text:
Wikiversity:Custodian feedback/Archive

Comment on JWSurf

 * JWSurf.
 * My comments: It can be irritating that he is unfailing courteous, usually right, and a very fast typer often pre-empting others attempts to be helpful.  8) Mirwin 20:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
Ottava notified:

Statement of Abd
Summary (diff'd below)
 * Incivility unbecoming of any editor, but particularly a custodian.
 * Self-unblock when blocked for incivility repeated after warning. (Controversial, Ottava had a general permission to revert my custodial actions, but it is against policy to unblock oneself, so this one has some ambiguity.... but if Ottava had waited an hour, the original block would have expired, so the conflict was not necessary.) (possible recusal failure)
 * Deletion of block log entries, probably to conceal that he had unblocked himself. (recusal failure)
 * Removal of "Request custodian action" report by me, requesting independent custodial review of the block. (unbecoming a custodian)
 * Presented deceptive description of WV policy and the circumstances at meta. (unbecoming a custodian)
 * Requested desysop at meta without allowing 48 hours from withdrawal as mentor, as provided by policy. (violating policy)
 * Prematurely removed my candidacy page from WV:Candidates for Custodianship, not respecting the 48-hour period. (violating policy)
 * Revert warred to keep that listing out. (revert warring, unbecoming a custodian)
 * Threatened to block me for reverting him. (recusal failure)
 * Threatened to "ban" or block me for disruption for questioning his interpretation of policy. (recusal failure)
 * Claimed that I was lying about policy, when my interpretation is the plain meaning of the policy, as confirmed by others. (incivility)
 * summary added --Abd 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Having discussed the recent events with Ottava already, with no resolution and his threat to block me, this step should precede a Community Review per policy.

The story
Ottava has acted contrary to policy in a number of areas, and has insisted on doing so when questioned. I was distressed to discover this, because he had generously offered to be my mentor, see Candidates for Custodianship/Abd, but it appears that probationary custodian policy was written to contemplate possible disagreement between mentor and probationer, and provides for a 48-hour period for the probationer to obtain another mentor, should the original mentor withdraw or conclude the candidate is unfit, whether during the four week period or at or after it. There is no policy limiting specifically what actions a probationary custodian may take, except for limits that apply to all custodians, and some general advice. My particular candidate statement, however, did allow Ottava to revert any custodial actions of mine, even if this would ordinarily be considered wheel-warring, but that statement did not allow him to take actions that would otherwise be reprehensible or improper on their own. They just wouldn't be wheel-warring; this was intended for him to be able to avoid damage from errors of mine. The statement also allowed Ottava to unilaterally prohibit me from taking any custodial actions, and to request immediate desysop, with advance consent from me, if I violated the prohibition. I never violated such a prohibition, because none was issued.

A full Community Review would address older and underlying issues; this feedback is confined to the immediate events leading to my premature desysop and what ensued. If it were not for my opinion that we are, with the subject actions here, seeing the tip of the iceberg, I'd probably not be filing this. This is a step preceding a Community Review, this step cannot desysop, per policy, so this is only an opportunity for the community to review Ottava's actions, in a preliminary fashion, and provide him (and/or me) with guidance. Perhaps a CR can be avoided.

 * Evidence provided to Request custodian action page, brief summary: Ottava made edits grossly and gratuitously uncivil to SBJohnny, I warned Ottava, he removed the warning and made another uncivil edit in the same manner. Accordingly I blocked him, notifying him on his Talk page, and, because of the potentially controversial nature of the block, I also made a Request for custodian action, linked here. I made the block be only for two hours, the minimum standard time in the interface, to allow some opportunity for other custodians to review this, and I also specifically notified Jtneill, as I saw he was on-line. Not waiting for others, Ottava deleted the block notice, unblocked himself, and revision-deleted his block log.

 * Ottava also deleted the Request for custodian action involving him.

 * July 29, within minutes after unblocking himself, Ottava went to meta and requested desysop, claiming that this was "standard procedure," and, as would be expected with that statement, it was granted within minutes. In fact, the standard procedure, explicit in policy, when a mentor withdraws support, is that the candidate has 48 hours to obtain another mentor, and only after the lapse of this period is the mentor allowed to unconditionally request desysop.

Note that I'm not concerned at this time about regaining sysop tools. This feedback is solely for the purpose of examining Ottava's actions as a sysop himself, and possible misbehavior by me is not relevant to that.

 * August 1, Ottava finally made formal notice of termination of mentorship, claiming that the candidacy was over, completely ignoring the clear provision in policy of a 48-hour period in which the candidate is allowed to find another mentor. He relies on totally specious arguments for this, arguments that fly in the face of actual practice, where extension of probationary custodianship beyond four weeks is possible, and in this case, the custodianship was extended by mutual consent of Ottava and myself, with opportunity being given to the community to object, and it did not.

 * Unilaterally, ignoring the 48-hour provision, and without other support from the community, Ottava removed my candidacy from listing on WV:Candidates for custodianship. I provided contrary argument on the attached Talk page, and reverted. Ottava then reverted me, restoring his own action, and threatened me with a block, both there on the Talk page and on my User talk page. A threat to block by a custodian is generally abusive if a block would have been abusive. Ottava is clearly involved and there was no emergency. If my position is sustained, as distinct from his, the only difference is that I'd have 48 hours to obtain a mentor, from the formal termination, at which time we all agree the candidacy could be terminated unilaterally. And if his position were sustained, policy appears to allow me to re-establish the candidacy if I obtain a new mentor, with a new request. So Ottava is revert warring and threatening a block over practically nothing but his personal will being frustrated, being unable to wait two days.

For a custodian to threaten to block over revert warring, when the custodian is revert warring without emergency, is very serious. It is a custodian asserting a superior right to control content, but without policy backing. Some incidents may be of less import, individually, though the incivility was a sign of a much deeper problem than may be apparent. I knew, before Ottava offered to mentor me, that he had problems dealing with other editors elsewhere, he's banned on Wikipedia, and that's not the full extent of it. But it seemed to me that he had successfully partitioned his behavior, so I trusted that. Whatever caused this, something broke down, I'd been seeing increasing signs of the problem. I'd greatly prefer to see Ottava recognize the issues, so that the community can sensibly allow him to keep his tools, because he is a valuable contributor here. But an inability to refrain from use of sysop tools when involved is one of the major problems that Wikiversity faces, it perpetuates dispute and disruption, and this is a clear example of it. I'm asking that the community inform Ottava that these actions were improper, seeking an acknowledgment from him and assurances that this will not continue. This is the last stop before the "seven day review" provided by policy, with a close by a bureaucrat, who may decide to desysop, in the event the issue is not resolved. --Abd 05:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on statement of Abd

 * Abd is unable to understand the definition of "four weeks". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 * What I am able or unable to understand is irrelevant to the issue of Ottava's behavior.
 * However, four weeks is 28 days. Four weeks is what, here? From reading the entire policy, it is clear that four weeks is emphasized as the minimum period of probationary custodianship. Ottava has twisted that into some kind of drop-dead date, which is entirely contrary to the sense of the whole policy and to actual practice. That is wikilawyering, and that we have a custodian who tenaciously wikilawyers, including threats of blocks, bans, or meta policy violation reports on a 'crat, to support his personal and even preposterous position is quite serious. This mess started with blatant incivility, and it got worse. In fact, my unusual block, little more than the warning that preceded it, revealed a can of worms.
 * Ottava has now threatened Jtneill with a policy violation report, presumably on meta, should Jtneill act on his interpretation of the policy, which apparently matches mine, see, comments of August 2. He is also threatening me with a "ban" for alleged disruption and lying about the policy. I increasingly fear, if he continues as he has, that Ottava will have to go. What that means, the community will decide. --Abd 15:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats are not given the ability to grant adminship without consensus by the community. Temporary ops has never been something accepted as common practice at the WMF and has strict regulations. Furthermore, as I have shown from my own RFA, 28 days is not a "minimum" for the probationary period. It is the line that a mentor is to decide if someone is fit for nomination or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 * This is spinning out, so I'm collapsing my response.
 * Nobody has claimed that bureaucrats may sysop without process, but "consensus of the community" is only the standard for permanent custodianship. For probationary custodianship, the standard is the agreement of a candidate and a mentor on mentorship. Period. No consensus is required, policy implies that a bureaucrat will immediately grant sysop status upon the arising of that agreement, and that appears to be actual practice. There was a delay with my own candidacy's conversion to probationary only because there was no available bureaucrat, which situation I fixed by going to meta and requesting a close for the 'cratship of Jtneil, which was long overdue. There is nothing in the policy requiring the mentor to do anything at any particular time, but rather the mentor is allowed to do certain things as specified. If there is delay, it is generally moot, unless someone objects to the delay, in which case some kind of decision would have to be made. It would appear that with the above argument, Ottava is trying to justify his threat to report Jtneill for policy violation, based on the contingency that Jtneill decided, as one possibility, that I was not according the 48-hour period to find a new mentor, and Jtneill had indeed stated that I was entitled to this period, this seems to be finding consensus. Ottava's out on a limb, here, vigorously sawing the wrong side. In Ottava's case, Ottava was a probationary custodian, having been given the tools, but not yet formally approved, for substantially longer than 28 days. In that example, though, there was substantial effort to more precisely follow policy. What Ottava is missing, however, is that policy specifically provides for the contingency that the mentor "turns against" the mentored custodian, and provides explicit process should that happen at any time before permanent custodian approval, and Ottava did not follow that process, instead trying to claim that some expire date had been passed and the milk should be thrown out without any further consideration. Why? Because he did not want the stewards to look at what had actually happened. It might have gotten messy. (In fact, if the stewards had been aware of the actual policy, I assume, one of them would have so commented, noting that if no mentor appeared within 48 hours of the termination -- they'd want to see the termination, too, which Ottava did not provide as well -- they would then desysop. Strictly, the mentor is supposed to wait 48 hours, but the difference would be academic. Given what Ottava wrote, however, and how stewards operate in reality, what the steward did is more or less what would be expected. Stewards are not expected to know the intimated details of local policy, and it looked like Ottava's reason was sound, Ottava presented this as routine, though I'm not aware of any precedent for it (non-emergency desysop request based on expiration of the four week period only, which is contrary to policy.) --Abd 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

