Wikiversity talk:Community Review/SB Johnny

Other commentary

In 2008 Jimbo vastly disrupted Wikiversity and I wonder what pressures were imposed on SB Johnny at that time. I would have included SB Johnny in the community review of "problematic actions" last Summer had I thought he intended to return and exercise special user rights at Wikiversity. I'd like to hear from SB Johnny about how he views the events of 2008 and if he has an interest in returning Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that existed before Wikiversity was infected with "Wikipedia Disease". --JWSchmidt 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In 2008, SB Johnny sided with Jimbo and was able to remove you and Moulton, which represented two influential people here. He also repeatedly blocked you without reason and set about trying to alienate your supporters, as many of them no longer edit here. When Jimbo came around in 2010, SB Johnny went against Jimbo. It would seem that Jimbo was only a tool of convenience, as the personal attacks against you and Moulton on IRC, Wikipedia Review, and elsewhere shows something more deeper than just Jimbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• The amount of influence I have here is el zippo de nada. —Caprice 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you managed to get quite a few people to join you at Wikiversity and worked on many foundational projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whodat? —Caprice 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose process. There is no "confirmation" process, and SBJ is not a "Candidate for custodianship." Wikiversity:Custodianship provides for a discussion to remove privileges, and that seems to have always been interpreted as a Wikiversity:Community Review. This filing amounts to harassment, is bringing up very old grudges ("events of 2008"?), and basically stinks. --Abd 04:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  "Always interpreted" - Making things up is incivil. Now, you were warned about such statements in the top of this page and if you continue you will be blocked. Your disruption of this community, as well as SB Johnny's, Mu301's, and anyone else who wants to encourage you, is officially over. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Everything in the world of politics is made up. Which, I suppose, is why everything in the world of politics seems both artificial and annoying to me. —Caprice 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Abd, I think a "confirmation" process, is fair for this case. SB Johnny was not elected by the community, in the second opportunity, and he did not quit the project cleanly when he got his tools removed (or whatever that happened, I apologize if this is wrong). I don't think that, by saying that this process is inappropriate in a way or another, may solve anything. There were already lots of discussions about this; this was just the next step to avoid further disruption. Diego Grez 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  Ottava is threatening me with a block because I note that Community Review is traditional? Hello? --Abd 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  As pointed out, Community Review is not community sanctioned, not policy, nor has any authority over adminship. This is just one of many times you made things up in this page. There is a zero tolerance here for trying to disrupt this process. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, Community Review is not official, policy, or has any binding. It is not an official forum, and has no purpose. This is done within the Custodianship policy. That is clear from the first line. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure Community Review is not a policy, it is a process. The brief discussion you pointed out with your link was over whether it should be covered by a guideline. There was support for Community Review as a process. Support for it has also been previously reinforced by its use by various people. -- darklama  11:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Evidence not provided. Serious charges were asserted without evidence. This, in fact, is disruptive and uncivil. When there is rapid !voting, as can be seen by the timing above, it indicates, strongly, prior involvement and opinion, not the weighing of evidence required for removal, for the policy reads that "Custodians can lose their status for egregious violations of policies." Note that it does not read "Custodians can lose their status because some people oppose a non-required confirmation." The same people as have voted above also voted, recently, to change the Wikiversity tradition of easy mentored custodianship, even though it had caused no problems at all, none were asserted, and I asked. This is an attack on Wikiversity traditions and orderly process, which followed just such an attack at meta, attempting to get Jimbo to intervene here again. --Abd 05:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• We need evidence for both charging and discharging. Current charges were both driven and disrupted (with a lot of hot air). Oh, wait. This is politics, not electrolytics. Never mind. —Barsoom Tork 12:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Evidence has been provided in the previous sections. If you keep this up, you will be blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  In the first section above you do link to Abd's candidacy nomination and SB_Johnny's custodian feedback. I believe Abd could mean by "evidence not provided" that no links were provided in the Recall justifications section, with examples of SB_Johnny's incivility over the past 3 years (for example). More guessing on my part, but maybe Abd wants to also know what previous steps were taken to try to resolve the issues you brought up in the recall section, just as you described and included links pointing out what steps you took prior to this discussion to try to address concerns over SB_Johnny giving Abd the tools. -- darklama  11:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Abd showed himself willing to desysop another user without any proof of "egregious" problems. His statements off Wiki verify that his statements here are problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Threat re my comment here. See [1]. As if the above were not sufficient. --Abd 05:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Abd says above, "Wikiversity:Custodianship provides for a discussion to remove privileges, and that seems to have always been interpreted as a Wikiversity:Community Review." <-- Wrong. Community review was imposed on Wikiversity by SB_Johnny after the hostile takeover of Wikiversity in 2008. See a history of community review. I find it interesting that when Wikiversity policy is followed for the review of a Custodian then the process is called a kangaroo court. For anyone interested in how to run a kangaroo court I suggest research into how the "community review" process was used to impose a "community ban" on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 14:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe Moulton should change his name to Kangarooed Kort. —Barsoom Tork 14:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

