Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/10

This is really more a matter of just doing the sensible thing: User:Caprice, who has been active without any issues for quite some time, is actually an alternate account of User:Moulton. I don't see why we shouldn't allow him to use the main account, since the block clearly isn't preventing disruption (and is thus simply some sort of "punishment"). It actually would make more sense for him to use the main account anyway, since that is the name he uses on most websites and it might occasionally be helpful for people newly arrived that might not realize it's the same person they've met elsewhere.

Snap poll, if nobody minds... I have to do a funny trick with the 'crat buttons to do this, so wanted to leave it open for discussion first:

• Support as proposer. The lock/block is clearly not preventing disruption, so it really shouldn't be in place here. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• But but but, a poll without discussion first! Quick, someone archive it! To be serious, if Moulton posts that he wants to have the lock overridden, then I support. If he does not want it, then I do not support. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you under the impression that anything really needs to be discussed? It's a very straightforward question. I suppose we could have a lengthy discussion of which finger I use to click the mouse with, if you think that would be productive ;-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am obliged to recuse myself, as I cannot be expected to be objective in the case. —Moulton (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what custodian action is being requested here. --68.2.97.159 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  See Abd's explanation below. I'm just asking before I do it in case there's some rational objection I'm unable to think of (and more or less a CYA discussion to point to). --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The action requires a 'crat. The local account is renamed, then named back. This delinks the account from the global account, allowing a local unblock to be effective. Otherwise the global lock prevents all use of the account. If this is done with local consensus, it's been quite acceptable. --Abd 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This was done at beta-Wikiversity last summer after I was told that it was possible. Adambro objected, but the world did not come to an end. Moulton should be allowed to use his primary account here since no valid reason was given when the lock was imposed. --JWSchmidt 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the world did not end. Old problems might resurface, but ... it really isn't that difficult to address them, if we have custodians and other scholars willing to try to find optimal solutions, instead of the simple block/ignore black and white thinking. Engaging users is usually better and more efficient, long-term, than trying to exclude them. Nice to be able to agree with JWS. --Abd 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done since there were no objections. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Good work, SBJ. My kids have this big red button you push, and it says, in a low voice, "That Was Easy!". However, we do now have a responsibility to maintain awareness of possible problems. I'm not seeing any, so far. Let's hope it stays that way. --Abd 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No specific custodian action needed, beyond occasional maintenance deletions. This is an elementary school student, or a small set of classmates at a school, and the user is learning what is and is not acceptable, remarkable for the ages involved. --Abd 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page and related pages keep being recreated, each with out of scope nonsense. Can this page finally be salted and the people doing this dealt with? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done --mikeu ^talk 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, folks, try to ask a user to stop objectionable behavior before asking for a custodian to handle it. Probably little harm has been done, but I've informed the user and have explained the situation, now, since seeing this, with User_talk:Mabuabsdd#Your_deleted_page.

Ottava, I appreciate your work to notice and deal with nonsense and other problems, but please try to do it in a way that won't offend newcomers, who tend to not respond well to their pages simply being deleted without supportive comment.

Mu301, I don't think your job as a custodian was done with the salting, and by the time something requires salting, there has been an obvious communication failure, and requesting the user to stop should be part of trying to fix that. I'd have thought of, here, moving the page to the user's space and perhaps protecting the redirect for a while. That way, when the user logs in and looks for his page, it immediately pops up.

Indeed, I recommend this, because the user may still log in and wonder where his page went. He looks at his contributions, and it's gone. "Damn!", he thinks, "I must have forgotten to save it." Only if he actually goes to the page, entering the link, will he see the deletion notice. If the page is harmless, please undelete it and move it to his user space, and short-protect the redirect, perhaps, or that may not be necessary. A small thing to do, but the attitude behind it could encourage the user to participate more deeply. These things build up over time.

I suggest that problems with page recreation after speedy deletion are quite equivalent to a user removing a speedy deletion tag. Page recreation is only harmful if the content is positively harmful, i.e., libel, blatant copyright violation, possibly spam, though that starts to get dicier. (I'm painfully aware of how antivandalism efforts are easily corrupted into POV abuse.) The appropriate venue for complaints about a merely inappropriate page, then, is Wikiversity:Requests for deletion, not Request custodian action. Even that would have been premature here, we don't need discussion by the community if a little support and response by the user does the trick. Thanks. --Abd 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were over 14 different users, each posting some new story, most of it nonsense, gibberish, or the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. 14 users or one user? I couldn't tell this from the deletion log.

From what I did see on the user page I posted do, he may have been asking his friends to post there. All the more reason to treat this guy nicely. He might be young, but, again, all the more reason.... Let's find ways to protect Wikiversity without offending newcomers. The move to user space, for a registered user (I don't know what the others were), with a redirect in place, would address the mainspace noise problem. So, any objections to it? --Abd 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was mostly sock puppetry, making gay slurs, making suggestions that they were middleschoolers, etc. They were talked to many times and removed speedy tags before. The page was recreated 4 times. The page was also recreated on multiple other pages. This has been off and on for a year or so. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, educating middle-schoolers, you channel them. Try to stop them, you create more motivation to defy you. Let them have their sandbox! Gay slurs and the like aren't tolerable, but that can be handled directly. Once they have a sandbox, that they can use, that isn't going to be raked frequently, they will continually be exposed to Wikiversity, and they may start to undertake something serious here. The probability of this doesn't have to be high to be worth the small effort. I'd be happy to watch their sandbox. Their very own Wikiversity Sandbox! They might tell even more friends. (There may be privacy policy issues, but, gain, that's a separate issue, and if we are going to represent that we handle lower grade education, as we do, we'd better be able to address this!)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see signs here of a dysfunctional educational approach. As a substitute or middle school teacher, you'd have a huge problem! You don't "talk to" kids, you listen to them, if you are interested in teaching them. If you listen to them, they will listen to you. Just telling them to "Go away" doesn't work, but they will respect reasonable boundaries, if their own needs are respected. Most of them, anyway, and the rest will offend even their own friends. Matter of fact, aren't adults like that too? --Abd 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Aqib Aze And recreated by yet another user. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fib Hurtan and another. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved these files to my user space. Probably the redirects won't need protection. As these were IP created, there was no user to use for moving.

Mu301, please undelete the page you salted, and move it to under User:Abd/Misc sandbox pages, unless there was harmful content. That user can move or request the page be moved to his or her own user space any time. I agree that these are probably middle school students, and our university can provide them some play space, within reason. Brick and mortar universities do that, you know, it's part of encouraging people to associate school with fun. I'll watch the pages in my user space as needed. Consider me a volunteer playground monitor. I very much doubt that this will be more work than trying to stop the creation of these pages! Thanks. I'll be setting up a Wikiversity project to cover this kind of thing, with a list of volunteer "playground monitors" willing to accept "nonsense pages" or other such things in their user space. Twas brillig and the slithy toves, after all, was pure nonsense. Would we delete it if we did not recognize it? --Abd 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind, Abd. At Wikibooks this sort of thing would merit a 3 month or more block of an IP with account creation blocked to stop things until the term is over. Not everyone has the patience to "school" juveniles. Allowing "play space", free use of user sandboxes—both are issues I've confronted with no guidelines to follow. Adrignola 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Undeleted. --mikeu ^talk 18:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no idea if any value will develop from this specific example, but maybe we'll be more efficient at handling these things in the future. I've set up Wikiversity:Playspace as a project to cover this kind of thing. People are welcome to volunteer to be "playground monitors," there. We'll see what problems, if any, develop.

Juveniles are the future. --Abd 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I learned as an educator that the only way to ensure that the majority of children learn is to remove the tiny minority that are there to only play games. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the effort to give them a playground to play in was in vain. Your playground area was blanked and redirect edited directly. Is this a failed experiment yet?-- darklama  23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to have more patience than a grasshopper to handle kids and even cantankerous adults. No, this is far from a failed experiment. Give it a year before even thinking about "failed." It takes time to learn what works and what doesn't. As to what Ottava has "learned," he didn't learn this from up-to-date education courses nor from masters at the process. Playing games and learning are the same thing, at best. At worst, a poor teacher convinces students that learning is not fun. The attitude expressed may weed out the best students, who are generally the ones having the most fun -- and who may also show "behavioral problems." It's become widely understood, in the education field, how individual variations in what is optimal for learning have caused schools, running a one-size-fits-all model, to operate in ways that can cause drastic underperformance, often persisting for the rest of the student's life.

The redirect was edited directly. Harmless. The redirect still works. I'll move the content, maybe. A page was blanked, I think the user considers it redundant, since I now have what was a deleted page, and then an attempt to recreate it. We'll get it sorted, is there any problem with the blanked page? (I won't leave it completely blanked. I might merge it to history of the other page, and speedy it. Were I a custodian I could do a little more, maybe a little easier, but it's not necessary. The content in the redirect looks like a list of the friends who are playing in this way. Notice [1], which was a greeting from one of the editors. I've moved it to my Talk page and have told the user how to place content on my Talk page. Notice [2], which sure looks to me like a happy kid. The user then tries to sign it.

In other words, communication is opening up.

Really, folks, look at this five years down the road. If these users (kids?) are treated well now, they may carry a positive attitude about Wikiversity, they may tell others and they may show up here and help and learn in a more serious way. If they are yelled at, so to speak, their writing deleted, and they are maybe even blocked, what will they think and what will they say? I have a suspicion that in far less than five years, one or more of these might become an active Wikiversitan, but I really can't tell yet. For me, the apparent joy in that note, which I attribute to a sense that someone cares and is helping, was worth all the -- very small -- effort. --Abd 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, is there some custodian action needed here or can we close this? Please look at Wikiversity:Playspace and watch it or sign up if you'd like to try this out, and, with a little experience, we might even make some suggestions about deletion guidelines.