most relevant point: Ottava is apparently trying to justify his threat to report Jtneill for "violating policy," when Jtneill has been simply interpreting policy as written and practiced, as have I. Thus his tendentious argument, not supported by consensus, and preposterous on the face, is adding to the necessity for review of his actions. His comments above are actually true, except for the conclusion in the last sentence and the implication that others are in contradiction to the true statements. As to the last sentence, the ending of the four week period is the period where !voting, with approval, may begin. It does not terminate probationary custodianship, that is clearly standing practice, and the policy provides for the contingency that the mentor rejects the candidate; Ottava's position would make that meaningless, thus defeating policy in favor of ... what? --Abd 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) For reference, here is the policy relevant to probationary custodianship. I believe it is quite clear, and it matches actual practice, either exactly or closely. --Abd 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments from JWSchmidt. Abd, my advice is that you again nominate yourself for probationary custodianship (assuming you are still interested in the position). If Ottava Rima were a normal Custodian it would be possible to resolve your conflict with him (or it would never have arisen), but evidence indicates that he is not a normal Custodian. Ottava Rima was never nominated for full custodianship by a custodian mentor, so it is not clear that he is actually a Custodian at all. Ottava Rima has asserted that he is the top organizer of Wikiversity, apparently positioning himself as being "special" in some way. Ottava Rima has adopted the strange position that he can impose blocks not forbidden by policy, but Wikiversity policy says that blocks are only for preventing repeated vandalism or other purposes explicitly prescribed by policy or defined by consensus. Ottava Rima's rogue position with respect to his use of the block tool led him to impose a bad block and violate the Wikiversity civility policy by calling for an unjustified block. Ottava Rima fails to provide evidence to support accusations he has made against Wikiversity community members (examples: 1, 2). This is particularly alarming when a wild accusation alienates a new member of the Wikiversity community. Ottava Rima also uses the Wikiversity chat channel inappropriately, for example, to bully another member of the community. Given the many examples of bad behavior by Ottava Rima (provided by you and I in this discussion thread), I doubt if it will be possible for you to resolve your conflict with Ottava Rima. Abd, since no other Custodian will stand up to Ottava Rima and prevent him from disrupting Wikiversity, my advice is, just move on and re-nominate yourself as a probationary custodian. --JWSchmidt 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 * While I could have done that, and still could do that, Darklama has opened up a permanent custodian discussion. Per policy, that can't be closed as positive without a mentor, but, I had to agree, the mentor could equivalently be added later. As I pointed out, this isn't what policy describes, but it makes sense, because I did have a long probationary period with few real problems except for your flak. If no other custodian will "stand up to Ottava" -- which isn't correct, it's already happening, I'll give some examples -- too bad. It's my job to do my duty and to speak the truth. I think you know about that one, the difference is that I'm trying to do it rigorously within policy and due process, while, hopefully, minimizing disruption. Doesn't always work, but, hey, how's your approach working, John? I have not reviewed your evidence above, I intend to if I have time, and comment on it. This request for feedback, though, isn't intended by me to be a laundry list of all errors or whatever that Ottava has made. I filed it just over the narrow actions, and the reason is that "discussion of all is discussion of none," a variation on a phrase that a very old and very wise man once said to me. If we can't get through to Ottava with something narrow, how much is hie likely to hear us if he is busy ducking the kitchen sink? Remember, that's the process here, trying to allow the community to talk some sense in to him (or me, or you!). Thanks for commenting. --Abd 01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Examples. Jtneill has pointed out that Ottava did in fact neglect policy on the 48 hour thing, and on his claim that I could not reapply. Darklama relisted my candidacy after Ottava twice removed it, and completely rejected -- demolished, actually -- the argument Ottava was making that he could prevent it all by insisting he was still my mentor. In the end, how will the community !vote on my candidacy? I'm sure there will be some opposition, but the decision is actually made by a 'crat, not by !vote, if I'm correct. I think Ottava may be past his prime. But what if he surprises us and simply says, "Oops!" I'm not against Ottava, I just want him to follow policy and not use his tools for his personal ego. I also intend to make a desysop promise, the cumbersome process for desysopping is a serious problem when things go awry, so I should set a good example. --Abd 01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "your flak" <-- Calling for unjustified blocks and bans is a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. Two good ways for a probationary custodian to disrupt Wikiversity are falsifying log entries and failing to respond to questions from community members. You are free to dismiss my objections about your behavior as "flak", but a Custodian would honor the obligation to abide by policy and explain how their actions support the Wikiversity project. "how's your approach working, John?" <-- What do you mean by my approach? "ducking the kitchen sink?" <-- I'm not sure what you mean by the "kitchen sink". It might be that Ottava is slowly learning that since Jimbo lost his toy banhammer there is no longer enough support for imposing bad blocks upon Wikiversity community members. --JWSchmidt 13:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My actions are not the subject of this feedback. I am not (currently) a custodian, but comments on my actions as a probationary custodian remain fully in order at User talk:Abd/Custodian actions. As a page used for my own reception of advice, I reserve the right to refactor that page, should it become necessary to keep it clear. As to your unsureness of what I mean, I have elsewhere suggested that you seek advice from someone you trust, since repeated explanations have been ineffective. --Abd 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
I request that possible polls be proposed before being actually started, we should have some sense of the value of a poll, before soliciting !votes. This is not a deciding process, it is only for advice to Ottava and myself, but if we do this work carefully, and a Community Review is later needed, it might be fairly simple. --Abd 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottava has not responded to the substance of this feedback; accordingly, I propose a report"; as this is summary process, intended to reduce useless discussion, please endorse or oppose the motion. Endorsement will close this report, opposition will keep it open until further process. If you wish to add substantial comment, you may now !vote in opposition, and reverse this later. If substantial response appears from Ottava, or from others, time should be provided for further response and this motion will be tabled or revised. --Abd 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll to close Ottava Rima feedback
No consensus or resolving agreement having been found, Abd, the filer of this feedback report, or any other responsible editor, is requested to close it as ineffective.

Endorse close of Ottava Rima feedback

 * 1) Abd 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (mover)

Discussion

 * In standard deliberative process, a motion like this is not debatable, which avoids useless discussion. However, because discussion on a wiki can proceed simultaneously with closure process, debate and discussion is allowed. My intention in closing is to proceed to Community Review/Ottava Rima, it having become necessary. This report was on narrow issues; the Community Review will necessarily be wider. Please see Policy on "Problems with Custodians" for a description of due process. --Abd 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill

 * Name of custodian/bureaucrat: Jtneill
 * Your comments: This custodian has a broad and holistic knowledge of the wiki format. He is kind and courteous. Keep up the good work Jtneill.