An additional note - the "ban" of Moulton was told by SB Johnny to Mu301 and myself in a private room and we were told that there would be no way to ignore it. It was one of many "orders" SB Johnny gave. I assume that it would have been a similar chat to the one SB Johnny held with the crats when they determined to ignore the community and trick Meta into removing JWSchmidt's permissions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment I tried to post something a little while ago but too many edit conflicts. I'll work on something in my userspace later today or tomorrow (another storm is coming in tonight, so I have a lot of farm chores today). One thought though: this really does belong at CR, since this is actually the sort of thing CR was intended for (as opposed to in 2008 when we had no processes whatsoever). --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• We really do need a high quality Feud Processor here. Maybe I can invent one. —Moulton (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopelessly damaged, this CR

This CR is written on the premise that it is some kind of "confirmation hearing," with all kinds of process assumptions, and the early !voters were supporting something that isn't our process. "Oppose confirmation"? What's that? We have no procedure for a "no-confidence" vote, sysops can only be removed for "egregious violations," not for "failure of confidence." I closed this as a process under Candidates for custodianship, and am considering closing it here, because, if the intention is to remove the 'crat and sysop bits, this process is fatally flawed. A CR intended to desysop should be filed according to CR practice, with clear evidence for the alleged "egregious violations."

My view is that the evidence should be complete and opportunity given for response before !voting starts, because, without this, the early !votes are based solely on the view of one side, the complainant, warping the process. People may !vote and not look at this again. However, we don't have that kind of orderly process in place.

In my view a desysop CR should be announced in the site message, and to place a CR in the site message requires a sysop. A sysop, doing this, should be satisfied that the CR has sufficient support to merit the possibly disruptive discussion that will ensue. It should not be done simply because the sysop sees someone has file a CR. Then, the 7 day period should begin with the placement of the notice in the site message. That is a minimum period, not a maximum. Any time after the period, a 'crat may close with a decision, and the 'crat then, if the decision is to desysop, goes to meta to request it.

The filer of this present wacky procedure claimed fixed deadline, still claims that, and appeared to be threatening to request direct steward decision instead of going through our process as described in policy. If all 'crats decline to decide, or are unavailable, then a steward would be asked to review the discussion, and check the evidence. They really don't want to do that for a community with 'crats.

If a CR is to be done, given the mess that was made by the original filing, it should be done anew. It's fine to reference the original process, but it should not be considered controlling in any way, nor would the timing of it satisfy the 7-day period. --Abd 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy is clear. Your statements above contradict what is clearly written. It is interesting how you say that there shouldn't be a seven day period when you pushed for a 3 day period against me. You are, for what can be seen, deemed topic banned from Wikiversity space for problems reflected in your above statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, please check your facts about my alleged push for a 3 day period. That seems to be false. Your topic ban fantasy hasn't been confirmed. Not yet, any way!

See [2] for the Ottava desysop discussion.

• Proposed desysop, Adambro 09:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC), as part of a Community Review (proper forum).
• I note 7-day process, snow close "possible," but "one day way too quick." --Abd 18:55, 22 November 2010
• Closure as desysop. --mikeu talk 21:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to retract the claim that I "pushed for a 3 day period." I certainly did not. I predicted 7 days, but apparently Mikeu saw the consensus as overwhelming, and, presumably, the issues as well. I'd have preferred to see 7 days as a minimum, absent emergency, and I did not see emergency.

