text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima
I'm opening this Community Review of Ottava Rima's behavior since returning to a more active role on Wikiversity early this year after he was banned from Wikipedia. While he has done a great deal of maintenance work, he has also been habitually dismissive, sarcastic, and dictatorial in cases where collegiality, politeness, and consensus-aimed discourse were called for.

After hearing back from some of Wikiversity's early adopters in regards to his behaviors during a policy discussion I asked them to weigh in on, I feel that it is important to address the issue.

The main issue here has primarily to do with the civility policy, however there also are serious issues regarding his use of custodial tools in a manner that is not as careful as I think most of the community would desire.

This review has already received some comments, as it was previously posted at User talk:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima. I've left those in place. --SB_Johnny talk 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Confrontations with inactive custodians
During the "RfC" on inactive sysops, Ottava made no effort to contact any of them before starting the discussion.
 * The discussion was framed as a policy vote which was to close on November 22.
 * Ottava implied that sending an email was unnecessary here. See also here (note that we don't actually have a canvassing policy).
 * Inactive custodians were sent an email on the 20th, many of whom responded, and those who did used a very civil tone.
 * Ottava's responses were dismissive, of not blatantly sarcastic and/or insulting:
 * to WiseWoman
 * to Robert Horning
 * to Draicone, Draicone
 * Countrymike
 * looking into who that was, but I think I know
 * to Cormaggio (This was actually a much better tone, but seems to imply that he's the one making the decisions. A link is needed to the mailinglist for Ottava's view of his position here).
 * to Jadeknight Quite polite, but JK was not on the axe list.