=Benjamin= ( t ) · ( c ) · ( e ) 04:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Community review
Several Custodians do not respond to questions about their actions. This is the subject of community review. --JWSchmidt 14:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When asked on their user talk pages, User:Darklama and User:Adambro have failed to explain how their actions support the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When asked on his user talk page, User:Ottava Rima has failed to explain how his actions support the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 05:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Custodians are volunteers and are not required, in fact, to explain their actions, though explanation is preferred and suggested. An unexplained action may be reversed readily by another custodian. The community may ask questions in some process for removal of ops, and failure to respond may be part of the grounds for removal. But there is no such process underway at this time. In particular, questions only coming from a single individual may generally be ignored if it becomes tedious to respond, where experience has shown that response simply leads to more and more questions. Hence a general rule can be derived: the urgency of response is proportional to the number of users confirming that a question requires answers. Normally, custodians are routinely expected to answer a single question from a single user. A barrage of questions from a single user, however, may be ignored, though it is more courteous to decline to answer unless the questions are reduced and narrowed, to, perhaps, one question at a time. I note that in the process by which Adambro became a custodian, JWS asked a large number of questions at one time, nearly all of them appearing hostile. Adambro declined to answer, inviting JWS to reduce the number of questions. JWS did not, but faulted Adambro for not responding, and opposed the custodianship of Adambro. The community did not accept the position of JWS, all other comments were favorable to Adambro. JWS is beating a seriously dead horse here, he's been doing it for a long time. --Abd 17:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Test and treat
Test and treat is a proposed public health measure which is intended to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. I recently created a page discussing Test and treat which was deleted by Ottava Rima. After I asked him on his talk page if he is opposed to test and treat, he blocked my account and deleted the question from his talk page. This means, among other things, that I must now log out before I may post on talk pages. I am curious about how other custodians feel about this issue. --173.206.237.7 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (KBlott)
 * 1. You plagiarized two pages. 2. You used my real name, which you cannot possibly know based on standard editing. 3. You were blocked before for inappropriate edits on Wikipedia on the same subject then proceeded to use socks to put them back again. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaint: SB Johnny
SB Johnny has a long history of inappropriate actions. He desysopped JWSchmidt outside of community process and discussion, made dozens of bad blocks, wheel warred with Jimbo Wales and others, canvassed people to stop proposals, uses Wikipedia Review to out and harass users, and has been consistently incivil. He also demanded his own ops restored outside of community process and was granted them without first requesting the community about it or telling Stewards that we do not have a policy allowing for automatic resysop. Currently, he granted Abd Custodian status even though the community

This complaint follows the process here. If SB Johnny does not call for the removal of Custodianship and permanently give up all privileges at Wikiversity, then "a new seven day community discussion" will be started. If there is not "community consensus in support for the custodianship", which requires more than 60% to support him keeping his ops, then he will be desysopped after seven days. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I have been notified of this complaint, and have read it. --SB_Johnny talk 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Bluster busted, bluff called. SBJ was following policy, precisely. A mentor is responsible for ensuring that the community is protected, and policy provides for no review of that mentor decision; if it's improper, the complaint would be about the mentor, abusive mentorship would be a problem for any custodian, a form of admin abuse. The litany of complaints above are misleading, irrelevant, or worse. Normally, I'd look to see if some compromise could be made, but Ottava's position is completely out to lunch here. Ottava, if we look carefully, is complaining about all three active 'crats, with the above. Maybe he's in the wrong community. --Abd 03:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "policy provides for no review" Policy provides for consensus to determine any and all things, and have the ability to override any and all things. That is a WMF standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is nice to see confirmation that as soon as you are op'ed, you begin edit warring, making attacks, and creating a poisonous atmosphere while promoting a view of what is policy here that does not match what actually exists. These are the concerns people alleged would happen and you confirmed them in a few hours. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus has authority. Ottava's declaration of consensus does not. That consensus has authority does not mean that we require a finding of consensus for most actions. Most actions are done, on wikis, on individual initiative. Wikiversity probationary custodianship policy does not set up a discussion period. Frequently it's done before anyone else has commented, besides the candidate, a mentor, and an implementing 'crat.
 * Ottava created this huge fuss over an action that was utterly routine, and I did not use tools, and having them made no difference in my actions, except that possibly I'm a little more restrained! "Poisonous atmosphere?" Who went to meta immediately to ask for an emergency desysop of SBJ, based on what was clearly routine service? Who attacked, immediately, my candidacy, with wild charges? Who is attacking all three active Wikiversity 'crats in the above complaint, Mu301 for restoring SBJ's bit on request -- routine --, Jtneill, in effect, for offering to mentor me, and SBJ for routine and implementation? What was being done? Was Ottava being harassed here? --Abd 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I can have a look at the policy and perhaps give some suggestions for improvement that may satisfy both sides in this discussion. Regards, Guido den Broeder 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see previous suggestions and suggest improvements at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship. -- dark lama  15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "That consensus has authority does not mean that we require a finding of consensus for most actions." But when there -is- consensus to not do something, that overrides the previous lack. The WMF has processes to ensure that community's have a say over who has an admin right or not. The only reason why you are against this is because you know that you would never get adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not, at all, against the community having the ultimate authority, but through process. "Consensus" cannot determine itself, it requires judgment. I've written a review of deysopping process at . No consensus "not to do something" was apparent.

 * However, no such consensus was apparent in the immediate cause of this feedback filing. We determine community consensus, on permanent adminship, through an announced poll, seeking wide participation. Mentored adminship is specifically designed to bypass this, and the policy provides for no review at all, other than by a mentor and a 'crat, who merely confirms that the prescribed condition exists. Comments may be made, but no close is required of that discussion. No 'crat is required to take any action, and a 'crat who believed that a mentored custodianship would harm the community may abstain from closing, or even actively reject the candidacy, for strong reason. Thus the existing process has a double safeguard: to become a probationary custodian requires the consent of two privileged users, and Jtneill, in my current candidacy, specifically declined to both agree to mentor and to assign the bit (he's a 'crat himself), to keep this requirement meaningful, I assume. There is precedent for only a 'crat being involved, if we want to plug a loophole, that might be it.

 * In addition, if there is any problem with a probationary custodian, not only is normal desysop process available, but a quick and simple bypass is available: consultation with the mentor. In my view, the essential duty of a mentor is to be responsive to complaints. (I also believe that the mentor may expand or delegate this duty, and should, if absent.)

 * I will not now review the comments in the current candidacy, but they were mostly limited to a few with axes to grind, fired up by Ottava. The candidacy was never announced so that the general community would see it. We don't know what the general community thinks about it, and Ottava previously confidently predicted support for much that the community strongly disagreed with. Ottava has no substantial community support in these disruptive actions, but confidently claims it, as he attacks anyone who has disagreed with him.

 * No sane 'crat would look at that discussion and consider that it shows a consensus against probationary candidacy, sufficient to set aside our standard of a simple, non-bureaucratic process. When it comes time to consider permanent custodianship for me, I will look at options to make the process as non-disruptive as possible, but, for sure, my goal will be to seek maximal review by an informed community. --Abd 15:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop back in here to see what's going on and it seems not a lot has changed really. How about we instead consider a desysop of Ottava Rima rather than SB Johnny? Ottava Rima's constant complaints about SBJ look more like personal attacks and bullying than genuine efforts to address a problem on Wikiversity. The hypocrisy in Ottava's statement above is mind blowing. It's about time Wikiversity's self-proclaimed "top organiser" stopped acting like he actually does think he is the boss here. Adambro 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! A tad out-of-touch, Adambro. Ottava was desysopped, he finally went too far. Way too far. that's part of why he's so ... reactive. Anyway, welcome back! You do know you can recover your tools immediately if you wish to. I had some "issues" with recusal failure, but, hey, nobody's perfect, especially me, and, besides, you corrected some of it, and the rest became moot. --Abd 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't make false claims about what happened. The "going to far" was making one block and one deletion, both within policy. You recruited users to vote against me, and the thing was closed inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Personal attacks and bullying by pointing out he didn't follow community consensus? Did you even read anything? If anything, SB Johnny is acting like he is the boss by choosing who gets adminship and who gets removed from adminship. You can't deflect from that by making things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment/SB Johnny, which Ottava filed. I've commented. --Abd 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my memory is failing me. Okay then, I suggest he should be blocked instead. Adambro 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you say that. I provided evidence, you made up claims about history. You even started the desysop proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Block Ottava?
(moved discussion to Request custodian action --Abd 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sidelight12
This probationary custodian (Candidates for Custodianship/Sidelight12) has been unresponsive to community feedback, and has used tools in violation of policy and Wikiversity custom, and takes high offense to this being pointed out, to the extent of making serious accusations on meta, with a Completely inappropriate RFC unbecoming of a Wikiversity custodian, requiring oversight there from a steward.. I am here focusing on a single incident, today.

Sidelight has again blocked Leucosticte. While Leucosticte has a long history (elsewhere) of involvement in highly controversial topics, he is also civil and respectful and responds to guidance and clear restrictions. This appears to be the history of the block.