Suppose that had been too quick. You could have appealed to Mikeu to reverse it, just a button push for him. You could have appealed to any 'crat, the same. My decision, though, when you abusively yanked my bit at meta, violating our policy, was that just to gain two more days of custodianship wasn't worth the disruption. You apparently decided differently, and have gone on a rampage ever since then, filing process after process, here and at meta, including arguing tendentiously with stewards and even revert warring on your request for my bit to be removed on your say-so, the second time. You've been living a charmed life, Ottava, but your desysopping here proves that it only goes so far. That revert could have been it, right there, as to your continued ability to edit meta. But lots of things pass unnoticed. --Abd 19:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oy Vey! It's Rima!

Title: Oy Vey! It's Rima!
Artist: SB Johnny
Composer: Franz Schubert, Amanda Ghost, Beyoncé Knowles, SB Johnny, and Barsoom Tork Associates
YouTube: Ave Maria — Beyoncé

He was crossed in so many different ways
Out in the darkness with no guide
I know the cost of a war torn land
I heard the voice of Mike cry, "Sigh."

I found Wikiversity
My project, my last, my first
And then I felt this fear inside
Oy Vey! It's Rima!

I've been alone when I'm surrounded by friends
How could this recall be so loud?
But I still survive because I love my goats
There's also Perry when the stove goes cold

Song is my leavening on earth
Song slakes my hunger and my thirst
And then I feel this dread inside
Sighing, "Oy Vey! It's Rima!"

Sometimes strife can come and pass you by
While you're busy trimming plants
Suddenly it hits you and then you realize
It's out of your hands, Barry you got to understand

Song is my leavening on earth
My dithyramb comes first
And then I sense this dread inside
Oy Vey! It's Rima!
Oy Vey! It's Rima!
Oy Vey! It's Rima!

CopyClef 2011 Franz Schubert, Amanda Ghost, Beyoncé Knowles, SB Johnny, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused.

Undo of reversion of close and change of section header

With [3], Ottava reverted my close, edit summary (Policy says consensus to keep, not remove). As the proposer, this is improper and disruptive. He also changed a section header to place comments made while the process was open, into "Statements after process ended." If the process ended, where is the conclusion? If my conclusion was incorrect -- it wasn't -- but the process was closed, then a 'crat, should action be required, should close and note the action taken. My view is that any registered user may reverse my close, providing additional argument, either on the topic itself, or on the manner of closing. Anyone, that is, other than the proposer or possibly someone who has argued with the proposer, against the clear majority. Since my ultimate conclusion was with that of the proposer, on the issue of privileges for SBJ, I was an appropriate person to close contrary to my own opinion, to reduce continued attraction of useless comment.

I reverted. I do not intend to continue reverting, but my conclusion and action was so obviously consistent with community consensus, that I'm taking the liberty of making a single revert. I invite correction if that was incorrect. This is not an argument on the point of Ottava's policy allegations.

Comment and discussion may continue on this page, or in a new section on the Community Review page, if there are new issues to be considered (such as manner of close). What I have closed is the existing discussion there. --Abd 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't use templates in CRs. If you looked at past reviews, there are dozens without templates. The vote ended at a set time, discussion can continue afterward if people want. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no "set time" for the close; the policy refers to a minimum time, after which close takes place. The minimum time would, in fact, be after all requisite conditions have been fulfilled, which is complicated with this CR. Ottava has quoted, on the page, only part of the removal process, leaving out the closing process, which is specified. Many CRs have remained open, but archive templates have been used with others, by closers. I.e., that there are "dozens without templates" does not establish a rule.

The close I made did not prevent further discussion. It could continue here, and it could continue in a new section addressing some specific, related issue. --Abd 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that Darklama has re-closed. Thanks. --Abd 16:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland

The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting `Off with his head!' or `Off with her head!' about once in a minute.

Alice began to feel very uneasy: to be sure, she had not as yet had any dispute with the Queen, but she knew that it might happen any minute, `and then,' thought she, `what would become of me? They're dreadfully fond of beheading people here; the great wonder is, that there's any one left alive!'

She was looking about for some way of escape, and wondering whether she could get away without being seen, when she noticed a curious appearance in the air: it puzzled her very much at first, but, after watching it a minute or two, she made it out to be a grin, and she said to herself `It's the Cheshire Cat: now I shall have somebody to talk to.'