I don't know how widely what I'm doing could be applied. I do know that when we delete a page that a user created, and the user wasn't a vandal, but just trying something or playing, or, worse, was actually doing a school assignment, that's happened (the topic was considered a "conspiracy theory" and it was directly deleted by an offended custodian), we may be harming our community. I'd like to encourage more creative solutions that still protect our integrity, hence this user space solution, channeling "play" away from mainspace, but welcoming the users. We are not Wikipedia. Thanks for that are due for that every day. --Abd 02:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Patrolling recent edits on #cvn-sw tonight I saw this page being created. Its content struck me as utter nonsense, so I nominated it for speedy deletion - and all related pages. If I was wrong in doing so, please revert me and accept my apologies. Regards, Wutsje 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously okay to nominate nonsense or incomprehensible pages for speedy deletion, but where these pages appear to be the activity of minors or newcomers, I'm moving them to my user space, per the above discussion, and I'd prefer that others move them as well. I've been using User:Abd/IP Sandbox as a master page to cover subpages like this, but I'll be changing it to User:Abd/Playspace as a simpler and more generic name. See Wikiversity:Playspace for a project covering stuff like this.

Dealing with minors with limited communication skills isn't necessarily easy, they don't always understand what's being done and why, but I think that with patience they will. If not, well, there is always plan A. I'm now a probationary custodian and will assume that it's okay to use the tools for this, I've deleted revisions and page names that reveal what seem to be real names, per our privacy policy for apparent minors. Otherwise, what I'm doing could be done by any user, and participation in the playspace project is very welcome. I won't always be able to handle the traffic. Thanks for watching, Wutsje. --Abd 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikiversity:Playspace is the wrong way to do things and I think that page ought to be deleted. Wikiversity shouldn't be a playground or daycare. The goal should be community/social cohesion, social integration, solidarity, and education through leadership by a mentor. Children are or can be smarter than people think. We should not assume just because they are children that they are stupid or need to be cared for all the time. Children like adults, may become infuriated, agitated, annoyed, or hostile, may act out when treated as if they are stupid or need to be cared for all the time, and may rebel as a way to try to prove people wrong. -- darklama  15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, for the most part. I appreciate what Abd is trying to do (if, as I assume, he's trying to engage with young people and steer them towards some sort of educational pursuit), but using the term "playspace" is frankly infantilizing the young people he's trying to engage.

Didn't we talk about a "scratchpad" or something a while ago when discussing empty or nearly empty pages? --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think of "play" as a negative or infantile term, and the name is not critical. Kids are used to "playground," and I don't think they consider it negatively. First of all, Wikiversity:Playspace could be renamed. Secondly, playspaces are controlled by the user in whose user space they reside, that's important, because it establishes responsibility. A generic playspace would be unsupervised, thus returning us to the same problems, i.e., the "whole community" must supervise, which, then wastes the time of users and leads them to become frustrated and want "nonsense" deleted. But any user can host a playspace and can call it what they want, such as "Page Incubator." If the user doesn't responsibly manage it, then there are a host of remedies available.

Yes, I'm trying to engage with young people, but also "fringe theorists" and others. Playspace is a place, among other things, to express ideas and play with them, without causing problems. It is part of a long-term project to make Wikiversity more welcoming, I think you can see this in many of my sometimes-controversial actions. --Abd 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Play" is a negative or infantile term when used to describe a person's work or actions, and they are being serious or their intention is not to play. I cannot relate at all to most things you've said in this discussion. Maybe that is because when I was a child, I wanted to go back to learning after lunch, hated recess, and being told I had to goto recess instead of being allowed to engage in self study always angered me. This undoubtedly shapes my opinion that works should be deleted if their intent isn't serious and educational, and when the person is serious or attempting to be educational someone should try to provide them with guidance. -- darklama  17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences about your childhood. Seriously. However, when kids are playing in the classroom, a wise teacher will try to understand what their needs are, instead of just grabbing their notes and tossing them in the trash, reprimanding them, or sending them to cool it in the hall. Sometimes they may need to cool it in the hall, but usually that just makes things worse. Thanks for sharing a possible origin for your concerns, but a more serious educational assessment is that play is an essential part of learning. And playing with ideas is what geniuses do. And playing in a playground may also be an important part of education, but not when one is forced to do it! Couldn't your teachers have allowed the "serious students" to sit down during recess and talk about learning, or do their homework, or read a book, or something other than being bored to tears? You suffered from a rigid, one-size-fits-all (or we will cut off parts of you), approach to education, as did many. --Abd 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my teachers should have allowed students that wanted to learn during recess to do so. However the issue I'm seeing is you are giving the impression that children's work and their playing with ideas are not to be taken seriously by referring to things as playgrounds and playspaces, by hiding their participation away, and by not having a general goal in mind to work towards. Also by not having a general goal to work towards, it fails to help to keep students and geniuses focused, and to keep work on task for Wikiversity. You also mentioned above this could take years, which I find to be an unnecessary delay. To begin getting works on task with Wikiversity's goals really shouldn't take months let along years. -- darklama  17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you can do it better, Darklama, you are welcome to participate in the project, creating your own Playspace, but you can call it what you like. "Years" is a reference to possible developmental readiness of particular individuals. If you look at what's going on with my Playspace, you might understand. Some people may come up to speed immediately, some might never do it. It appears that these, the ones I'm working with now, are students at a particular middle school, as far as I've been able to figure out. It may take some time for them to become familiar with the situation, and for us to become familiar with them. It's not necessarily easy.

No individual is being forced onto the "playground." The users in question seem to have made some contributions to existing resources, and may have created some, these are not being touched. Only "nonsense" pages from them have been moved, pages that would simply have been deleted, or one example, now of a "fringe physics page," and the creator of that page does not appear to be offended. This is an example of a wiki solution, that allows different people to use their skills and interests differently. Want to focus only on "serious work," fine! In fact, we are making it easier for you, not harder. Want to prevent others from "playing," well, you might find you end up wasting your own time. If I'm not successful with the Playspace, in the current situation, we might be looking at a block of a certain middle school. That's not a nice solution, but, in the past, we had admins willing to issue massive range blocks to prevent play. How about trying this option? --Abd 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, darklama is right on the mark here. If the person(s) making these pages are indeed 12-14 year-olds, they're not going to like the term. As a guy who is much closer to your age than I am to a middle schooler, I'm perfectly fine with characterizing a page I would use for such purposes as a "playspace", but for kids at that age, it sounds dismissive for an adult to tell them to "go play". You have kids, you know what I mean. I do like the concept, but couldn't you call it "chalkboard" or "scratch pad" or something along those lines? I really think sticking with that name will be an obstacle to the success of the project (image and names mean a lot to very young folks). Actually, chalkboard might be even more fun, since lots of schools don't even use those anymore (whiteboards are cheaper and easier to read). --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated at the Deletion discussion page, we don't need a "playspace" and it is inappropriate. If new users need a place to goof off, they can stay at the Sandbox. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandbox does not allow an unsophisticated user to build a page over time. If Ottava, however, believes what he just wrote, and thinks it would enjoy consensus, then he may suggest deletion of Wikiversity:Playspace and, for that matter, User:Abd/Playspace. On Wikipedia, userification was a classic way to save a page from deletion so that a user could work on it. I had deleted files there userfied many times, it was never refused, long-term. Wikipedia, long-term, may end up deleting user space files that we would keep for far longer, but I think my point is clear. Ottava's position here is unduly restrictive on what registered usersmay do, in their own space. --Abd 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"an unsophisticated user to build a page over time" The edit history shows multiple users blanking their work over time, replacing it with other work, and doing the same thing on many pages after abandoning others. It doesn't seem like they would need anything outside of the sandbox. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I stated, quoted, was general. The specific immediate situation clearly involves some work on pages over time. It is not clear how many distinct users there are, and that's part of the difficulty. Part of the task is to attempt to establish some kind of reliable communication. It's not simple. If there is more than one user, it's possible that some are trying to blank the work of others; I've seen signs that one user is complaining about what another has done. Part of my goal is to get this out of mainspace, and then to take responsibility for what happens in my user space. Anyone notice any problems, fix them or let me know about them! I don't necessarily see everything, though I'm trying to watch; especially I don't necessarily see new pages created in my user space with names resembling the old. There is no "watch subspace of pagename" feature in the software, I wish there was. For sure, though, the sandbox would not work for these users, that's why they didn't use the sandbox!

SBJ, I understand the argument about the name. however, the kids are not being told to "go play," they are being invited to come play -- write creatively -- and learn to use the software and learn about community policies, in my playspace. Someone else wants to start a "whiteboard" or "open journal" or whatever they want in their own user space, fine. The concept does not require that there only be one playspace, nor that there be only one name, at least to start. Please remember what the alternative was, before I started doing this. Now we quibble about the name?

There are plenty of possible problems, and I suggest that Wikiversity:Playspace is where they can be shared and worked on. And that could be moved to a better name, if the name is a problem. I started with "IP sandbox" and "Misc sandbox," for my own playspaces, but realized that, for me, it wasn't necessary to distinguish between IP-created pages and those created by registered accounts. In my space, I'll watch pages and, to some degree, protect them, and from watching them, might participate (as appropriate). There are some registered accounts which have edited the Aaqib family of pages, but I see no sign that the users have access to the accounts. It's complicated!

Some of the Aaqib IP, at least, is for a middle school, so kids are accessing Wikiversity during school. They may have no email available, though maybe they could obtain a free email address. There are privacy policy issues to be addressed, kids may be using real names sometimes. It's a complicated task I've taken on voluntarily. It will probably get a little easier when we have guidelines for common problems. --Abd 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(this discussion moved from Wikiversity:Custodian_feedback#Complaint:_SB_Johnny, original title was "Block Ottava?" New title more consistent with what is actually requested given here. --Abd 01:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

SBJ has already warned Ottava over incivility. While it's conceivable for SBJ to enforce that, I'd advise against it, except in emergency. My original warning to Ottava over incivility was about his calling SBJ a "liar" or calling his comments "lies." Likewise, I can't, absent emergency, touch Ottava with tools, without violating my own interpretation of recusal policy. But I hope that other custodians will watch the situation and intervene if needed, either to reinforce warnings or to short-block, if necessary.