 * On October 12, Leucosticte started editing our resource on Suicide. He created two new resources, Suicide/Suicide methods/Pentobarbital and Suicide/Suicidogenesis and two templates, Template:Suicide methods and Template:Infobox suicide method.
 * That day, at 17:08, Leucosticte requested my comment on the Pentobarbital resource. I have requested, before, that he consult before creating possibly controversial content. While he created this page first, he still followed the spirit of my request by asking me to look at it.
 * I reviewed the page and immediately placed a speedy deletion tag on it as being a topic that requires ethical guidelines to be in place before such content could be allowed. I explained this to Leucosticte on my talk page.
 * As is common for him, he argued with me. However, he did not apparently contest the deletion. Rather, he did what he often does, he attempted to engage in reasoned debate on my talk page. He also asked for better guidelines on deletion for "ethical violations" on Wikiversity talk:Deletions. This was, again, appropriate.
 * Dave Braunschweig deleted the page, and both Dave and I responded to Leucosticte's suggestion on the Deletions talk page.
 * I also reviewed Leucosticte's other edits, and saw the two templates. Those templates, in themselves, seemed harmless in all but the name (however, I may have overlooked something, I intended to review all of this). Because Leucosticte could appeal the deletion, I did not request deletion of those. The page created on Suicidogenesis was harmless as well.
 * Starting at 03:43, 13 October 2014, Sidelight12 started action without warning, deleting the templates and indef blocking Leucosticte with explanation "(dangerous user)."
 * Dave Braunschweig pointed out the impropriety under Wikiversity policy of these actions, focusing on the block, but the deletions were also improper, in my view. My comments on this:
 * Users are generally not to be blocked without a violated warning, even if they violate policy.
 * Sidelight12 must be considered involved with respect to Leucosticte, from prior events, and this block could be considered wheel-warring (though the unblock by Dave was not recent; yet the basic claim was the same before, that the user is dangerous, and, as well, before, the situation of danger had been handled before Sidelight12 blocked. Thus the block was not based on present danger, but on personal opinion about the user himself, formed long ago.) That's cause for recusal.
 * A custodian may make an emergency block without warning, and also if involved, but should then immediately consult with the custodial community, generally on WV:RCA if the topic is not privacy sensitive. There was no consultation and Sidelight has vehemently rejected advice on policy and his actions, calling it "harassment," this time as before.
 * Custodians should generally not make unilateral speedy deletion decisions, unless speedy deletion reasons are obvious (as with spam). Rather, they should place a speedy deletion template like anyone else, and let another custodian delete. That provides a first-level consensus (i.e, proposal and confirmation by another user). It gets tricky when there is only one active custodian, but this is still doable and it works. (If I saw a speedy deletion template placed by a custodian, I would review it, and confirm it if I agreed; the custodian could then delete. And any regular user may request reversal of speedy deletion, the routine is that it is granted, as if the user had removed the speedy deletion template.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolution sought

 * Sidelight12 resigns or apologizes and accepts guidance. Sidelight12 has shown many times a lack of understanding of how custodians serve the community and how consensus is formed. He is apparently not well-informed on how the tools work. He thinks he "only blocked [Leucosticte's] email." I don't think so. He blocked the user and email, but he did leave the talk page open and did not set up autoblock.
 * Had he only blocked email, why? Leucosticte has no history, anywhere, of abusing email. The only other WMF wiki where he is blocked is Wikipedia. The Leucosticte account also has email blocked, but that could be because Leucosticte was a sock of another abandoned account, not used anywhere else, who was banned, and who does *not* have email blocked. Generally, experienced admins follow this sequence:
 * Warning
 * Violation, user short-blocked. Sometimes "indef" is used but without the intention of it being long, but rather "pending discussion". With repeated offenses, blocks get longer.
 * If talk page abused, talk page access blocked. Some long term blocked users on Wikipedia are allowed talk page access unless it is abused.
 * If email abused, email blocked. I am banned on Wikipedia; while blocked, I used my talk page to document certain edits thought to be disruptive, so that was revoked, but I still have email access, and that is normal.

 * I do not personally see how this can be simply resolved unless Sidelight12 either sees the light and apologizes, or resigns. His mentor, Jtneill, has mostly not been responsive (on many matters, not just this one). Ordinarily, at this point, a mentor may withdraw the mentorship and the user has 48 hours to obtain a new mentor. If Jtneil does not withdraw mentorship, and Sidelight12 does not resign, I see Sidelight12's possession of tools as representing a continuing danger to our users.
 * Wikiversity has been a refuge for users who get into trouble elsewhere. Sometimes these users require guidance, and this is a place for "learning by doing." In handling these situations, it is necessary that we be firm and clear about disruptive behavior, but that we also open the way for users to learn to collaborate with the wiki community. We are quite skilled at this, usually. Standard block policy -- no block without warning -- works quite well. Exceptions can be handled as described. Without clarity on this, custodians can become little dictators, imposing their personal vision on Wikiversity.
 * So, here, I request the community advise Sidelight to resign, or otherwise act to ameliorate the danger.
 * Alternate resolution 1: any user may do as I did with Dave Braunschweig, set up the permanent custodian vote, on their own responsibility and recommendation. I'm certainly not going to do that! It is highly likely to be a waste of time.
 * Alternate resolution 2: WV:Community Review to remove Sidelight's custodial privileges. This is likely to be disruptive, because this can attract users who are here only to disrupt, and they come out for processes like this. However, I'm confident enough of the outcome that if Sidelight does not resign, and there is no permanent vote in short order, I expect I'd collaborate in filing one. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
*Alternate resolution 3: To address the immediate issue, Sidelight12 removes the block from Leucosticte and agrees to have no further custodial interaction with either Leucosticte or user Abd. Sidelight12 has done good work at Wikiversity, and his efforts have improved the quality of content here. However, there are clearly issues that prevent Sidelight12 from responding in a neutral, unbiased, and appropriate manner when either Leucosticte or Abd are involved. If Sidelight12 were to have recused himself from situations involving these two users, there would be no remaining evidence for this feedback. Any other issues can then be addressed over time as part of the probationary custodian process. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There were reasons to consider filing a review on Sidelight12 before this incident, but Dave is correct; if Sidelight had recused, the feedback would not have been filed. There is other evidence, but Sidelight is not particularly active, and it was old, and not an emergency, it seemed. We do have a problem of an unsupervised probationary custodian long beyond the time contemplated. That is a generic problem. We can and will develop generic, practical solutions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment
This is an attempted Kangaroo court. Abd is trying to set the rules when he is wrong here. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update.Sidelight blocked me for two weeks, at 02:36, 14 October 2014, reason: (Not given permission to post on my userpage). This was the post to his user page, it notified him of this feedback filing, nothing else. His response to the post was "(removed kangaroo court notice)". (The removal was harmless, the "kangaroo court" comment shows a serious misunderstanding of Wikiversity process and what is expected of custodians.)
 * Custodian feedback is not a court at all. It is a place to examine complaints or provide other feedack for custodians, for discussion, especially if user talk page discussion fails, as it obviously has. Discussion here cannot remove custodian privileges and cannot sanction any user. It is possible that this could generate advice, but that would not be binding. It is an opportunity to resolve disputes. An attempt toward that can be seen above, in Dave's suggested alternate resolution. Dave struck that alternative only after the block and the comment above.
 * I placed an unblock template at 12:47, 14 October 2014, covering what happened, taking responsibility, and providing assurance that any possible problem will not repeat. Dave Braunschweig unblocked me at 13:14, 15 October 2014, having allowed 24 hours after my unblock posting as if he had attempted discussion with Sidelight. I assume he did not actually discuss because of Sidelight's treatment of his previous inquiry re Leucosticte, as "harassment."
 * The full unblock discussion on my user talk page.
 * Meanwhile, Jtneill, Sidelight's mentor, has asked Sidelight12 to review his actions. Because this process may resolve this matter without further disruption, I am holding off moving up to WV:Community Review. Sidelight is being given every opportunity to learn how to serve the community as a custodian. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * |Here, Snowolf said he missed acting on Dave's self unblock. Oh, it was with Prejudice, those are just magic words that abd uses to make it sound it so, Only his side of the story was heard when the emergency was taken. - Sidelight12 Talk 09:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Close