`How are you getting on?' said the Cat, as soon as there was mouth enough for it to speak with.

Alice waited till the eyes appeared, and then nodded. `It's no use speaking to it,' she thought, `till its ears have come, or at least one of them.' In another minute the whole head appeared, and then Alice put down her flamingo, and began an account of the game, feeling very glad she had someone to listen to her. The Cat seemed to think that there was enough of it now in sight, and no more of it appeared.

`I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, `and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak--and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them--and you've no idea how confusing it is all the things being alive; for instance, there's the arch I've got to go through next walking about at the other end of the ground--and I should have croqueted the Queen's hedgehog just now, only it ran away when it saw mine coming!'

`How do you like the Queen?' said the Cat in a low voice.

`Not at all,' said Alice: `she's so extremely--' Just then she noticed that the Queen was close behind her, listening: so she went on, `--likely to win, that it's hardly worth while finishing the game.'

The Queen smiled and passed on.

`Who are you talking to?' said the King, going up to Alice, and looking at the Cat's head with great curiosity.

`It's a friend of mine--a Cheshire Cat,' said Alice: `allow me to introduce it.'

`I don't like the look of it at all,' said the King: `however, it may kiss my hand if it likes.'

`I'd rather not,' the Cat remarked.

`Don't be impertinent,' said the King, `and don't look at me like that!' He got behind Alice as he spoke.

`A cat may look at a king,' said Alice. `I've read that in some book, but I don't remember where.'

`Well, it must be removed,' said the King very decidedly, and he called the Queen, who was passing at the moment, `My dear! I wish you would have this cat removed!'

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. `Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round.

`I'll fetch the executioner myself,' said the King eagerly, and he hurried off.

Alice thought she might as well go back, and see how the game was going on, as she heard the Queen's voice in the distance, screaming with passion. She had already heard her sentence three of the players to be executed for having missed their turns, and she did not like the look of things at all, as the game was in such confusion that she never knew whether it was her turn or not. So she went in search of her hedgehog.

The hedgehog was engaged in a fight with another hedgehog, which seemed to Alice an excellent opportunity for croqueting one of them with the other: the only difficulty was, that her flamingo was gone across to the other side of the garden, where Alice could see it trying in a helpless sort of way to fly up into a tree.

By the time she had caught the flamingo and brought it back, the fight was over, and both the hedgehogs were out of sight: `but it doesn't matter much,' thought Alice, `as all the arches are gone from this side of the ground.' So she tucked it away under her arm, that it might not escape again, and went back for a little more conversation with her friend.

When she got back to the Cheshire Cat, she was surprised to find quite a large crowd collected round it: there was a dispute going on between the executioner, the King, and the Queen, who were all talking at once, while all the rest were quite silent, and looked very uncomfortable.

Executioner argues with King about cutting off Cheshire Cat's head

The moment Alice appeared, she was appealed to by all three to settle the question, and they repeated their arguments to her, though, as they all spoke at once, she found it very hard indeed to make out exactly what they said.

The executioner's argument was, that you couldn't cut off a head unless there was a body to cut it off from: that he had never had to do such a thing before, and he wasn't going to begin at his time of life.

The King's argument was, that anything that had a head could be beheaded, and that you weren't to talk nonsense.

The Queen's argument was, that if something wasn't done about it in less than no time she'd have everybody executed, all round. (It was this last remark that had made the whole party look so grave and anxious.)

Alice could think of nothing else to say but `It belongs to the Duchess: you'd better ask her about it.'

`She's in prison,' the Queen said to the executioner: `fetch her here.' And the executioner went off like an arrow.

The Cat's head began fading away the moment he was gone, and, by the time he had come back with the Dutchess, it had entirely disappeared; so the King and the executioner ran wildly up and down looking for it, while the rest of the party went back to the game.

- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VIII.html - WAS 4.250 20:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on action?

I've reviewed the !votes in this CR, to compare with what Ottava has reported at [4].

For removal

This includes comments like "oppose confirmation." That this was framed as a confirmation hearing, implying consensus for confirmation needed, a totally innovative process here, confused this. However, I'm listing these comments here.