At meta, when his request to desysop SBJ went down in flames, Ottava is attempting to persuade stewards to intervene in Wikiversity, to override local policy because of "abuse." It's not flying, but I find it difficult to imagine something more potentially disruptive than this, remember the last time there was intervention from "above" here? Ottava is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he claims that a few users voicing concerns or objections, on my candidacy page, was a consensus opposing my probationary custodianship, and thus a routine action, following policy, was "against the community," but on the other, at meta, he's claiming that participation is so low on WV that no consensus discussion is possible.

Neutral custodians, please watch the situation. Please warn anyone involved who is acting disruptively to cease it. Including me, by the way, if that's your opinion. (I recommend being specific, "stop being disruptive" isn't very helpful! but "[diff] was uncivil," at least there is something to discuss!)

This is not a specific block request, i.e., it is not based on one specific edit, nor is it requesting a block, per se. I'd prefer to see evidence be developed independently, if at all. What I'd really prefer is for Ottava to drop the cudgel and return to collaborative development of this project. Apparently he needs help to do that. --Abd 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Steward Mardetan has pointed out, all WMF projects need consensus to determine things and that adminship would require consensus. To not accept community's rejection of someone to get admin ops in any form would go against this central principle. I find it odd how Abd is asking for admin to block others in what can only be seen as a chilling atmosphere, and it is odd how he ignores his own incivility and SB Johnny's incivility at Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I unsurprisingly endorse the proposed block. That Ottava wants to go over the heads of members of the Wikiversity community via meta:Requests for comment/SB Johnny is yet another illustration of why he should be blocked. Ottava doesn't seem to have any respect the community. Apparently because he doesn't get his way. He clearly still thinks he's the "top organiser". Adambro 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adambro, Kylu, a steward, recommended it. "Going over the head" is not a blockable offense. Furthermore, stiffling community processes and ignoring community consensus is a bannable offense, which is what SB Johnny has done. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did Kylu say on this? I see here where he simply says "take the conversation to Requests for comment please, rather than debate here". That doesn't seem like a particularly strong basis for you to choose to raise that on Meta instead of here. What else has he said? Let's be clear. Adambro 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Meta request for comments. And Meta says on RfC that discussions can be hosted there when there are community problems. Your accusations and threats to block without any legitimate cause is exactly the problem Meta was created for. Your actions are poisonous to any discussion, and they are done to reinforce SB Johnny's ignoring of consensus. Consensus is the WMF's most sacred of policies and cannot be destroyed by a handful of people who use ops inappropriately. If it will require a Meta vote to remove all administrators from Wikiversity and have it taken over by Global Sysops just to stop this nonsense, then so be it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note your response to my perfectly polite and reasonable request for your help in clarifying this situation. It includes a suggestion I've been threatening to block you, when I haven't and nor could I do so. It is also ironic that in response you suggest my "actions are poisonous to any discussion" yet you don't really answer my questions and just seem to resort to attacks. You finish my suggesting that "consensus is the WMF's most sacred of policies" and seem to acknowledge that a number of other users disagree with you then say you think this situation may need to be resolved by the removal of all admins on Wikiversity. I don't quite understand all this. How can you say you are standing up for consensus by seemingly ignoring consensus here because you disagree and wanting to bypass the local community via Meta. Adambro 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"perfectly polite and reasonable request " The word polite doesn't mean what you think it does. Making blatant threats to block outside of policy is incivil. It is the very definition of incivil. When your name popped up in IRC, people were wondering why you were still here as all of your actions seem to be in contradiction to this community. You aren't providing educational material. Your actions consist of threatening people without reason. What is your game? And then you go making up things about consensus. No one, not one person, posted at Abd 2 that Abd did not raise serious concerns. That is blatant and obvious consensus that he should not have any custodianship. That was ignored by a user who has been using ops to bully others to his way. There is no consensus that can be attained here when a user threatens people like you do above and ignores consensus by acting in 100% contradiction to it. How do you not get that? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And because of my Meta RfC, SB Johnny, Abd, and even you wont dare to try and silence the community as you know that if you dare try you will be removed for your abuse. It is about time light is shine on your corrupt ways so that the community can overcome the chilling affect and make its voice clear. Already 3 blatant supports and 2 other supports outside of that section. The hole will be patched up, Abd will be removed from adminship, and those who continue to try and put themselves above the community, like you, SB Johnny, and the rest, will be dealt with once and for all. It is time that Wikiversity returns to being a safe place for educators, which and them are not and have been actively making it unsafe for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, pass me the shovel and stop digging. Stop attacking people and start reading. If you want to discuss things then you have to read what others have said. I cannot block you, as both I and Abd have pointed out, I don't have admin rights here. Adambro 17:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who dug a hole is you, who comes back after being inactive and starts throwing out intimidation and threats. You attacked people. You didn't read anything. You assumed Abd proposed a block when he didn't. You made up stuff about my ops while pretending you didn't ignore community discussion and instead threw up a vote against me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there Ottava, one step at a time. I've already explained, a few times now, that I haven't threatened you nor could I threaten to block you because I couldn't block you. So, how about you explain how exactly I've been threatening you or intimidating you? I am certainly not claiming to be the best at reading but then again it isn't me who is claiming it is so impossible to discuss anything here that it justifies going to Meta when I don't get my way here. Adambro 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget you made his uncivil statement: "I unsurprisingly endorse the proposed block. That Ottava wants to go over the heads of members". Block him for seeking a neutral location recommended by Stewards so that abusive admin couldn't intimidate people into silence! You did exactly what the Meta was intended to prevent. You verified that there is an incivil climate of seeking to bully people into submission instead of listening to what the community actually has to say on the matter. That is not an educational environment. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget that I asked you to explain how exactly I've been threatening you or intimidating you? You don't seem to have tried to do so. You also seem to have forgotten that I'm not an admin. Just as I can't threaten to block you, I can't be an abusive admin when I'm not an admin. As for "...instead of listening to what the community actually has to say", again it is you that wants to raise something on Meta because you don't like what you hear here. I recall how you've removed discussions about your conduct in the past. Adambro 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You first demand a person blocked, then you demand the person explain the matter you are blocking them for. How kind. That isn't civil in any regard. You don't shoot first and ask questions later. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend a wikibreak, Ottava. You are raving. Adambro isn't threatening to block you, and, unless he asks for his bits back, he couldn't -- and he knows I'd troutslap him if he did --, and there was no consensus for SBJ to ignore, just a handful of comments that appeared from some obvious people. Something has gone terribly wrong with your thinking process. I can suspect what it is, but it's not my place; you are judged here solely on the basis of what we see of your editing. Which is pretty bad, for the last two days. Get some rest, it will look better in a few days. --Abd 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Ottava will be warned/blocked at meta, they've been losing patience with him, see this latest meta RfC. It's not clear exactly what Ottava is claiming about Kylu: Ottava wrote this. But Kylu, on meta, wrote only this. This wasn't encouragement, this was purely procedural; Ottava was complaining about a steward supposedly making the wrong decision, giving all his usual pile of reasons, and Kylu pointed out this was completely the wrong place. They don't like argument on the Permissions page, they very much want -- and need -- to keep it simple. In fact, though, the request was totally bogus, and the RfC was about issues that Ottava was immediately told were not for meta.

As to "going over the head," it's not blockable, per se, but if it's part of a patter of behavior, a neutral admin could consider it. It's disruptive to go to Jimbo to suggest he look into this, as Ottava just did. Jimbo is highly unlikely to take the bait, but -- what if he did? (Jimbo is welcome to comment here, quite welcome, and he might indeed have something useful to say, but I don't think this tempest in a teapot is worth his time.) Wikiversity process is working and there is no substantial "cross-wiki" problem here, fingers crossed. --Abd 23:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Sad to see that the only answer to a genuine concern is to silence the person that raised it. The procedure for appointing new custodians has weaknesses; at first glance I can easily see several more than those that Ottava Rima already pointed out. If you want this project to succeed, a less destructive approach is needed. All perception of incivility will then disappear soon enough. Regards, Guido den Broeder 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Guido, I don't think you understand our policy and procedure. The procedure in question isn't for "appointing new custodians," it is for creating a probationary custodianship period. Probationary custodians cannot keep their bits without the continued approval of a mentor. Please try to understand our policy, which is far more open and flexible -- and less vulnerable to abuse -- than the other WMF wikis. There are indeed possible loopholes, but they don't produce full custodians, just temporary probationary ones. A full community discussion is required for permanent custodianship. If you see problems with specific probationary custodians, that would be the time to voice your concerns. Or you could voice them now, the candidacy pages remain open during the probationary period.