 * The situation escalated into direct wheel-warring and mutual blocks.
 * I filed a request for steward action on meta., for desysop "without prejudice," i.e., not a finding that Sidelight12 was wrong, but that the local community may review.
 * A steward desysopped Sidelight12.
 * Jtneill reviewed Sidelight12's statement regarding his custodial activity, and terminated the probationary period. Had the steward not already removed the status, there would then have been a request for desysop anyway.
 * Request close. As Sidelight12 is no longer a custodian, this Custodian feedback filing should be closed. Sidelight12 remains free to WV:Request custodian action, if he believes that a user is violating policy or harming the wiki, or to file his own custodian feedback on this page regarding the actions of any custodian, or to initiate WV:Community review if discussion fails. I do not recommend any of that unless there is support from other users. It can all backfire. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the only people commenting here are abd and dave, aside from my other comment, so this is why I call this a kangaroo court. The problem here is that two people unconditionally backing each other is not a community., please comment, and close if you wish. -Sidelight12
 * It would not be appropriate for a meta steward to close a local feedback issue. Snowolf has already taken action without prejudice and left this for local review.  Regarding that local review, I encourage Sidelight12 to reread the comments at  and .  A local review has already been provided by our only active bureaucrat.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 * That said he can't mentor me. And it is pathetic you try to rub something in. Snowolf said both custodians should have been emergency desysoped. You abused your admin privileges, big time. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave Braunschweig's inappropriate behavior
|Here, Snowolf said he missed acting on Dave's self unblock, when there was an emergency. Then abd cherrypicks which rules to follow. leucostite agreed to stop writing dangerous pages here, then he immediately jumped to write them at |Wikibooks. Blocking someone forcing them to agree to avoid admin actions against a user creating problematic pages was extortion. Also making up terms as they go, for their convenience, are inappropriate acts.
 * | Comment by IP that Dave doesn't understand when blocks are appropriate.
 * "12:47, 16 October 2014 Dave Braunschweig (discuss | contribs) blocked Sidelight12 (discuss | contribs) (autoblock disabled) for indefinite (Intimidation, harassment, or vulgar language: Misuse of custodian tools.)" He misused custodian tools, and put a false claim of harassment. If anything, Dave's and abd's actions are harassment.
 * Hypocritically tells others don't push your values onto others, then he outright bullies his values onto others, then makes up excuses for it.

- Sidelight12 Talk 09:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment
Your feedback is noted. The actions of Sidelight12, Dave Braunschweig, and Snowolf on 16 October 2014 have all been reviewed by a local bureaucrat. There is nothing new in this feedback statement and no attempts toward resolution. I extended an opportunity to discuss this issue with you on 16 October and I remain open to meaningful dialog. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have filed a Request for custodian action on this, because review by a neutral custodian may be appropriate. Discussion attempting to resolve the "dispute," should be here, proposals and discussion of requested immediate sanctions for users should be on the RCA page or on appropriate user talk pages. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue has been resolved. --atcovi (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity:Custodian feedback/Archive


text:
Wikiversity:Blocking policy/Enforcement and self-reversion

This is a draft of sections to be added to Blocking policy.

Block enforcement
Blocks are enforced through the software, against named accounts, IP addresses, or IP ranges. If an IP address is identified as being used by a blocked user, it may be temporarily blocked. If a user uses a range of IP addresses, the range may be blocked. However, the wider the range, the more likely that an uninvolved anonymous user is prevented from editing Wikiversity or registering an account. Thus custodians must balance the risk of allowing a blocked editor to edit as IP, against the risk of collateral damage.

Cooperation with a block, whether through refraining from editing, or from editing as IP in ways that show cooperation, can be a factor to be taken into consideration when reviewing a block. Because blocked users often consider blocks to be unfair, block evasion is not, in itself, a reason to later deny unblock. However, disruption actually caused by block evasion, resulting from a need to protect the wiki and the community, may be considered. Revert warring by IP after an edit is reverted due to being from a blocked editor is always disruptive.

Blocked editors who wish to make positive contributions to the community should pursue alternatives to disruptive editing.

Enforcement actions are of two kinds: reversion of edits by the editor while blocked and blocking of identified sock puppets and IP being used. Any editor may revert, on sight, any unreviewed edit from a blocked editor, without regard to the content. It is not the content, however, which is being blocked, it is the editor. Any registered editor, seeing an edit from a blocked editor, may review the content and revert it back in, on his or her own responsibility. It is discouraged for other IP editors to do this because it then raises doubts about additional sock puppetry. Once the edit has been reviewed in this way, it may not be removed based on the identity of the blocked editor, but only if it would have been removed if made by the reviewing editor.

If blocked editors are allowed to edit without review, there would be no need for blocking. Ordinary wiki deletion would suffice. Thus if a block has been created and stands, block enforcement must be allowed. This creates a conflict with the ultimate goal of the wiki: positive content. Review of edits by unblocked editors resolves this conflict. However, editing while blocked may then require enforcement labor, which is disruptive in that this labor could be applied to more useful purposes.

Self-reverted edits by blocked users
Self-identified self-reverted edits by a blocked user are not, in themselves, considered block evasion, because they can be quickly identified, require no research from anyone who does not volunteer for the task, and, if not reviewed, have done no harm. Anyone who cares can quickly verify that the reversion was complete. They are merely "proposed edits." The same end could be accomplished by a blocked user emailing proposed content to an unblocked editor for review and use; however, experience has shown that far more useful content from any editor is created with far less effort, overall, if the editor can directly place it where it is needed. Further, for another user to place content provided by a blocked editor is sometimes called "proxying" and is, itself, sometimes considered inappropriate, unless it is openly disclosed.

Hence blocking IP when it is being used solely for non-disruptive self-reverted edits, even though the editor is blocked, is discouraged, because it can create collateral damage, represses possibly positive contributions, becomes more obviously censorship, and "enforces the block" as if it were punishment. If a blocked editor cooperates with a block by self-identifying as blocked with the edit, and by self-reverting "per block," the community can reciprocate by not blocking the IP, thus beginning a process of cooperation that can, sometimes, end the original disruption and cause of block. Blocks are not punishment, with a term to be served to "pay a debt to the wiki." They are purely protective, based on the need to avoid disruptive content and resulting wasted labor.

Self-reverted edits encourage a blocked editor to make acceptable edits, because unacceptable edits will end up as a waste of time for the blocked editor, yet they force no significant consideration from anyone else.

However, self-reverted edits can still be disruptive. Examples would be self-reverted edits that reveal protected private information about another editor, thus requiring revision deletion, that are grossly uncivil, as might result in an immediate block if made by any editor, or that are repeated so as to fill edit history with additional useless changes or otherwise cause undue disruption. For any proposed change by self-reverted edit, once should be enough; if the blocked editor wishes to call attention to it, this should be done either in another place, such as the talk page of a sympathetic editor, or off-wiki. Continued edits, self-reverted or not, should not be made to the Talk page of an editor once the editor has objected to them, as they can have an effect of harassment.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Ake BW

HW 04 - 23/10/10
Question: Event Identification
 * Fish wholesale market sales over 1,000 fish per week to 120 different restaurants and stores throughout Bangkok
 * Driver loads his own truck
 * Deliveries are made early in the morning, and the driver collects the payment on delivery
 * Orders are called into the main office and written on paper

The following are the risks/opportunity that can occur:
 * The orders are recorded on paper which is easy to lost or get mixed up
 * The driver might lost the payment collected or steal the money
 * Hence, the orders are recorded on paper and the number of restaurants being deliver each week, the orders information might get mixed up to the amount of fish being order and where it is order
 * The driver is the one loading the truck, he might gets tired from loading the fish and accident might occur while he is delivering the fish, or he might damage the fish while loading it on the truck

---

HW 03 - 2/10/10
Question: Do Context Diagram and Level 0 Diagram.

Context Diagram

0 Level Diagram

---

HW 02 - 18/09/10
Question: Work in groups of twos. Find 2 examples of each business model.

My group: Akepong 5202500015, Tanatip 5202500003 (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Linnrouth) Linnrouth 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

---

HW 01 - 04/09/10
Question: Look at supply chain management package in detail. What financial and accounting information does it deal with? What are the advantages of using this module?

1) In supply chain management, financial and accounting information deal with recording of money transaction that occurs along the supply chain. Along the supply chain will involve from ordering inventory, shipping, finalizing and selling goods, all the process involve money transaction; accounting job is to record all these transactions.

2) The advantages on using this module are to lower costs to the customer; higher availability of the product; higher availability leading to lower backorder cost; higher response to customer request for product customization and other specifications; reduced inventories along the supply chain; smooth workloads due to planned goods arrivals and departures, leading to reduced overtime costs, and increased customer orders due to improved customer responsiveness.

title: User:Ake BW


text: File:Pgramtrick.JPG

title: File:Pgramtrick.JPG


text:
Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy/Enforcement and self-reversion

Why this was proposed now
These policy clarifications and changes are proposed based on current situations on Wikiversity, as well as experience on Wikipedia. There were two blocks which were matters of concern. This will be lengthy, I may refactor later to summarize and simplify. --Abd 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Case:Thekohser
The first was the block of Thekohser, which is complicated. In short, communicating openly through an alternative account which was verified by me to be Thekohser through off-wiki communication, established for this purpose and disclosed to me before any edits were made, and made necessary by a global lock on Thekohser, it was negotiated that Thekohser would make positive edits through IP, self-identify with the edit, and self-revert. Thekohser did so, using 68.87.42.110, and Special:Contributions/69.137.143.91. He would have used only one IP, but a custodian decided that "the experiment was over" and blocked it, even though no disruptive edits had been made, all edits were easily identified, and all were self-reverted. There was only one problem that developed in the trial, and the condition behind it had not been anticipated: what if nobody notices the self-reverted edit? What should the editor do? Thekohser repeated it, which, in hindsight, was an error. Under those conditions, a blocked editor should not repeat such an edit, it unduly complicates history and creates more Recent Changes. Rather, the editor should contact a sympathetic editor on the editor's Talk page, to ask for review, or make a contact off-wiki.