• Ottava Rima, proposer.
• Diego Grez -- basis of opposition was process of resysopping, not egregious misconduct. Inactive user, probably canvassed (from evidence elsewhere as to timing).
• Kevin Rutherford Ottava supporter SPA, probably canvassed.
• Anonymous Uploader very new user, supported Ottava elsewhere against consensus.
• Abd opposed process but ultimately concluded that there was a serious problem with SBJ.

Against removal

This includes opposition to process without !vote for removal.

• Stanistani not very active.
• Adrignola
• Mikeu 'crat
• Jack Merridew not very active, prior conflict with Ottava.
• Guido den Broeder Ottava supporter, generally, but ultimately concluded against removal. Guido below objected to being characterized as "someone's supporter." So minor comment struck. --Abd 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Jtneill 'crat

Other comment or not clear

• JWSchmidt (buried in his comment is a conditional objection to continued access. Given, as well, that JWS appears to oppose anyone having custodial tools, except perhaps one resigned 'crat and custodian, I'm deprecating this as a !vote).
• IDangerMouse opposition not policy-based at all. Multiple problems with this !vote, Ottava supporter SPA, probably canvassed over IRC.
• SB Johnny commented but did not actually !vote. (Some think that a "_target" should not !vote, but Ottava hasn't let that stop him, as I recall. If there were to be balance, a proposer should also not !vote.)

Given that there are only two strong !votes for removal (Abd and Ottava), and at least four strong !votes against removal, including both of the other two active 'crats, there definitely is no community consensus for removal here, and it could be argued that there is consensus against it. Determining consensus from votes when there is possible canvassing and the attraction of new users, unfamiliar with Wikiversity policies and traditions, supporting one side or another, can be complex, and that's exactly why policy requires a 'crat for close. --Abd 17:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jtneill commented 6 days after it was closed. Jack Merridew and Guido both did. Guido was given a possible mentorship with SB Johnny (conflict of interest). Mu301's oppose is also a conflict as he gave SB Johnny ops back without discussion. Either way, there is no consensus for him to retain Bureaucratship, which is what is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not closed, Ottava, period. Many, many discussions, with a prescribed period, remain open for longer than the prescribed period, that is clearly a "minimum," by universal wiki practice. (In fact, they always remain open for longer than 7 days as an exact time; if we didn't want that, we'd have a 'bot close the discussion on time.) You have made, here, a series of fantastic interpretations, argument for the sake of argument, and moot, since if you want to bypass 'crat close, stewards would want to see, at minimum, a two-week discussion, -- apparently you have a selective memory for what you were told at meta, when they were even willing to keep your request for desysopping open -- until they realized that we had a policy requiring a 'crat and closed it. There is no way that they would look at the votes and conclude community consensus, and that's even without any consideration of canvassed votes, SPAs, etc. And, indeed, they would be made aware of that problem.

You are welcome to try, though, you haven't yet been blocked at meta. Perhaps the coffin needs a few more nails. --Abd 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"It was not closed, Ottava, period." Lolwut? Archive boxes does not make something "closed". Procedure from the top made it clear that responses no longer counted after 7 days. Not having an archive box doesn't magically negate that nor is it necessary. After all, most Custodian votes lack an archive box. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• You made up that procedure. By the standards you set when you were a custodian, threatening others with being blocked for "disruption" and "lying about policy," you should be banned. You are on the edge of it at meta, today's filing (permanent link) may be the last straw. We'll see. It can take a lot to wake the beast. --Abd 18:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Made up the process? By copying and pasting clear policy? That is like I am making up the English language in using standard meaning, definitions, and grammatical structure. I think your post borders on 1984 "doublespeak", where up means down, peace means war, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, much of what Abd and Ottava present in their endless argumentation over politics and procedure is unclear to me at best, and utterly incoherent at worst. —Moulton 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton, the problem is that, first of all, I'm interested in process, and you aren't. You don't understand the need for process, you think that process is the problem, and you are not alone in this position.

• Process is our most important impediment to progress. —Moulton 12:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference here. Ottava is presenting radically wikilawyered intrepretations, language of the policies taken out of context, and, as to substance, making no sense, whereas I'm explaining what the policy is, was it was intended to be, and what that mimplies. If you have no tolerance for policy discussions, of course it's all going to be incomprehensible to you!