• I agree that the policy could be improved, but mostly this is to avoid theoretical problems. The largest issue isn't about probationary custodians, but about full ones. If there is an abusive custodian, it can be difficult to demonstrate this and obtain consensus for removal. That, however, is a more tenacious problem, and if you'd like to help with it, well, please become familiar with Wikiversity and how it works. It's not as contentious a place, normally, as the other WMF wikis, because our policies are radically inclusive by comparison. And we really dislike banning people. The only two bans I was aware of have been lifted, surely you are aware of this, right? (There may be some blocks; if anyone thinks someone was blocked in error, or that an old block, even if justified then, is no longer necessary, please let me know and I'll investigate!) --Abd 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guido has been involved in the WMF and its sister projects longer than you have, Abd. Don't talk down to him as if he is new, especially when you have relatively little history here. As I pointed out on Meta, the "probationary" period is undermining community consensus and serves nothing except to give power to administrators where they lack that right. You transformed it from something easy and fun to have a few friends do basic maintenance to a position of bullying and harassment that is your "right" to have to wage war on your enemies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know Guido and have worked with him. I also know his predilictions. "Bullying and harassment?" "Wage war on my enemies?" With admin tools? Eh? Can you justify this radically uncivil claim with any evidence? And how do you imagine that I'd get away with this? This is a wiki, almost everything I do is visible to everyone. I'm doing some revision deletions now, you can see that, and if you have any questions about them, ask any custodian to check them out. They are being done to support the naive users involved, when, based on what you used to do, you would probably be blocking them and deleting everything they create. That's the Wikiversity of your dreams, I'm afraid. It's over. We woke up. --Abd 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your mentorship did not end in a recommendation because of these abuses. They were prominently displayed at your first Custodian page. If you want to see them, you can go there. And those users have no purpose here and they continue to verify that your actions are making the problem worse, not better. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Now I know what Ottava is talking about. My mentorship was going along swimmingly, no substantial problems, even though I did touch some sensitive areas, working on the unblock of Thekohser and Moulton, supporting efforts to find a way to resolve the long-term problems. However, I came across Ottava calling SBJ a liar. Uncivil. I warned him. He blew me off. So I blocked him for two hours, since it was necessary to make the point that I was serious, and I immediately took the matter to RCA for review by other custodians. He was not my "enemy," he was my friend, and we had a long-term friendly relationship that began on Wikipedia, when he was blocked there (before his ban). He was my mentor, he'd been welcoming and helpful. Immediately, though, he responded very negatively, and went for immediate desysop without allowing me the opportunity to find a replacement mentor, as policy prescribed. My warning for incivility and the 2 hour block were confirmed by Jtneill, a 'crat, and immediately Ottava filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill. It was the beginning of the end for him as a Wikiversity custodian. It seemed for a while like he'd calmed down, but then it started up again, and Ottava was desysopped based on Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima. It looks a bit like he's trying to get blocked at meta, see m:Requests for comment/SB Johnny.

I know of no other example where abuse of tools to "harass" could even remotely be claimed. When I thought that JWS might need to be warned and maybe short-blocked for disruptive behavior, I didn't use the tools, I discussed it with the community, in a discussion -- started by others -- where I eventually withdrew my support for a block, for reasons I gave there. The above is an example, once again, of how Ottava maintains and expresses a paranoid vision of the motives and behavior of other users, and then finds ways to present facts or imagined facts to support the vision. It's quite unfortunate. It's being pointed out at meta. Nobody was harassing anyone until Ottava started pitching a fit over my candidacy, and all I've done now is to respond to his claims and seek review by a neutral custodian, following the suggestion of Adambro. --Abd 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to "those users," the attitude is intolerable in a Wikiversity custodian. The most recent users I'm working with are apparently middle-school children, a tricky group to handle. Easy to just delete their pages and block the IP, since they kept recreating their pages in mainspace. I'm trying a different approach, see Wikiversity:Playspace. Today's middle school kids are tomorrow's Wikiversitans, and this change could come rapidly. Kids grow up. --Abd 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children only grow up when they are punished for inappropriate behavior, not when they are encouraged in it like you are doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment is punitive. Wikimedia projects are suppose to avoid punitive actions. Also not all children benefit or mature from punishment. Research evidence seems to increasingly suggest that punishment is either ineffective or less effective than positive reinforcements. However I think what Abd is doing amounts to pretending like there isn't an issue, which is also ineffective, but that should be discussed elsewhere. -- darklama  16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darklama, we aren't in the business of raising children or being their daycare, so we don't worry about punishing them or preventing them. Abd was assuming that he could raise children to become adults. Our place is to prevent vandalism, off topic pages, and the rest, and Abd's attitude only increases it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be on my user page that I have seven children, five are adult, and I have five six grandchildren? --Abd 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what's being talked about here is a long-term or indefinite block, the discussion really belongs on Community Review, not on the custodian feedback page. FWIW, I don't really see his actions on meta to be of much concern, though the canvassing issues are another story.

This whole subheading could just be moved over there. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request here was for custodian attention to a developing situation. Specifically, a neutral custodian could warn a user that continued disruptive behavior would result in a block, probably a short block initially. It is premature to discuss a long-term or indef block. That's why this subsection was started. As a request for custodian action, i.e., review of the situation, without prejudice. As to issues on meta, of the most concern is an attempt to seek steward or Founder intervention here. We should certainly be aware of that! --Abd 19:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, right, but this isn't WV:RCA either. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I forgot. But the point stands that this isn't ripe for Community Review, in my opinion, it is not about, as far as my intention, a "long-term or indefinite block." --Abd 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey. Feel free to move it to RCA instead then ;-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an update to this, I blocked Ottava this morning for 2 days after noting this comment on the Colloquium (this earlier one was concerning as well, and certainly suggested a continuation of the pattern I had warned him about earlier). I realize there may be some concerns about me being the one to impose the block, but I have nothing in particular to gain from it (I'm not particularly concerned about his comments aimed at me, and in this case I actually agree with what he was proposing), and apparently I was the first one to notice it. Given the discussion above, I assume a short block to interrupt the pattern is not particularly controversial. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much wrong in these comments, and suggest to unblock (and bravely swallow the fallout that your action causes). Regards, Guido den Broeder 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guido. I assume you do see the problem with the belittling tone of the comments, but perhaps you're not quite aware of the long term pattern of that. If I hadn't given so many warnings already, I would have just warned again, but to quote an old saw: "trying the same thing over and over and respecting different results is the very definition of insanity". Since the warnings are not achieving the goal (after many tries), it's perhaps time to see if consequences will help motivate him to take a different approach. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not see a problem there. Or, rather, I see a problem with the barrage of warnings. Tones will improve as soon as you start dealing with the issues rather than targeting the person that brings them up. Guido den Broeder 19:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have been discussing the issues. Please chip in! --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you have not been making any progress? Guido den Broeder 21:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the block, due to the pattern that had been shown, with no response to polite requests or warnings, and my only concern was the appearance of bias. Let's see what other custodians think. Above, I requested that a neutral custodian monitor the situation. None volunteered, so the situation moved into possible "emergency" status. (Continued incivility causes a lot of time and energy to be wasted.) I'd support an unblock if Ottava agrees to appropriate behavioral limits, perhaps with a mentor whom he would accept. Otherwise, we'll know in two days whether or not future action will be needed. --Abd 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly an "emergency", but rather a result of having too few active custodians with no previous history with Ottava. A shout out to the "inactive" custodians might be in order if you really think bias is an issue here. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A continuation of a problem situation, not originally an emergency, becomes one, and "lack of active custodians" makes it so. Above, I asked for custodian attention to the situation. None responded saying that they would watch it. None warned anyone (but Ottava had already been warned many times). So, those who are active have to deal with it. However, I would not block because of mere incivility directed toward me, period. I might block because of incivility directed toward someone else, if there was a complaint, and nobody was dealing with it, after enough time and repetition. --Abd 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks for incivility are just silly. All you need to do instead is (kindly!) ask the user to rephrase. And never rush in if it's not directed towards you, because oftentimes nobody is offended, and you just read it wrong. Guido den Broeder 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For example, nobody is offended here. —Caprice 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to remove the bits for SB_Johnny. Things had seemed quiet. Apparently not. Please, will neutral custodians watch that discussion and related activity? I cannot act because I'm obviously involved. SB_Johnny probably should not act, though as last blocking admin for Ottava, who took that block here for review, he might be able to. He's being threatened with blocks by unspecified administrators, but there are no warnings except from Ottava. My opinion is that this is beyond-the-pale incivility and disruption, and being attacked are two bureaucrats, directly, Mu301, SB_Johnny, and, unstated, and a third bureaucrat, Jtneill, because he's my sponsor, the one responsible for my custodianship, not SBJ, who merely followed policy. Please review and warn or otherwise act as needed. Thanks. --Abd 05:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 neutral custodians are already watching it, and you will be blocked when they come on. Your actions and conduct are unacceptable. If SB Johnny, Jtneill, or the rest try to aid your disruption, I have guarantees that they too will be blocked. If they try to override it, then then that is cause enough to have Meta involvement here to strip them until the proceeding is ended, and if Jtneill tries then he will be put up next. This community was hijacked by a group of 4 disruptive users 2 years ago that decided they would remove our founder, JWSchmidt, and replace any reasonable governance here with bile and hate. This has been encouraged even further by you. This is over now and in 7 days it will be just a memory. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Neutral custodians who make up their mind in advance to block, so that Ottava can threaten it? That's an oxymoron. [3] could be enough to justify a block, all right. "I have guarantees that they too will be blocked." Okay, Ottava, put up or shut up. I'm fascinated. This looks to me like wiki-suicide. Bye-bye. I'm going to bed, I've got children and stuff to do tomorrow. --Abd 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother to read the top of the page. It was expected that you would try to pull a stunt like this because you know that without SB Johnny your hopes to be an admin are forever crushed as the community does not support you in any way. You made claims about Community Review that were completely wrong, made up claims that there was no evidence, then tried to argue that "egregious violation of policy" were necessary to desysop yet there was not one when you voted to desysop me out of process and in a manner that did not follow any policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that this content should be reconsidered as a possible Community Review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing serious disruption, threats of users, threats of blocks by unspecified allied custodians, blatant disregard of process, maintenance of grudges and attempts to inflame old controversies, coupled with serious misprepresentation of policy. The discussion started is out of process, as noted on the attached Talk by two (relatively) uninvolved 'crats, who are the ones charged by policy with making decisions on desysopping. The existing discussion, then, will just waste time for users crafting comments, gathering evidence, etc. Therefore it is disruptive, aside from the issues of Ottava behavior. Per Wikiversity:Recusal (my proposed policy) I am obligated to refrain from using tools while involved, and I'm obviously involved here. However, that policy allows for emergency action with immediate consultation, and I'm going further and providing advance notice here. I am declaring an emergency, and will review the situation for possible action; I intend to close the "Candidates for custodianship" subpage that Ottava started, and would protect it if necessary, and would use the block tool to prevent disruption, if necessary pending review of my action. I will issue warnings prior to blocking. I consent to being blocked by any custodian who believes that my actions are likely to be outside of reasonable discretion. I ask that the custodian allow me to unblock myself, explicitly with the block, and I would then not use tools on any related matter without permission of that custodian; my mentor may lift this restriction. (I.e., the custodian should so inform me on my Talk page, that I should not act, and may issue a block to make sure that I see the notice before proceeding, if that is considered necessary. --Abd 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "emergency" situations and, as Moulton is pointing out in IRC, all you do is make things up. You are really acting out of control and have for 6 months. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an emergency because I've declared one, I have admin tools, and I intend to use them if necessary. The process I've suggested and requested above provides more than adequate protection, my ability to act in an emergency is severely limited and temporary. There are multiple restraints. I will explain every action, and every action is subject to review.