As a result of the trial, which lasted for a substantial time, and the continued cooperation of Thekohser and his refraining from using the opportunity for criticism of the WMF or WMF users or functionaries (which appears to be behind the global lock and his original block here by a privileged user (the privilege was later redefined not to allow such blocks), I unblocked, but the admin then blocked.

The reblock did serve one purpose. As a result, I went to Request custodian action and requested unblock for the account. The discussion determined consensus for unblock, and this was applied to the main account, Thekohser, with a 'crat delinking the account to remove the effect of the global lock. (This is allowed with local consensus, or perhaps at 'crat discretion.)

Had it not been for the self-reversion process, a far more cumbersome method would have been needed to establish cooperation and solicit good content from this user. Ottava Rima proposed it: the user could make contributions on his Talk page, for review and implementation. Thekohser rejected this as too cumbersome, and I agree. An original page might have been established that way, and, in fact, the original page which was created by Thekohser was then blanked, in lieu of reversion -- you can't revert an original page edit --, and then the page was promptly deleted as a blanked page! So probably original pages should be created by blocked users by IP in a different way, to be worked out. Any user could, for example, create a page in their user space for that purpose, the page would be created as a subpage of that, and would be blanked. The user page name would be something like User:Helpful/Pages by blocked editors - temporarily blanked. So that a custodian, seeing the page wouldn't delete it as blanked! The systems must be efficient and easy to follow.

And without a record of good contributions and a record of cooperation with the block -- self reverted edits show explicit cooperation with a block and acknowledge the block and simplify block enforcement -- I would not have had sufficient basis to request unblock for Thekohser, that was my opinion. Some said that I should have gone to meta and requested global unlock. However, that involves dealing with a host of issues based on behavior at other wikis. I was not willing to do that without consensus here, for sure. The chicken and the egg problem. So we created an egg, an account with new life, just a little (I immediately blocked the account, but this allowed Talk page access), incubated the egg and candled it, found it sound, and so we gained, out of a blocked editor, a possibly productive one. And it only takes a single custodian to reblock, if there is new disruptive behavior. I just suggest that any re-blocks require that recusal policy be followed, or be justified by an emergency, actual disruption!

This raised the issue of self-reversion as a process. It raised the issue of an IP block issued without disruptive behavior. My proposed changes deal with both of those issues.

What had been overlooked was that the process of self-reversion, while running, generated good content. It was about demonstration rather than argument. This could have continued for a long time, as long as the blocked user was willing to be patient and someone on-wiki was willing to do the work of review. --Abd 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Case:Moulton
The case of Thekohser, blocked in March, 2010, was relatively simple, because there was no local consensus behind the original block. The user was also fully cooperative. It's been said that he was cooperative because he wanted to poke Jimbo by proving that he wasn't truly banned. That could be true, but is actually irrelevant. In order to "make his point," he must remain unblocked here, and in order to remain unblocked, he must not be actually disruptive. Further, to show that he is an active and productive member of this community, he must make positive edits. Generally, when users are blocked on a project, one of the paths back to unblock is a record of positive contributions elsewhere. Hence unblocking him, from his supposedly bad motives, will create positive content. He defeats his own purpose by being disruptive here.

But Moulton is a much older block. It had been discussed to death here, and there was a discussion which, on the face, per a close, banned him. If one reads that discussion, however, there was quite a bit of concern, there was no supermajority, as far as I've seen, for banning. There continues to be agitation on Wikiversity for unblock. Moulton, as well, when the subject was raised with him off-wiki, was quite reluctant to use self-reversion. Why should he? He doesn't care if he's blocked or not. At least that's what he says. In fact, it's inconvenient to have to keep looking for unblocked IP or open proxies. But he's playing the role of Reject (in a game description I've made on Wikipedia Review, and in that game, Rejects have the highest status). Moulton has a possible educational intention in about everything he does. It may be boring for some, and it has certainly been disruptive at times, hence the block. But, then what?

It became clear, watching the IP contributions and the reverts and the IP blocks and range blocks, that the situation was not satisfactory. Moulton would make an edit that was harmless. Sometimes it was on a user Talk page where he was welcome. Jtneill positively welcomed him, and Jt is our most active bureaucrat. So we had the spectacle of an admin reverting welcome edits to the talk page of a bureaucrat, and protecting the page to prevent IP edits!

Yet an admin enforcing a block should not be expected to remember a set of rules about which pages to consider pages where edits of a blocked editor can be reverted, and should not have to examine the edits themselves to determine if they are disruptive or not.

The proposed policy addresses this.

If a blocked editor self-reverts, done. There is no admin action required at all, beyond maybe checking the reversion to make sure it's complete (the set of two edits should result in no changes). If a blocked edit creates a pattern of always self-reverting, it may not be necessary to review every edit. If an editor has been blocked, however, there are usually people who will be trying to catch the editor in some bad act, so it's not very likely that any significant level of reversion failure will happen without notice.

What if a blocked editor makes a decent edit, and does not self-revert? These edits complicate block enforcement, requiring review. Thus the proposed policy allows reversion of them, on sight, by any editor, it need not be an administrator. Whenever I see Moulton edits that have not been reverted, I revert them, unless I know that they are in a place where they are welcome, such as any of several Talk pages. And if they were disruptive, when I was a probationary custodian, I blocked the IP. I did not do this, though, if the edits were not disruptive. That's within custodial discretion.

But if the edits are self-reverted, they are, almost certainly, not disruptive. I've defined a safe harbor: self-identified as being from a blocked editor (I'd use, if I were blocked, "will revert per block of Abd,"), and then self-reverted, should be safe. An IP should never be blocked solely on the basis of such edits, absent egregiously offensive content such that its presence in history is improper, i.e., the edits should be revision deleted. Revision deletion from Moulton edits was happening, to some level, and might continue to happen.

It is not necessary that the self-reversion safe harbor be consider as necessarily leading to unblock. It is not necessary, for the safe harbor to exist at a point in time, that the editor always refrain from true disruption. The concept is that if the editor, editing from some open IP, does not disrupt in any way, which would mean self-reverted edits, self-identified, the community will respect the cooperation for edits from that IP. As soon as the editor starts violating this, the additional block enforcement of blocking the IP can start. Nothing has been lost by allowing a period of contributions, there is simply a return to the status quo ante. The door can remain open, and, in consider all this, it is important to realize that stopping a knowledgeable editor from editing is impossible. We may wish that we could prevent it, but Wikipedia has shown that a determined blocked editor can just keep going as long as the editor cares to, requiring continual attention and continual maintenance. At some points a major chunk of the internet was ranged blocked in a monomaniacal effort to stop Scibaby from creating and editing with socks. To make what were basically harmless edits, quickly reverted (because those articles were "owned," another can of worms. That's how the guy got blocked in the first place, they were owned by administrators. This is dicta, it's not important here. The truth of what I'm saying about it, though, is before ArbComm at the moment, in a massive case on Climate Change.)

We need to simplify this. Self-reversion provides some intermediate state between being unblocked and being banned through enforcement that creates collateral damage. It allows flexibility.

It is possible that a bot could be created to be a "topic ban bot," that would automatically revert the edits of editors under defined conditions; this, again, would establish an intermediate state between "free" and "blocked." Such bots exist on Wikipedia, used as an alternative to the spam blacklist, where there is an oft-spammed site that is also sometimes useful. Certain bot-identified edits by IP are bot reverted. Any registered editor can revert them back in, taking responsibility.

We need to explore ways to move beyond the black and white "free" and "blocked" conditions, the disruption from pure blocking and strict ban enforcement may or may not be as bad as the disruption from the blocked editor, but it is not necessary to accept either condition, we can find agreements if we treat blocked editors with respect. By definition, if an editor has been banned, most of the community doesn't want to continue to deal with him or her. These proposals don't require anyone to pay attention to any edit by that editor, the edits are identified and are, if the editor is cooperating, already reverted. What more could be done? Revert it back in just to argue extensively with it? Only if it raises an important issue! Otherwise, Ignore. --Abd 17:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


text: User:Tamerlane~enwikiversity

title: User:Tamerlane~enwikiversity


text:
Teaching EFL Listening via FUN WITH ENGLISH Books/7A/Parent's Night at School

Definition

 * Opinion = What a person thinks.
 * Fact = What a person knows.
 * Context = What a person or people is/are talking about.

