Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Jtneill

Don't know how to make the fancy sections so I am going to work on section I would like to add here.

Work In Progress, not really ready to be live yet, but I need a place to develop it.

I found the following actions need review. ,, need review. There were clearly custodians involved, this was a clear "fish" for support, and jtniel bit, and his mentee "sealed the deal" within 24 hours. Thenub314 08:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * see here please (please!) :-) Privatemusings 09:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * a clear "fish" for support <-- I had made requests for Custodian action that were being ignored. User:Jtneill was the only active Custodian who regularly responds to requests for information and action. In contrast, other sysops regularly fail to respond (see also). I requested Custodian action, not support. "sealed the deal" <-- Thenub314, please describe the "deal" that you are referring to. --JWSchmidt 15:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By "sealed the deal" I meant he undeleted the page without giving a chance for other people to respond to Jtneil's comment. Perhaps I am just used to the wikibooks style of not taking action to delete/undelete until 7 days after the last comment was made but it all seemed a bit too quick for me. I have decided not to pursue this further anyways, so hopefully we can let it rest. Thenub314 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Response and Comment sections, above Discussion
Because this can and will turn into a sprawling mess, I am introducing an organizational device. The "charges" have a huge and very prominent section, then discussion is immedately falling into back-and-forth. After the charges should be a Response of (the charged party) and then Comment of (others) and within these sections nobody but the named party in the section header should post. This allows the respondent and all other participants to make a statement with relative prominence, not buried in back-and-forth. --Abd 14:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that this is a transcluded page, which then limits the flexibility here. So I accept the revert of Ottava; however, part of that change I believe can be re-incorporated, to make this navigable. In edit summaries, the existing titles will not disclose where the edit took place. I have added a Response section reserved for Jtneill, and a comment section from me, to the first charge, and intend to do that with the rest. Any user may add a comment section. I'm going to add unassigned comment sections, to reserve space (this reduces edit conflicts). --Abd 14:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava has reverted my entire contributions, enforcing a very questionable view of how a Community Review should proceed, one that is guaranteed to preserve the ineffectiveness of Community Reviews, which simply burn people out. I will restore my own comment in a new section as the template suggests, which is not what was being done, and I will put it at the bottom as he suggests, but his proposal gives undue weight to the one writing the charge, or, indeed, should we start making comments within the charge template? Why not? To assume that the charge is inviolable and prominent, but response from the charged party is not, is to keep a page imbalanced, not neutral. --Abd 15:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing inappropriate sub headings cannot be construed as "Entire contributions". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)