Our community's inability to respond effectively and efficiently to crisis is what has caused massive disruption in the past. It's time that this paralysis is lifted. With full protection and deeper consultation with the community. This is not Wikipedia. --Abd 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, please back down a bit. Ottava, please re-open that as a CR, where you can list and describe your concerns, and I can respond to them. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a confirmation hearing, not a community review. Your actions have already been reviewed multiple times at CR and elsewhere. Custodianship belongs on one page. This process has been worked out and discussed since the day you were posted up at the Custodian feedback page and that was the most suitable place. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Community Review/SB_Johnny is, in fact, a redlink. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a page named after you does not mean multiple CRs have not addressed your behavior. CR is for discussion only. The Custodianship request page is for handling Custodianship rights, so a confirmation hearing would follow the same process. That is how other Wikis handle their confirmation process and it conforms with our Custodianship policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava blocked, by me. Block is provisional, pending review, but given the seriousness of the disruption, I made it a year. What my request here points out is that hardly anybody is minding the store, or, alternatively, custodians who are seeing this were willing to allow this block, since I provided easy and quick ways to stop me. Any custodian could have stopped me by simply asking me to stop! My block can easily be undone, if any custodian looks at the situation and believes the block does more harm than good. Ottava, in response to my warning about disruption, started a process to topic ban me from making any edits to Wikiversity pages (which would be a tad draconian for a sysop, eh?). Normally, blocking someone from starting a process would be totally improper. These are not normal circumstances, and one cannot stop an administrator who has expressed a warning from backing up the warning with action merely by screaming and yelling about it. Ottava was claiming to have two admins ready to block me. Okay, where are they? If he was telling the truth, my block is meaningless, except to flush them out! I'm fine with that. I am not in charge of Wikiversity, just of myself. This review request remains open, and I remain open to guidance from the rest of the custodial community. SBJ, you tried, I think, but if you'd intended STOP, you could have written that. I'm happy to drop this now, but will remain open to comments and criticism. --Abd 20:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, I realize time was perhaps a bit compressed for you today due to adrenaline, but (a) it wasn't (IMO) an emergency, and (b) if it was an emergency you should have blocked for a day or so to allow for community discussion and feedback. I agree that the drama level is unacceptable, but I don't think your approach did anything to reduce it. I also think that you should have consulted with your mentor before imposing a one year block on a contributor who has been the subject of more than one discussion and who has been with us for a long time. --SB_Johnny ^talk 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBJ, it seems you have a dual standard, for what I could do and what you could do. You would have the same long-term recusal requirement as I. You blocked, as described above, for 2 days. The next block, since it is for similar activity (incivility and the kind of disruption Ottava is engaged in are similar), should be escalated. The block I made was clearly not a fixed year, but "pending review," and immediate review was invited. However, instead of reviewing, perhaps setting conditions, perhaps shortening it, you lifted it, without setting any conditions. You were free to do that, but that didn't make it wise. It was totally foolish, in fact, irresponsible, and in contradiction to your prior block; Ottava continued to disregard your previous warning, and you demonstrated that you were utterly incapable of addressing the situation. There are only a few custodians actively watching, as far as I can tell. Darklama has said he doesn't know what to do. I did, but can't do it alone. Your action established a presumption, and, far from being level-headed, it was hot-headed. About me. Good luck! --Abd 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in on this. I agree with SB_Johnny here - at least I'd have a higher threshold on "emergency", particularly given the history of niggle between Ottava Rima and Abd. I would prefer to see discussion first in situations like this. Perhaps there are times when waiting for discussion might mean "waiting too long", but from what I've seen this tends to lead to fewer issues than risking "acting in haste". And, as SBJ points out, why block for a year? Having said this, I equally don't support "emergency desysop". Abd is not reblocking against consensus etc. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of "emergency" is a personal judgment call, by definition, emergency cannot be crisply defined in advance. So in a review of my action, "emergency" would be examined, and I'd present evidence supporting my declaration, which is a separate question from the propriety of the block itself. The length of the block was explained. It was a substitute for "indef," which meant only "until reviewed." Because I came here and announced intention and announced action and invited review, the actual harm from the block was mitigated, if it was harmful. I am, indeed, disappointed here, because, in unblocking, SBJ did not consider what would have been appropriate as a length. He could have reblocked for a day, for whatever length he considered appropriate. Or he could have set conditions for unblock, and waited for Ottava to agree. And if Ottava had not agreed, he could have waited for another custodian to decide. After all, SBJ was involved, as well. So would be your good self, Jt. So would others.

What I saw was a rapidly developing situation, with stuff happening that was worse in implications for Wikiversity than anything I'd seen before from Ottava. I considered that bold action was called for, and I fully accept responsibility for that. I'd have responded to "stop" immediately, from any custodian, and maybe even from a neutral editor. I announced the intention, in a place where, previously, I'd asked for custodian attention. That attention had not appeared, and no request to stop appeared. I also consented to being blocked if any custodian felt there was immediate hazard from me, under safe conditions. Given the conditions, the only problem here was that nobody else was paying attention. If a custodian had written on my Talk page, or here, "I'm reviewing the situation, please do not act as you have stated," that would have been it. I'd not have blocked.

That absence of attention alone, Jt, shows that there is a kind of "standing emergency," an unwatched store. (Ottava even agrees on this, so he's a kind of whistle-blower himself.) So I acted. And I assumed from the beginning that the community would review this, there are many important issues raised. That is, to me, more important than the minor question of whether or not Abd gets to sweep out the halls and clean up piles of unneeded redirects. If anyone imagines that my idea of myself involves the "importance" of being a custodian, they are dreaming, it's not me. I've taken, in my entire time as a probationary custodian, two controversial actions. They were basically the same, blowing the whistle over the same underlying issue. I'll discuss that in a CR, which is the proper process for non-emergency review of my status.

I consent, as well, to emergency removal of my custodial status by my mentor, at any time during the probationary period, in case that wasn't clear. I waive the 48 hour period for time to find a new mentor. The last thing we need is massive discussion and disruption over removal. Convince Jtneill there is a present danger, my bit is history, very, very quickly. But you could also simply complain about an action and ask him, if I don't agree with you readily, to require me to not repeat it. It doesn't have to be complicated. That is, indeed, part of what I'm trying to show. --Abd 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you still doing? DO YOU REALLY LOVE THE DRAMA? For a reason Wikiversity keeps on failing, and if people like you are still doing things the way they want WIKIVERSITY WILL NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL. For God's sake, go create content. Think about Wikiversity, for the purpose you're really here. Stop being stupid and discussing things that, with you being so few, are never going to change. Create a good image to Wikiversity, at least to attract some more people, then discuss policies, etc. I'm disappointed of you all, very disappointed. People blocking other people who disagrees with them... come on! Take Wikiversity a bit more seriously! It is not a crappy chess game! Diego Grez 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on! I'm still waiting for the block and it's subsequent pointless discussion :D Diego Grez 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, Diego, you haven't even been warned, and there is nothing personally uncivil about your yelling, even. I'm afraid you haven't been paying much attention to what's been going on here. Do you think that anyone is being blocked simply because they get a little excited? There is more drama in your comment than in anything about this block, which is, after all, only a 2-day block, escalated properly from a prior 1-day block by another admin, and even a warning and 2-hour block by yours truly, and brought here by SBJ precisely because of your concern (i.e., possible appearance of blocking someone because of disagreement). Remember that 2-hour block? And we don't block for Drama, as such, or have you not noticed that Caprice is editing? Wikiversity is moving on, and you can be a part of that, if you like. --Abd 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But I have not enough time to spend here :( Diego Grez 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima opened up, now, in addition to Wikiversity:Community Review/Abd and Wikiversity:Community Review/SB_Johnny, Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill 2 and Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu 2. As I spotted this before any comments had appeared other than his, I have closed them and have protected the pages, pending review. There is a process failure: custodian removal procedure requires a custodian feedback filing first. In addition, Ottava previously filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill and Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu, which failed. We must draw a line somewhere.

Because I have an obvious recusal requirement, due to long-term conflict with Ottava, I am requesting immediate review. Any custodian may undo my close and protection, if willing to take responsibility for what ensues.

Ottava had been threatening users with block by two custodians who were supposedly waiting to enforce Ottava's plans. I warned him, and he promptly filed his topic ban proposal that was later, improperly, converted to Wikiversity:Community Review/Abd. It is apparent that he did this to then be able to create the appearance of being blocked for "disagreement." He is now attempting to place the entire active bureaucrat community under an obligation to recuse.

This contingency has been contemplated by those who consider recusal policy. If all are under recusal requirements, none are, and any may act. I am not interpreting this to allow me to act with respect to blocks, because my block of Ottava was already lifted by SB_Johnny as improper, and I'm not permitted to wheel-war, period. However, SB_Johnny is in a unique position. He would normally be under a recusal requirement, but because he established Ottava's unblocked status, he may remove it. Any administrator may undo their own action, regardless of recusal requirements.