Why?

 * Because knowing the difference between fact and opinion is important for making decisions.

Example

 * Draw two stick figures on the board. Explain that the two of them are having a conversation. These are not questions for the students.
 * A: "xi yang yang is a cartoon. Do you like it?." B: "Yes! It's great!"
 * Questions:
 * What is fact?
 * What is opinion?
 * What is the context?

Lesson Question

 * Is this fact or opinion?

Word(s) of the Day

 * canteen

Contact Information

 * QQ ID 867996874
 * QQ Name Danoff
 * e-mail danoff.charles@gmail.com

Teaching Materials

 * FUN WITH ENGLISH 7A Textbook
 * Lessons Notebook

Topic

 * identify: opinion / fact and argument / conversation
 * Briefly review context.

Plan

 * 0
 * In classroom at least 30 minutes before my first class of the day.
 * Before class, make sure chairs are set up correctly
 * Write Lesson plan, Lesson, Definitions, Example, my contact info, words of the day and that it's OK to say "I don't know" or "No reason" on the board.
 * Ask if everyone has their textbooks and pens. If they don't tell them to go get them.
 * Have the students write down where they sit on my seating chart.
 * Depending on who is in the class, hand around my notebook and have them write down their names. Do not announce it, just give it to one student.

 * 1) Coversation
 * 2) *6 Minutes
 * 3) ** If the kids don't respond, ask them the questions directly.
 * 4) * Are you tired?
 * 5) * Are you hungry?
 * 6) * Is it anyone's birthday today in class?
 * 7) * What are you going to do this weekend?
 * 8) * Who do you like more xi yang yang or luan yang yang?
 * 9) * Any questions for me? Add that the longer we talk here, the less time we have to spend on the textbook.
 * 10) Joke
 * 11) * 2 Minutes
 * 12) Introduction
 * 13) * 4 Minutes
 * 14) * Make sure they understand the word "introduction."
 * 15) * Point out the Lesson Plan, mention if we move fast, we can get to the game quicker.
 * 16) * Tell them my contact info, and say that "I am busy. I want to talk to you, but if I can't it is not because I don't like them, it is because I am busy. I like all of you. Please say hello again or e-mail me. E-mail is much better."
 * 17) * Mention that if ask a question and they don't know the answer, it's fine to say "I don't know". Write "No why" and "No reason" ask which is correct if I ask "Why?" cross out "No reason" explain that it is Chinese, not English.
 * 18) * Word of the Day: Canteen
 * 19) * Lesson - Ask if they remember what we did last week? Mention we will be talking a little about the same idea again.
 * 20) * Definitions
 * 21) * Example
 * 22) * Ask for any questions.
 * 23) Page 22 Let's get ready A & B
 * 24) * 6 Min
 * 25) * Walk around the class, help the students who are struggling.
 * 26) Page 23 Let's listen 1 A - Tapescript Page 81
 * 27) * 3 Min
 * 28) * For a less rambunctious class, have one student be Lisa, two be her parents, and one each for the classroom, library & computer lab. Put the "rooms" into different corners of the classroom. Have "Lisa" lead her "parents" around the classroom on the tour. For a class that's already excited about English, this activity is too much.
 * 29) * Possibly introduce the word "act" by writing "actor" and "actress" on the board [words they know], underline "act" in all 3 words, and then say "actors and actresses act in movies.".
 * 30) Page 24 Let's listen 2 A   - Tapescript Page 82
 * 31) * 4 Min
 * 32) * I read it through.
 * 33) * Ask the students if the statements are facts or opinions.
 * 34) * What is the context of Lisa and John's conversation?
 * 35) Page 25 Let's listen 3 A - Tapescript Page 82
 * 36) * 6 Min
 * 37) * See if I can get two student volunteers, if not I read it through.
 * 38) * Ask the students if the statements are facts or opinions.
 * 39) * What is the context of John, Lisa and Karen's conversation?
 * 40) Dream School
 * 41) * Ask the students to break into groups of 4 or 5 and design their dream school. Each person has to talk on one topic.
 * 42) ** Subjects?
 * 43) ** Clubs?
 * 44) ** Homework?
 * 45) ** Tests?
 * 46) ** Teachers?
 * 47) ** Schedule?
 * 48) What's the Question?

Extra Time

 * Competitive Hangman
 * Rows & Columns
 * 20 Questions from the ITESLJ
 * Soccer Dialogue Illustrating Argument vs. Conversation
 * Ball Self-Introduction Game
 * Competitive Hangman
 * "How high can you clap?" Game
 * Simon Says
 * Telephone

g7 c2

 * might not have explained it properly, but no kids volunteered to act for page 23A
 * conversation at the beginning was good, I asked what's been happening lately in the news? they didn't say anything, but when I said Obama! they all got excited
 * then talked about thanksgiving for a bit, which also went well
 * finished all the textbook and the dream school with a few minutes to spare
 * doing the answers game with an example first definitely worked better
 * feels kinda false spending all of this time going through the textbook
 * what other things could I be doing? -> ask colleague.

G7 C11A
AFLS TJ 3 Page - the 2nd to last one
 * spent a long time talking about the cold & why we do/don't like it
 * then went into "i don't know" vs "i understand"
 * with the "charlie & anqing" speech, they were only able to access the 1st paragraph
 * very little textbook time

Learning Outcome Achieved?

 * i'm not sure, because I have somewhat abandoned the learning outcomes

Additional Questions & Instructions for This Lesson
5 Page 22 Let's get ready B 4 Min
 * Walk around the class, help the students who are struggling.
 * Are the lessons you have at school facts or opinions? Can you give an example of an opinion?


text:
Human Legacy Course/Early Greece

Human Legacy Course I Early Greece LECTURER: Mr. Blair

Course Page / Take The Quiz / Next Lecture

Hello and welcome to Week 5, Classical Greece. In today's lecture, we will be taking a brief overview into early Greece. Our question for the day is:

Were the ancient stories about Crete based on fact? The wealthy King Minos, his deadly maze called the Labyrinth, and a half-man, half-bull beast called the Minotaur, who trapped prisoners in the maze and ate them alive—there are the tales Greek storytellers told. Many people have wondered whether they actually happened.

Beginning in the late 1890s a British archaeologist, Sir Arthur Evans, led an expedition to dig for ancient ruins on Crete. Evans’s team found something amazing. They uncovered the ruins of a vast palace at Knossos, the site the myths named as the home of the Minos and his Minotaur. Evans found no signs of the beast, of course. But he did think he had found the history behind the legend. He called this lost civilization Minoan, after the legendary king.

Minoans and Mycenaeans
Until the discoveries by Evans and others in the 1800s, the earliest history of Greece had been lost to legend for centuries. Even now, after several major discoveries, many parts of that early history are a mystery to us. We do know, however, that two distinct cultures developed in early Greece, the Minoans and the Mycenaeans.

The Minoans of Crete
The civilization we call Minoan developed on Crete as early as 3000 BC and lasted nearly 2,000 years. During that time, Minoan ships sailed all over the Aegean Sea—and perhaps further. Minoan colonies grew up on dozens of Aegean islands. Ships laden with trade goods sailed back and forth between these colonies and Crete.

Excavations at Knossos have revealed much about Minoan life. Buildings there were solidly constructed with many private rooms, basic plumbing, and brightly colored artwork on the walls. That artwork has likewise helped historians learn about the Minoan way of life. From images of ships, they can tell Minoan life was tied to the sea: sailing, trade, fishing, even playing in the waves were all common. Women seem to have played major roles in society. For example, most Minoan images of priests are women. Frescoes painted on the walls of Minoan houses suggest that the Minoans played dangerous games that involved leaping over charging bulls during festivals.

Much of what historians have written about Minoan civilization is the result of speculation and guesswork. Part of the problem stems from the Minoans’ writing, which historians cannot read. Called Linear A, the language does not appear to be related to those of mainland Greece. Unless we learn to decipher their writing, all we know about the Minoans will come from the art and objects they left behind.

For reasons as yet unknown, the Minoan civilization fell apart rather suddenly. One possible cause was a world-shaking disaster. When a volcanic island near Crete blew itself apart—one of the largest eruptions ever—the blast may have affected weather patterns around the world. The damage this would have done to Minoan ports and crops may have substantially weakened the society. No matter what else happened, in the end the Minoans were conquered by the warlike Mycenaeans from the Greek mainland.