The same is true with some others here, and the lack of understanding of the underpinnings of policy and wiki practice is responsible for the long-term inability of Wikiversity to deal efficiently and fairly with disruption. It's why Jimbo was able to block you and it stuck for so long, and later Thekohser, the same, why JWS was emergency desysopped and the situation did not heal. It's why Ottava was able to dominate Wikiversity for most of last year. It's why all the disruption of the last month was allowed to continue, with Ottava threatening users with block by custodians who had allegedly promised it, and why it is still allowed to continue in ever-evolving forms. It's been obvious for a long time. --Abd 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not only don't I have any tolerance for long-winded, tedious, and mimply discourses, I don't even know what all this confounded mimpliness is about. —Moulton 12:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Moulton. (Posting after e/c with Mike)

Just for the sake of "FYI": I found Jtneill's comment this morning very insightful, and was going to reply to him earlier, but was unable to because of the MW update SNAFU this morning. I'm not sure "closing" this was a good idea (since discussion was still in progress), but frankly I'm starting to think that all of the recent community reviews (including those involving both Ottava and Abd) should just be put on the back burners and revisited after we do a bit of reforming the CR process.

I'm a bit busy today in general (as usual) doing farm projects, but I am following along from time to time when I come by to feed the ever-hungry monster. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, and the same applies to just about every recent review, imo. Much of this confusion could be avoided in the future if we clarified how these discussions should be handled. See Wikiversity_talk:Community_Review#New_discussion for some ideas, and also the experiment at User:SB Johnny/CR CR. --mikeu ^talk 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I very much agree about better process, but ... we already had process, and it was bypassed in these CRs. If nobody will enforce process requirements, they are worse than useless. I closed the original "Confirmation hearing," that close was supported by consensus (Ottava converted it to a Community Review, a problem in itself, but accepting that the original place was inappropriate), and that close was a reason given to support my "emergency desysopping." If the community does not defend those who support process established by consensus, there is no process, really, and community consensus is meaningless. --Abd 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I move we table these reviews until the participants are able to participate in a timely and orderly manner. —Moulton 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I second. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Object to the consideration of the question. In this location, anyway. This CR is closed. If a motion is made to affect another open CR, it should be made there, not here. A motion to table this one is beating a dead horse. --Abd 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Abd, I am genuinely vexed by the litigiousness of your objection to being considerate of your fellow scholars who are struggling in good faith to be responsive to the thoughtful and heartfelt concerns of others. —Caprice 11:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the goat! Quick! The tar and feathers! The rail! Run! Chicken Little! Check this guy! --Abd 14:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not bad, but it needs a tad more cowbell. —Gastrin Bombesin 15:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't hear the cowbell? Damn! And what does Chicken Little report? --Abd 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to Chicken Little, the Vanilla Sky is not falling. —Moulton 16:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's not what I heard Chicken Little say. Are you deaf? First it's the cowbell, then it's not hearing, "This guy is falling." What kind of joint is this? --Abd 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mainly we feature elevator music. —Barsoom Tork 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not someone's supporter. Such comments are inappropriate. As for the supposed conflict of interest (what is the second interest, btw?), one could just as easily argue that seeing another custodian desysopped would up my chances. Reality is that I do not factor in such side effects and simply give my own opinion on the matter at hand. Guido den Broeder 22:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, it is clear that we did not arrive at a consensus - not today, but also not earlier after the one week: remember that consensus is not the same as a count of votes. And if the community is slow, the timeframe needs to be adjusted; process serves the community, not the other way around. Lack of consensus though is where the process breaks down, because we do not know whether we need consensus to confirm or consensus to remove. That means two things. (1) For now, we can only accept the status quo. If SB Johnny is really such a bad bureaucrat and custodian as depicted, a new opportunity (a new case, that is, not to reiterate old ones) will present itself soon enough, right? (2) We need to close some gaps in our rulebook. Regards, Guido den Broeder 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If a murderer murders, then lets wait until the second murder before removing them from harming society? Having ops without consensus then giving ops without consensus is exactly why we require consensus before people are given privileges. And a vote does show a lot of consensus - only a few friends rallied behind SB Johnny keeping ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If this were a murder trial, it would be conducted very differently. SBJ isn't driving users away, he's not been harassing anyone, he's not been on a block rampage, and he hasn't taken any 'crat actions that were not, by policy, routine -- except for one action where he followed Ottava's position, where I believe he was definitely the wrong closer. I disagreed (strongly) with that action of his, and how he went about it, and saw that as reflecting a problematic pattern, but every action is reversible. If I felt it worth the disruption -- I don't -- I could appeal his two actions, it's a wiki. That's what Ottava doesn't seem to understand. "Only a few friends rallied" is in direct contradiction to what Guido just stated, and I believe him.