Previously, I requested, here, review of Ottava's actions, which I saw as escalating and creating serious danger for the wiki. It was only because there was no response here that I went ahead and announced my intention to block, and, when no request to not do this appeared, acted according to the ample warning. --Abd 09:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with both closes. Both reviews are premature, if perhaps only by a few days. We need to close the related reviews of Abd and SB_Johnny first. Guido den Broeder 12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I do, however, not support the reasons for close provided above by Abd, and therefore nonetheless consider his move to be yet another example of poor judgement. Guido den Broeder 12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment If it pleases either of them to exercise political power over others, who are we to deny them the ecstasy of their fervently held political beliefs? —Albatross 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• News flash: Abd is now the chief censor, executioner (absurd 1 year block of Ottava) and Zombie Drama Queen of Wikiversity. The peons are in the streets chanting, "Pharaoh Abdul Rahman Mubarak created a flood of nonsense and other plagues at Wikiversity and it is now time for him to get on a plane and fly back to Wikipedia where he learned to abuse sysop tools." The whole world is watching in disgust. --JWSchmidt 14:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do know some are watching in disgust, all right, I just got an expression from a long-time experienced user that he's considering filing a request to close wikiversity, because obviously it can't handle disruption. --Abd 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - by editing those pages, Abd is in violation of his ban prohibiting from editing such pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No such ban has been approved by a custodian and the proposal lacks proper parameters. Adrignola 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the situation continues that independent custodian review does not appear, I intend to act under emergency conditions. I'm asking everyone to stand down. Normal comment may continue in open Community Reviews, but civility restrictions may be applied, and it goes without saying that normal editing may continue. Please substantiate claims there with evidence. Two users have crossed lines and have been previously blocked for disruption. I will again warn these users, and prior expressed intention to avoid use of tools is hereby withdrawn. Any custodian may interrupt this process by request on my Talk page, and I have no intention of acting precipitately. But enough is enough, and if I might lose my tools, I might as well use them as long as I can to protect the community, which is now under concerted attack, here and at meta, and in danger of an effort to close it.

Do not worry. If you have not been warned, you will not be blocked, and freedom of speech is crucial to an academic environment. My actions are not about speech, but about disruption, including drastic misrepresentation of policy and the carrying on personal vendettas.

While the topic ban on Wikiversity space was abusively proposed by Ottava, in an attempt to amplify recusal requirements (it followed my warning him) and the voting was defective, I will nevertheless cease all Wikiverity space comment except as I deem needed under these emergency conditions. I may, however, close discussions and protect pages if needed, providing brief explanations of these actions. As I may be the only active custodian at times, please feel free to request needed actions on my Talk page or at Request custodian action. --Abd 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, there is not an emergency here, or at least no Sword of Damocles overhead that I can see. Please talk to your mentor before using tools again. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBJ, that you do not see a thing does not mean that it does not exist, because you do not see everything. Especially you don't see my email.

However, I'm interpreting this comment, as well as your comment on my Talk page, as a request that I desist. As you are a sysop here, I must therefore assume that you are responsible for monitoring the situation, and will act as necessary, and thus I am prohibited from acting. Good luck! My warnings ([4][5]) stand as warnings, but I cannot personally enforce them; I am therefore no longer responsible for continued disruption. I've done what I could do.

As to SBJ's comment about using tools, I consulted my mentor, and the response does not disallow me from using tools, except with respect to blocking Ottava. I am therefore interpreting the ongoing effect from SBJ's comment as being only related to the current controversy, or wherever I would normally need to declare an emergency in order to act, per Wikiversity:Recusal. If this is not correct, I'm sure that SBJ will so advise. --Abd 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I expressed intention to cease WV space comment, aside from absolute necessity. That was because I was proposing to enforce two bans from WV space, and so as not to gain an unfair advantage. Since my intention to enforce has been interdicted by SBJ, my voluntary abstinence has ceased. But I still intend to avoid lengthy comment. --Abd 15:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stale. No custodian action required now. --Abd 01:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• [6] JWSchmidt removes Guido den Broeder's speedy deletion tag (proper), but adds personal attack in mainspace. (grossly improper).
• [7] Guido den Broeder removes personal attack (proper) but restores speedy deletion tag (improper).
• [8] JWS reverts, with summary: What a fun game!

I have removed the speedy tag and the personal attack, and will warn both users to cease the impropriety. Please review and act if needed. Thanks. --Abd 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no war, as I have no intention of reverting more than once. Don't make it bigger than it is. Anyone can have a bad day, and the page is up for deletion anyway. Guido den Broeder 02:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with above)*warning to JWS. --Abd

• [9] Guido places {{dr}} tag, which is proper. Leaves personal attack in place, which was optional. So I have not warned Guido, only JWS. --Abd 02:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @Guido: This is old behavior for JWS, and it's disruptive even if you accept it, a personal attack in mainspace? The report stands. I've done my job, I'll only come back to this if there are developments that should be noted. Have a nice day. --Abd 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for removing the rant, that suffices. Guido den Broeder 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no war.

No war?!? You silly goose! How do you expect me to write a truly atrocious and compelling opera if there is no war?!? —Moulton 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and do better next time. :-) Guido den Broeder 12:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This still needs custodian attention. When a report like this is filed, it's a courtesy for a custodian to respond. The response could be "chill," but it should show, at least, that the issue was examined. Disruptive behavior is shown, mostly, by far, on the part of JWS; Guido made a single error, easily fixed, and he did fix it, which is why I didn't go ahead and warn him. JWS, on the other hand, responded to my warning with this. He apparently sees nothing wrong with putting up a personal criticism of a WV user, named, in mainspace. Had he put this on the Talk page, it might have been uncivil, but not vandalism, as it effectively was in mainspace. If that's not vandalism, does this mean that I could add personal criticisms of this or that WV user to resources they have touched in some way?
• JWS takes no responsibility for what he did, and this has been a pattern: he never admits error or, at least promises not to repeated offensive behavior, and, as a result, behaviors can be expected to repeat. This was vandalism, and thus we can now continue to expect vandalism from him.
• (If I paint "Criminal" on a politician's campaign billboard, that's vandalism, whether or not the politician is a criminal. JWS's complaint about Guido could have been posted at Requests for deletion, and it might have been a civility issue there, or not, but not vandalism.)
• JWS was previously blocked for using a page inappropriately to make a point. I disagreed with Adambro being the proper custodian to do it, because of long-term conflict, but the block itself was correct. See JWS block log. See JWS's most objectionable post and for his repeated attempt, referring to a page (created by JWS?). The page JWS edited was protected by Darklama, to prevent this, and the cited page in the second edit was deleted by Adambro. The block stood, and expired. The protection was lifted by Jtneill, apparently because, with JWS blocked, it wasn't needed. The deletion by Adambro stood.
• A custodian need not necessarily respond to this with a block; but a custodian should become involved, confirm the warning of JWS, and seek to obtain assurances that the behavior will not repeat. Just letting this behavior stand is driving away users, I have no doubt about it. Doing nothing isn't an option, if we care about Wikiversity. If a new Community Review is needed, I'm willing to work on it, but I'm not going to waste the time if the custodial community simply looks the other way. --Abd 17:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I've left a note. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this seems to be a couple days stale. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the activity was still going on when I filed. And the JWS reply on my talk was today, I think. I pointed to old behavior as to the disclaimer page, but see the original filing here. This is fresh and can be expected to recur unless JWS starts listening or is stopped. Is there anyone he trusts? --Abd 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of who he trusts. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intervention of someone he trusts could be a possible resolution short of a block or ban. --Abd 00:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lecture from a Mad Hatter could be a possible resolution short of a sentence of "Off with his head" from a Queen of Hearts. Our local Bostonian Cheshire Cat's experience with the "Off with his head" sentence suggests that it's usefulness is much exaggerated. WAS 4.250 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough with the Talking Heads (and Stalking Heads). Moulton is promoting the Singing Heads. —Montana Mouse —14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish you luck finding someone he trusts. Someone he trusts doesn't guarantee he will listen to them though. Not trusting and listening to people doesn't excuse him from his actions either. I think being able to trust, listen, communicate, and collaborate with most people can even be considered necessities for a healthy and functional community. I believe JWS has demonstrated many times through his actions his willingness to immediately distrust anyone that doesn't share his world view. -- darklama  13:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you hear me now? —Barsoom Tork 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• On User talk:Darklama JWS continues to justify his placing of a personal attack in mainspace ("There is nothing "off-topic" about creating a learning resource about the disruptive games played by deletionists") in mainspace; the action involved was adding comment about "disruptive games," naming the alleged "deletionist," on Game design. --Abd 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Darklama, you may be correct, but we should invite JWS to name some users he'd trust. Erkan Yilmaz? Whom? If I were a blocking custodian here, I'd ask JWS the question, and then ask the users for help. My goal would be the positive participation of JWS, not his exclusion. --Abd 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: There doesn't appear to be a need for custodian action in relation to Joshua's request, so any further discussion can move to email, talk pages, etc.
The collapsing war is really not helpful here, since Joshua did indeed point out that he didn't mind his name being used. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton is engaging in repeated remarks on my user talk page despite the fact that I've asked him to stop, as can be seen here. This includes repeatedly posting the lyrics to a song which he has also posted repeatedly to my talk pages on the English Wikipedia and meta. If a custodian/admin here could get him to stop this on my Wikiversity talk page I'd appreciate it. (Incidentally, the user has been warned before about edit warring with other users on their talk pages.) JoshuaZ 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also posted this:

Discussion with Joshua Zelinsky regarding David Berlinski

This is a problematic issue raised by my colleague, Joshua Zelinsky...

