust the closing 'crat to properly consider what has been said and who has said it? You are right though that this is an unconventional situation. Normally, as you note, the mentor won't vote but their support will be implicit in that they will have started the vote. Ottava seems to have highlighted a more similar situation though where the mentor, or perhaps more accurately, the ex-mentor voted to oppose as Ottava has done. I think you'd be better moving on and not worrying so much about this. Adambro 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did I "continue to suggest I should be able to vote" for myself? I described why I made the edit, and why there is a possible imbalance problem without it. If SB_Johnny was the "ex-mentor," and if there was no mentor, why did Terra proceed to vote at all? I'm not "worried" about this, I just comment on what I see. Old habit. There is one important difference with the Terra case, though. There wasn't an opposing statement from a mentor outside the voting. There was a substituted statement by someone asked to provide a report by the mentor. It was called a "non-mentor's report"! This suggests both why the application was not closed (there was no formal negative report from the mentor), but ... who opened the !voting without a mentor recommendation to promote? It was McCormack who had prepared the "non-mentor's report" which did not make a recommendation. Totally outside process without consideration for the basic time-saver, the community doesn't normally vote when a mentor does not recommend. SB_Johnny probably voted then because the report didn't make a truly negative recommendation in a clear way. The non-mentor voted, but with a Neutral vote. Not at all a good precedent, but, indeed, the closest we know about. I proposed, in the future, sticking with the process that is given in policy! Consider how much wasted time is involved in this !vote. Maybe it will do some good, though. --Abd 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)