If we want to talk about friends, and discount the votes of friends of the "accused," we must do so, as well, for the accuser, and that's what I did above, which Ottava ignores. There was canvassing, it's obvious and blatant, affecting more than one discussion, including this one. I can prove it, but why bother? In the end, it didn't make any difference. For a removal of ops, it's necessary, ordinarily, to convince at least one 'crat to go to meta. Ottava attacked all the active crats, hoping, I believe, to force them all to recuse. This would then allow stewards to act, he thought, believing he has friends there ready to help if he can give them cover. He misrepresented this CR at meta, which might, when the smoke clears, get him blocked there -- lying to stewards isn't popular. It complicates their job, which normally depends on AGF. --Abd 02:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"and discount the votes of friends of the "accused," we must do so, as well, for the accuser, and that's what I did above" You discounted Mu301's, Jtneill's, Adrignola's and StaniStani's? If so, how can you say there was any real opposition? Mu301 came out of inactivity at SB Johnny's call to grant ops without having to go through the community because he knows he could always trust Mu301 to have his back regardless of how unethical the abuse would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Typical Ottava misreading. I did not, above, discount votes of active Wikiversity users because of "friendships." I wrote that if we discount friends of the accused, we should discount friends of the accuser. Since there were off-wiki friends of the accuser, apparently canvassed to participate, I noted that above. This is all moot, argument for the sake of argument. In the end, a closer would normally consider stuff like what I pointed to. And we require a 'crat close for desysop, in spite of all the wikilawyering. --Abd 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Crat is only required for adminship. No way to make up otherwise. But if you say crat is needed, this is a new phenomena as you didn't care about the 7 day requirement multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What I care and don't care about has no more impact on actual Wikiversity policy than the opinion of any other user. Unless I happen to express and care about consensus, and a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I just have to share this anecdote from meta, it's too rich. In response to some information posted there, by me, about the alleged and real close of this CR, Ottava wrote (irrelevantly) that You were de-admin because you have no ability to judge things appropriately and you were given adminship by abusive Crats that the community has universally rejected and want to be removed from Wikiversity.

In the subject review, the only regular WV user who clearly supported, in the end, removal of ops was ... me. Right! The only regular user supporting Ottava's ravings was ... one "with no ability to judge things appropriately!" Ottava lied to them about the discussion, pointing to a week-old revision. That claim would have been okay, if seriously wikilawyered, if disclosed, but he didn't give a hint. He's a sophisticated, long-term Wikimedian. He knew what he was doing. he imagined that a steward might have looked at that and acted, though it would have taken one, perhaps, with a hangover.

It would also have been useless, because it would have been immediately pointed out, a steward would have said, if not reversing the action, "Any WV 'crat can sort this." And so, within a day, it would have been sorted, and Ottava would have been immediate toast. He's already brown and black about the edges. See The closed Ottava request at meta, and m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. --Abd 14:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The saga continues. He doesn't give up, he apparently will never give up. And Wikiversity now has a reputation as a place for insane drama. Any other WMF site would have banned Ottava long ago, for more than ample reason, as to what he's done here. I appreciate that WV is very reluctant to block, but this is worse than vandalism. By far. I could start a CR again, but ... this should not have required a CR for a block, not when the cause was such obvious abuse. I'm getting flak for writing too much. So ... someone else can handle this, I didn't create this mess and I'm not responsible for it. --Abd 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perseverance. —Barsoom Tork 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Ottava was just blocked on meta. Technically, a questionable block. A steward has become involved, and meta admins will harass each other over it, it's already happening. I'd been asking for meta admin attention to the RfC cited above, there really is a consensus of Enough! But when nobody neutral will act, eventually someone gets Fed Up to Here. And acts. What happens then tests the community in a new way. --Abd 02:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a comic opera in one unnatural act. —Barsoom Tork 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Permalinks work better 'round these parts. :-) Killiondude 09:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)