Outcast User:Moulton being annoying, continuing to expose corrupt editors IDCab

User:Moulton who was banned[factual?] for persistent disruption[factual?], has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [10] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath on behalf of IDCab because in the last battle of this epic MMPORG, those on the side of accuracy, ethics, and excellence in online media beat their brains out. Or more precisely, Charles Ainsworth beat their brains out at ArbCom . So they obviously don't want anyone to do that again. But the sensible thing to do would be to correct the blatant errors in the BLPs. I mean is that too much to ask? —Moulton 08:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that multiple admins just removed those diffs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anyway, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to block all 160,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, plus a slew of IPs in two other states. Also, feel free to invite Jimbo Wales to shut down Wikiversity, as FeloniousMonk sought to do the last time around. Lot of good it did him, eh? —Barry Kort 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing w:User talk:Schlafly and at . Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked User:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, w:Talk:David Berlinski, and w:User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a quarter million IPs in three states. Do you propose to block them all? Or would you prefer negotiate a peaceable resolution of my dispute with the tattered remnants of IDCab? —Moulton 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are you alarmed by the fact that Verizon service in Eastern Massachusetts comprises a block of some 160,000 dynamic IPs? —Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be done about his posts at w:User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Of course something should be done. They should be thoughtfully responded to by Roger and other interested and responsible parties who care about accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. —Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [11] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Caprice can never die. —Albatross 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend against moral panic at the discovery of moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course we are crafting a comic opera about moral panic at the revelation of moral bankruptcy. My perplexity is that I can't tell the difference between a comic opera and reality here on Wikipedia. —Gastrin Bombesin 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How may we address this? —Caprice 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is an instance of the Corollary to Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a corrupt bureaucracy makes a mistake, not only can it not be fixed, it can't even be mentioned. Evar. —Montana Mouse 11:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You fool. It's a losing cause. You're playing Mafia Wars with a gang that has bigger banhammers than you. —Barsoom Tork 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Joshua, please stay a while and let's discuss this. I'd have taken up the issue on Wikipedia, but that proved impractical. —Moulton 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton 04:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the above collapsed commentary, it can be seen that, on Wikipedia, Moulton is threatening to require massive range blocks in order for the Wikipedia community to exercise its right to control its own process. He's done the same here. That's bullying, and it should not be tolerated. Massive range blocks are not necessary, generally, but we need not explore that unless the contingency arises. --Abd 15:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of coming here myself, given what I've been seeing from Moulton. He added a personal comment about me, disguised as part of my conflict of interest disclosure, at Cold fusion, on the resource page. He's defending his "research" which consists of highly loaded and very personal criticism of Wikipedia editors, using their real names, without following any ethical guidelines. This was the same kind of activity that brought Jimbo intervention in 2008, and it could cause "cross-wiki" problems. He's revert warred on user talk pages to shove his ridicule of them into their faces. I do not recommend that we ban Moulton. However, I do recommend that he be subject to limits, enforced as needed by blocks. Ottava unblocked him without conditions. That was an error. --Abd 15:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn/block specifically, a custodian should warn User:Moulton/User:Caprice against specific behaviors, that repetition will result in a block, with blocking being continued until there is a negotiated end to the disruption. Alternatively, the custodian should block, given that Moulton knows very well that what he's doing is not acceptable, and that he's already been warned, as JoshuaZ showed, and with [12]. He is attempting to be banned again, it's his preferred state. We should oblige him, in a way that makes it clear that this is his choice, not ours, but with blocks, not bans. Previously, I explored how to incorporate useful content from Moulton even while he was blocked, it's possible.--Abd 15:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Call for the Question — May I have a day in court please? Will the Dark Junta either issue a fiat without due process, or entertain a sober discussion of the unresolved issues raised by Joshua's complaint? —Moulton 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• also [13]. thank you, KillerChihuahua 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence Tampering — For the record, I object to Abd, Joshua, and Tracy tampering with the evidence against me. I insist that the evidence against me be openly displayed, and that all aggrieved parties are afforded a fair opportunity to face their accusers, to examine the evidence against them, and to cross-examine witnesses. —Moulton 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The evidence in question is, I believe, above, easily visible for anyone who wants to see it, by pressing the little down-arrow on the collapse box. It was collapsed because it has no bearing on the complaint here. To the extent that you are "accused" here, Moulton, the charge is edit warring on User talk:JoshuaZ. The request is that you be asked to stop. Your focus on the material you wish, personally, to post there, is a distraction from that request, which deserves a response. I'm going to add something below. --Abd 17:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Personal attack. Block. (new cause) See [14][15]. Unwanted editing of JZ talk continued. If Moulton's activity on that talk page is permitted, Wikiversity has no boundaries and no custodian supervision, and that's not tolerable, from a WMF point of view. --Abd 17:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please also oversight [16], [17] and [18]. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Intention to request steward intervention if no local custodian is willing to handle this. --Abd 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Green Light — Abd I urge to you proceed directly to Meta to summon a steward to intervene here on your behalf. —Moulton 16:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mikeu has now formally warned you, that may not be necessary. Not "my behalf." They wouldn't lift a finger for me. On behalf of Wikiversity and the WMF. --Abd 18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, cool. I now have an anankastic conditional from Mike too. It seems to be a popular practice of late. —Moulton 08:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his revert warring on this page, Moulton is repeatedly restoring the full name of JoshuaZ, trolling, it's not necessary for his "defense." Therefore Mike's warning about using "real names" has been disregarded, unless contrary evidence appears. Hence if no enforcement or further administrative response appears, I personally intend to request steward intervention. By the way, I see no w:anankastic conditional in Mike's warning, that is obfuscation. --Abd 17:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I call for the Academic Review Panel that Laura and I requested to recommend Ethical Best Practices here. —Moulton 09:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima is apparently on extended wikibreak, so presumably will not be pursuing this further while he is away --SB_Johnny ^talk11:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale has repeatedly posted IRC logs in contradiction to our Wikiversity policy banning such. Regardless of what a channel may or may not say, our Wikiversity:Privacy policy forbids things like this. Laura has also posted up my full name and my work location in those logs, which I requested Oversight because such is highly inappropriate.

Can we please enforce this policy, which was one of the few passed with community support and was one of the most universally agreed on to keep such nasty fights like this off Wikiversity? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you posted this information onto this public forum and drawing attention to yourself with the header "Privacy violations" in spite of all Oversight guidelines warning you not to because...? TeleComNasSprVen 04:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because people haven't done it when pointed out. This is a serious problem. The privacy related matters from Moulton are still visible. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people haven't done it, that's probably because they're too busy doing something else. We're all volunteers after all. If it was so private, why bother posting here, at the risk of drawing attention and revealing even more incriminating information about yourself and increasing the oversight load placed on stewards? TeleComNasSprVen 04:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeu has acknowledged KillerChihuahua's request from the 15th and it her information has not been removed yet. Multiple admin know about it and it is not about a matter of waiting. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is KillerChihuahua's request posted, acknowledged, and discussed? —Moulton 12:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns were brought up and discussed on many user talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I found it. Mike's acknowledgment was on a different page from the one where KillerChihuahua posted her concerns. —Moulton 15:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can you also point me to where a Wikiversity policy specifically addresses the problem of posting logs on IRC? And I'm not talking about Privacy policy in the general sense, I'm talking about specific references to the string "IRC"... TeleComNasSprVen 04:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the privacy policy as part of "off-wiki correspondence". You can see the talk page about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "unless a permanent public record is automatically maintained by the system and anyone can publicly see that record at anytime without a person having had to share it first" clause nulls that, plus it doesn't even mention IRC as a specific case. Looking at the meta version of the privacy policy on the talk page, it clearly exempts certain Wikimedia channels with "IRC users' privacy on each channel can only be protected according to the policies of the respective service and channel. Different channels have different policies on whether logs may be published." TeleComNasSprVen 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The record is not automatically maintained and published, nor is the IRC channel rightfully logged as SB Johnny had no authority to change it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a conversation in IRC with dozens of people entails an expectation of privacy? That notion is daft. EMail, point to point conversations, etc. Not rooms full of people. HTH Dinsdale 08:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being in "public" and being in a room filled with people are two different things, as ruled by the state of MD multiple times in wire tapping cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does a specific venue's criminal proceedings have to do with wikiversity and IRC? Please be specific. Dinsdale 20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear that IRC is not protected under common-law privacy, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Specific channels may have specific policies, which Wikiversity may or may not respect. The Wikiversity-en channel announces that it's logged. What that means, I don't know! The issues of IRC being used to (1)negotiate some consensus off-wiki, which then provides an advantage to IRC users over non-users, (2) coordinate in ways that stray into canvassing, as one knows who is logged in, and (3) threaten or bully participants as well as engage in outing and gross incivility, have long been considered by me as serious problems. To me, the solution is to have an IRC log that is public and redactable. It could be a WV page which can be edited, protected, revision deleted, as necessary. Revision deletion there should be covered by clear policy, and should be handled by neutral custodians.
• However, what to do in this case? The cat is out of the bag. [19] duplicates the log Ottava mentions in filing this complaint. Hiding doesn't work, and we can stand on our head to prevent any hint of privacy violation on Wikiversity, we can create BADSITE lists, etc., and, it's well-known, it fails. We can and should prevent open privacy violations, here. The media resolved some of these issues long ago; when one becomes a "public figure" a great deal of privacy protection goes out the window. On Wikipedia, ArbComm decided that the protection of the wiki against canvassing outweighed even the problem with the use of a hacked, anonymously and illegally published (Wikileaks!), email list archive. We should be very careful about material like this. To "convict" the members of the list, which included, my opinion, one of the best and fairest administrators on Wikipedia, ArbComm relied on cherry-picked evidence and, it was clear, punished the members of the list, making them "examples" to discourage such off-wiki discussions. We should be very careful about using evidence from discussions where the context is different than on-wiki.
• My first hit today was to speedy delete it, pending review and possible redaction. However, that would provide merely formal protection. So I suggest that any user may redact any on-wiki copy of this material, to remove, through ordinary editing, material they personally originated or that is specifically about them, replacing it with " [redacted --~~~~] " I would not, at this point, encourage revision deletion unless a violation is of an urgent nature, so we will still be able to read the material in history. People should not do this to protect others unless there is clear authorization from the one protected. The identity of Ottava Rima is not an emergency, it can readily be found simply by review of Wikiversity on-wiki process, Ottava has effectively outed himself, through an account here that uses his real name, and through, then, clearly connecting the accounts. I have no sympathy for protection of Ottava against revelation of his IRC behavior, which is a separate issue. --Abd 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The IRC channels are open to the public. In that regard, anything said there is said in public. I don't see how Wikiversity can sustain a policy of prohibiting the discussion of public events, especially where those events are evidence of abusive practices or corruption that directly impinges on the comity or governance of Wikiversity. —Moulton 15:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public does not mean what you think it does. IRC chats have always been private and communication under the copyright of those who state individual statements. Posting logs without permission and discussing matters are two different things, especially when the logs contain outing of users. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Twain wrote, "Laws are sand, customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment escaped, but an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishment." For millenia, events that take place in public have been considered public events. A public space is a space that anyone can enter. Anyone can enter the public IRC rooms, without identification and without signing any non-disclosure agreements. The room has a public audience. —Moulton 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you will use Mark Twain and not "Samuel", yet you can't refrain from using other's real names? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends on the context, Jeff. If we are talking about literature, that's one thing. If we are talking about a scholar's research, that's another. If you want to do original research on my frame of mind, Jeff, I'll address you as a scholar doing a cavalier psychological analysis of my frame of mind. —Moulton 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once Moulton has expressed a theory, he will ignore counterexamples. Ottava has been revert warring on the IRC logs on the Community Review page. I just reverted him, but redacted the use of his name and his affiliation. If the revert warring settles, revisions could be deleted. Ottava's real name is not relevant to the issues on the Community Review page. This whole fuss was forced by Moulton by his gratuitious insistence on using Ottava's real name, he was blocked for that before. Beware the Troll. --Abd 18:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the privacy issue, there is still that tiny matter of copyright to consider. IRC channels are not public (the fact that anyone can enter doesn't change that) and unless it's explicitly stated somewhere, the logs don't fall under the license either. Guido den Broeder 18:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Guido, there are some messages which are neither private nor copyrighted. Threats are not private or copyrighted. If some one comes up to you in private and says, "Do what I tell you, or else," that is neither a private communication nor a copyrightable piece of literature. It's an assault with a threat of harm. In IRC there is an occasional threat (or veiled threat), such as the one Jimbo leveled at the Custodians here twice before. The first time, they kowtowed. The second time they told him to fuck off. —Moulton 19:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, can Ottava prove he has authored these IRC excerpts? If so, he should issue a CDMA takedown notice to the wikimedia foundation. If he's blowing smoke (Occam's razor) he'll just revert war on that page. Dinsdale 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Threats are just as copyrightable as anything else. What can happen is that some greater concern weighs heavier, if a real crime is involved. That still doesn't allow reproduction on this wiki, however, because we are not the police and have our own rules as well: the license. Guido den Broeder 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. You can copyright a threat if it's part of a work of literature, but not if it's an actual threat to be taken seriously. Bullies might like to assert that their threats are "private communication" or "copyrighted remarks" but that's bollocks. And if the Dark Junta here thinks it's appropriate to block people for disclosing such threats, I wanna wish them the best of luck. —Moulton 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another requirement for copyright to form: creativity. The ordinary bully might fail there, I've noticed. ;-)