The Mycenaean States
The Mycenaeans built small kingdoms that fought often with each other. The civilization’s name comes from a fortress they built, Mycenae. Historians consider the Mycenaeans the first Greeks, because they spoke a form of the Greek language. The earliest Mycenaean kingdoms owed much to the Minoans. They traded with them and copied Minoan writing to develop their own system, which somewhat resembled the earlier Minoan writing system.

Unlike Minoan writing, however, Mycenaean writing has been translated. Like the Minoans, the Mycenaeans also became great traders. Their trade only increased after they conquered Crete.

Despite their ties to Crete, the Mycenaeans’ civilization developed in a very different direction. Mycenaean society was dominated by intense competition, frequent warfare, and powerful kings. To raise money to build great palaces and high walls, Mycenaean kings taxed trade and farming. To show off their strength, they built great monuments like the massive Lion’s Gate at Mycenae.

The Mycenaean kings’ constant quests for power and glory inspired many later legends. The most famous legend is the story of the Trojan War. The war supposedly involved early Greeks, led by Mycenae, fighting a powerful city called Troy in what is now Turkey. Although historians are not sure if the Trojan War really happened, they have found the ruins of a city they believe to be Troy. Evidence at these ruins suggests that the city was destroyed in battle, though it is impossible to be certain.

Whatever the real Trojan story, war played a part in the end of Mycenaean civilization. Along with droughts and famines, invasion from outside, and the end of trade, war between Mycenaean cities sped up their downfall. By the end of the 1100s BC the Mycenaean cities were mostly in ruins. A dark age followed. People fled cities, struggled to farm enough to eat, fought their neighbors and outside invaders, and even lost the use of writing for several centuries. Greek civilization almost disappeared.

Greek City-States
For more than 300 years, Greece was awash in confusion. By the 800s BC, however, life in Greece was stable enough for a new type of society to emerge. That society was centered on the polis, or city-state, which became the basic political unit in Greece. Because Greece was so rugged, travel and communication between city-states was difficult. As a result, each polis developed independently of its neighbors. Each developed its own form of government, laws, and customs.

Life In The Polis
The polis was the center of daily life and culture for the ancient Greeks. One philosopher even defined a person as one who lived in a polis. Because it was so central to their lives, Greeks were fiercely loyal to their polis. In fact, people did not think of themselves as Greeks at all, but rather as residents of a particular city-state.

A typical polis was built around a high area called an acropolis. In addition to fortifications, the acropolis usually housed temples to the gods and spaces for public ceremonies. Below the acropolis were other public places, like the agora, or marketplace, where people did business, gossiped, and discussed politics. Shops, houses, and more temples surrounded the agora. In quieter parts of the polis, one might find a gymnasium, a training ground and public bath for athletes. Surrounding the entire polis was a sturdy wall for defense. Beyond the wall were a few scattered houses and marketplaces as well as the fields where the city’s food was grown.

Each major polis had a different political system that developed over time. The trading polis of Corinth, for example, was an oligarchy, a city-state ruled by a few individuals. Athens, perhaps the most famous Greek polis, was the birthplace of democracy. To better understand how a city-state’s government developed, we can study one state, Sparta, as an example.

The Might of Sparta
Sparta was one of the mightiest city-states in Greece, if one of the least typical. Located on the Peloponnesus, the large peninsula of southern Greece, Sparta was at first surrounded by smaller towns. Over time, Sparta seized control of the towns around it, including Messenia. Once they had conquered the town, the Spartans made the Messenians into helots, or state slaves. Helots were given to Spartan citizens to work on farms so that the citizens did not have to perform manual labor. As a result, Spartan citizens were free to spend all their time training for war.

The Spartan emphasis on war was not created out of any particular fondness for fighting. Instead, it was seen as the only way to keep order in society. The helots outnumbered Spartan citizens by about seven to one and were always ready to rebel against their rulers. The only way the Spartans could see to keep the helots in check was to have a strong army.

To support their military lifestyle, the Spartans demanded strength and toughness from birth. Babies, boys and girls alike, were examined for strength after birth. If a child was found unhealthy, he or she was left in the wild to die. Those who were healthy were trained as soldiers from a young age.

Boys were taught physical and mental toughness by their mothers until age seven. Then they entered a school system designed to train them for combat. This system had been created by a legendary king named Lycurgus whose goal was to toughen boys in preparation for the hardships they would face as soldiers:

''“Instead of softening their feet with shoe or sandal, his rule was to make them hardy through going barefoot. This habit, if practiced, would, as he believed, enable them to scale heights more easily and clamber down precipices with less danger. In fact, with his feet so trained the young Spartan would leap and spring and run faster unshod than another in the ordinary way. Instead of making them effeminate with a variety of clothes, his rule was to habituate them to a single garment the whole year through, thinking that so they would be better prepared to withstand the variations of heat and cold.”''

—Xenophon, The Polity of the Spartans, c. 375 BC

At the end of their training, groups of boys were sent into the wilderness with no food or tools and were expected to survive. Then, at age 20, boys became hoplites, or foot soldiers. They remained in the army for 10 years, after which time they were allowed to leave and take their place as citizens.

Sparta was rather unusual among Greek city-states in that women played an important role in society. Spartan women were trained in gymnastics for physical fitness. The Spartans thought women had to be fit to bear strong children. They had the right to own property, a right forbidden to women in most of Greece.

Politically, Sparta was led by two kings who served as military commanders. Over time, responsibility for making decisions fell more and more to an elected council of elders. It was considered an honor to take a seat on this council and help run the city.

Gods & Heroes
In addition to archaeological evidence, much of what we know or suspect about early Greece comes from studying the Greeks’ legends and myths. Myths are stories told to explain natural phenomena or events of the distant past. The Greeks told myths to explain where they came from, how they should live, and how to cope with an uncertain world.

The Gods of Olympus
The ancient Greeks believed in hundreds of gods and goddesses. Each of these deities governed one aspect of nature or life. For example, the god Apollo controlled the movement of the sun through the sky, while his sister Artemis did the same for the moon. Ares, the fierce god of war, frequently came into conflict with Athena, the clever goddess of wisdom. The Greeks believed that the gods would protect them and their city-states in exchange for the proper rituals and sacrifices.

Although the Greeks believed in many gods, about 12 of them were particularly influential in their lives. The Greeks believed that these 12 gods and goddesses lived together on Mount Olympus, the highest mountain in Greece. As a result, they were called the Olympian gods.

Though they were thought to have great power, the Greeks did not consider their deities perfect. Indeed, myths say the gods were flawed and often unpredictable. They loved, hated, argued, made mistakes, got jealous, and played tricks on each other. For example, the chief god Zeus, lord of the skies and storms, and his wife Hera had a troubled marriage full of arguments. Poseidon, god of the sea, was quick to anger but slow to think through his actions.

Although almost all Greeks worshipped the same gods, each polis claimed one god or goddess as its special protector. Corinth, for example, claimed Apollo’s favor, while Athens considered itself sacred to Athena.

A few locations were considered sacred by all Greeks. One was Delphi, where priestesses of Apollo were thought to receive visions of the future. Another was Olympia. Every four years, Greeks from various city-states got together there for the Olympic Games. In these games, athletes met to compete against each other and to honor the gods.

Myths About Heroes
Alongside the gods, Greeks also told myths about heroes. Stories about these heroes were used to teach Greeks where they came from and what sort of people they should try to be. Some heroes, such as Hercules, the son of Zeus who had godlike strength, were renowned throughout all of Greece. Others, such as Theseus, an Athenian prince who killed the Minotaur of Crete, were famous chiefly in their home cities.

The heroes of myths killed monsters, made discoveries, founded cities, and talked with gods on almost equal terms. With the right virtues they could rise above fear and uncertainty. Their examples could inspire individuals, and even whole city-states, to achieve great things. But even in legend, the Greeks’ myths would only let them rise so far. Hubris, or great pride, brought many heroes to tragic ends. Their deaths served as lessons to the Greeks not to overstretch their abilities.

Assignment

 * Question #1: What have historians learned by studying Minoan art?
 * Question #2: What is one way in which the Minoans and Mycenaean cultures were similar? What is one way in which they were different?
 * Question #3: Why are historians not sure if the Trojan War really happened? What makes them think that it may have happened?
 * Question #4: What roles did the acropolis and the agora play in a typical Greek polis?
 * Question #5: What led to the creation of a military society in Sparta?
 * Question #6: Do you think the Spartan system was a good way to run a government? Why or why not?
 * Question #7: What were the gods of Greek mythology like?
 * Question #8: Why did the ancient Greeks create myths?
 * Question #9: Why do you think the Greeks were interested in stories about great heroes?

Thank you very much for listening to this audio lecture and goodbye.

title: Human Legacy Course/Early Greece