But it needs to be judged on a case by case basis. A threat in the form of a poem would most likely have copyright. Note again that copyright does not in all cases prohibit disclosure. But our license does prohibit disclosure of a full conversation at Wikiversity, unless the license also applies to the channel. Guido den Broeder 22:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you propose to judge a threat except by presenting it as evidence before a jury or panel of judges? —Moulton 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If the threat is made on IRC, I prefer not to judge it at all. Cheers, Guido den Broeder 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(<---) This is one of the silliest discussions I've seen on Wikiversity. Bored? If I told Barry to stop calling me Sue (or Johny Cache) or I would bleed all over his red hair, he would most certainly have Fair Use rights to quote my creative sanguine threat - but even if he didn't, he could paraphrase it and not violate copyright. By the way, I can invent an IRC log out of my imagination, right? And copyright allows me to paraphrase a real one ... and I don't even need to alter any non-creative comments; so really, isn't all this talk of not being able to tattle on what someone said on IRC just bluster? - WAS 4.250 16:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a picture of Bluster. —Moulton 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima is apparently on extended wikibreak, so presumably will not be pursuing this further while he is away --SB_Johnny ^talk11:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please block Abd for edit warring. He keeps trying to hide other people's statements without permission [20], [21], [22] and that is highly incivil and disruptive behavior. If he wants to hide his own comments, fine, but doing that to other people is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nononno! Don't block him.

Bailiff! Whack his peepee!

Gastrin Bombesin 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. See Wikiversity_talk:Request_custodian_action#Why_I_reverted_Moulton.27s_reversion_of_my_collapse_of_his_long_comment.. Moulton is, with his very long and very spacious comment, that I've been collapsing, attempting to disrupt an RCA report that is very simple. Since no custodian has taken responsibility for addressing the report -- Mikeu's warning to Moulton really didn't address it, only a small part of the problem -- I've been taking action under necessity. Given that Ottava has not addressed the issues, and is only addressing technical procedure, I'm going to ignore his complaint, but any custodian can get me to stop by simply telling me to stop, allowing the RCA report to be obscure. Or by stopping Moulton. --Abd 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Abd, get thee to a summary. —Moulton 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, collapsed. Summary enough for you, Moulton? --Abd 22:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please proceed directly to the The Final Absolution for the Grand Finale to the "Moulton Problem." —Moulton 11:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: At least it appears to be resolved. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton is acting up all over the place, but one egregious piece of business is at User talk:Ottava Rima. Ottava, under harassment, retired today, and, as part of that, removed some talk. Moulton restored it. I removed it to support Ottava, and Moulton began his classic revert warring to maintain his harassment. Please stop him. Because Wikiversity has been suffering from obvious lack of custodial attention, I intend to continue removal until asked to stop by a custodian or consensus. This is a continuation of the same behavior for which Moulton was blocked and banned in the past.

This is a final attempt to gain custodial attention to recent Moulton behavior before taking this to meta for steward review. Many of the behaviors involve cross-wiki issues. --Abd 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to continue removal until asked to stop by a custodian" <- Please stop. While I understand that your intention is to improve wv, the unintended consequence is that it is just adding fuel to the fire. I would suggest that you (and others) disengage and concentrate on some of the policy discussions that have started recently or perhaps work on some learning project. If you have a dispute with another contributer, take a step back and try a different approach. Interjecting in just about every situation that you can find on wv is not going to improve the situation or help resolve anything. --mikeu ^talk 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: old comments that Ottava removed have been re-removed. [23] --mikeu ^talk 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, Mike, that removing the comments does not remove the underlying unresolved issues which I predict will fester until such time as the parties (with or without the help of responsible parties here) craft a peaceable resolution of their differences. The pattern here is ubiquitous. One party to a dispute wants the issues openly resolved, while the other party wants the issues hidden from view, covered up, buried, baleted, and forgotten. —Moulton 16:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. However, please note: You are criticizing me for "adding fuel to the fire," but you did just what I'd been doing. You removed what I had been removing. This is not a simple "dispute with another contributor." There is a contributor here in dispute with many editors, who uses revert warring, routinely, to insist upon his disruption. You made it unnecessary for me to continue, on the one narrow point, by supporting the removal. I have the same authority to remove as you do! So does any editor. The only difference, perhaps, is that I saw it more quickly, and, because of the clarity of the matter, insisted. And shouldn't that be a good thing? (This is like the BLP exception on Wikipedia, revert warring can be excused by the protection of living persons, been there, done that.)

Mike, I think your approach has been inadequate. There are other issues still "festering," as Moulton put it. There has been revert warring in a number of places. I'm quite aware that dealing with revert warring by revert warring in response is normally inappropriate. Rather, one discusses. But the revert warring has been discussed with no resolution, and revert warring is being used as a tool by one user, requiring, then, either acceptance of that user's position -- and the case of Ottava Talk shows that he will do this forever despite the obvious inappropriateness of the edit -- so the situation isn't normal. It's gone outside that. And I'm not thrilled by my other alternatives, one of which is to abandon Wikiversity, which is just what this person wants.

There has been revert warring on this RCA page. Revert warring on any page increases traffic without increasing content. It burns people out. It should not be tolerated, on the RCA page, at all. However, what the revert war is about is the obfuscation of a report by filling it with irrelevancy. There is a classic response to this, which can manifest in several ways. The mildest is what I did: collapse. I would *never* object to a neutral collapse like that. Moulton revert warred over it. His content also contains what looks like offensive use of real name, in a way that Moulton knows is provocative. He's arguing permission, from some shaky evidence, but that's not the most important issue. I redacted his "evidence" to use the user name, which is thoroughly adequate for any possible "defense" there. He was revert warring without any discussion other than irrelevant "tweets" in the edit summaries. I discussed this on talk, explained, and clearly notified the community about what I was doing, and I have still not been asked to do something else, on this point.

'I expect that if a custodian asks me to stop, the custodian will take responsibility for an appropriate response. You did that on Ottava talk, Mike. Thanks. I'll be looking for more response from custodians. --Abd 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Zeitgeist is Gregory Bateson's Double Bind, brought to you today by the makers of Hiatus and Hegira escape mechanisms.

Double Bind

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot openly confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation. For example, if your overlord tells you to commit an unjust act that violates your personal code of ethics, you are in a double bind.

Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in Cybernetics and Systems Theory in the 1950s.

I am most grateful to my good friend, Abd Lomax, for consenting to illustrate the mechanism of the double bind.

Moulton 11:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]