 * SB Johnny violated cross-wiki RfC standards by canvassing users, users who have not had any relationship with Wikiversity for many years and, in many cases, abandoned Wikiversity long ago. Their opinions are disconnected from Wikiversity's current standards and methods, and SB Johnny knows this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which cross-wiki standards? John's actions were completely appropriate and were a breath of fresh air in the context of that discussion. The RfC absolutely should have been preceded by a quick email to each of the custodians involved. Half offered to clear the custodian flag within hours. The RfC was a confrontational approach to solve a non-issue and is completely inappropriate; as a custodian, you should have known better.--Draicone (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking that emailing a small, select group of people to cause imbalance in a proposalhas been inappropriate for a long time at the WMF. See w:WP:CANVASS for more information. Your bias in the matter compounds your incorrect statements and verifies why inactive custodians should be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, you started an RfC which would strongly and directly affect a small group of users who might not be actively watching Wikiversity. You asked SB_Johnny if he'd emailed these users, implying that it should be done. So he emailed them, pointing to the discussion. He disclosed the mailing, providing the exact text, which was neutral. This would not be considered canvassing on Wikipedia, period. You are inventing standards that don't exist, and applying them in a self-centered, highly biased way that nobody accepts. Nobody. This kind of thinking is why the loss of your admin bit continues to be necessary. --Abd 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Emailing the user to see if they want to use Wikiversity wouldn't have been canvassing. Emailing them telling them that there is a vote that if they do not oppose it and the person putting it up that they will be desysopped is canvassing. And you have some nerve accusing someone of inventing standards that don't exist when you champion claims about policies that aren't accepted by the community and hypocritically put up a recusal policy while saying that another proposal wasn't discussed first. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Custodian inactivity was an appropriate topic for Ottava to raise for community discussion. However, Ottava's manner has been rather zealous and confrontational. What matters in such discussions is to find out about what the community (not just one person) thinks and wants. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Like Jtneill I think Ottava was right to raise the issue of inactive Custodians for community discussion. Lets take a step back on the issues raised above. What specifically in the revisions linked to did people find dismissive, sarcastic, and/or insulting? Was the details that upset people discussed previously with Ottava? Does anyone have a link for the revisions where people offered to return the mop? Is the initiation of the RfC what is being called a confrontational approach? What approach for proposing a policy for inactive Custodians would of prevented a confrontation? What should Ottava have known better? Why should Ottava have known better? What would you have done differently if you had been in Ottava's shoes? -- dark lama  18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with "raising the issue ... for discussion," per se, but making it a community RfC, before prior effort to consider the issues and seek consensus among a small group, using his sysop tools to place his own RfC immediately in the site message, was definitely a problem. I or someone else will provide links to the offensive responses by Ottava in that RfC, which included calling me a liar, for example, as he has called many others who dared disagree with him, and which definitely attempted to impeach and attack the responding formerly inactive custodians. The non-controversial approach would have been to propose an edit to the policy on the Talk page for it, gather comment and discussion, come up with some proposed policy likely to obtain consensus, and then, if consensus is not adequate to simply edit the policy page, put together an RfC to gather broader comment and a sense of the community, presenting mature arguments and evidence, if needed. In the end, details would routinely be decided by a small group finding consensus. Policy improvements do not always require an RfC. Ottava does not seem to understand standard wiki process, and when I've attempted to explain it, he's been hostile. --Abd 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The events are as follows - Darklama mentioned a proposal for a policy on IRC. I responded saying that a Meta like proposal would be streamlined. I agreed to set up the policy proposal (assuming his would also be posted, which it was). He told me to add it to the sitenotice. Also, I do not see Abd questioning SB Johnny's addition of this CR to the sitenotice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Darklama: honestly the only problem with starting the "RfC" (since when do we have those, BTW?) was that he should have started a normal discussion on the Colloquium first. He should also have simply sent them (and me!) an email if there were horrible backlogs that were overwhelming him. And he definitely should have sent them an email before starting a discussion about them: that's just common courtesy. The issue that sparked this was his attitude and behavior towards the custodians who weighed in (some of them didn't, but it's only been 4 days).
 * @Ottava: as far as I'm concerned, putting the RfC on sitenotice was absolutely the right thing to do, since you were proposing to make a change that the community needed to weigh in on. The problem is that you didn't make the effort to contact the people who would be directly affected by that change. --SB_Johnny talk 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "was that he should have started a normal discussion on the Colloquium first" That has never been done for any policy proposal, and Abd is creating a proposal for a "recusal policy" and hasn't started a discussion first. The passed Privacy proposal didn't any any colloquium discussion first, nor have we ever done any of that. It seems like you have suddenly created new rules to try and accuse me of breaking them when I did nothing out of the ordinary. And everyone is affected by the proposed policy changes and we never email them all. Why do you persist in making up these assertions when they are disconnected from the reality of how this site functions? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Claims of authority
Assuming the IRC log page is undeleted, it will provide an example of how this "authority" is used abusively. He has claimed on foundation-l that he was the "chief organizer" for the project, but there seems to be no record of such an appointment being made.

 * Being an organizer isn't a position, it is an action. It has no authority but is a description of work done. It is no different than people saying they are a top content editor or FA contributor on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The statement is here, and it's not about Wikipedia, but rather that you claimed to be the "top organizer" for Wikiversity. "Organizer" is not the same as "contributor". --SB_Johnny talk 22:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An organizer is someone who groups people together or sets up functions. There are many official and unofficial organizers all over the WMF. A simple trip to dictionary.com would suggest that you are being ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was clear from your comment to the mod that you wanted to make it clear that you are representing WV (and hence he was modding abusively). --SB_Johnny talk 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any question that the term organiser was inappropriate. That said, this could just be the result of bad author's judgment . --Draicone (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, what makes you the top organizer of Wikiversity? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that contributes to Wikiversity represents Wikiversity. Is the concern that Ottava in presenting himself as a Wikiversity representative, by referring himself as a top organizer for Wikiversity, Ottava discredited Wikiversity and tarnished Wikiversity's reputation? -- dark lama  18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * If I recall correctly the consensus was, during Thekohser's unblock, that off-wv actions should not be counted against someone here at WV. Why are we taking a different standard for Ottava?  Thenub314 23:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Indeed. Mentioning whatever happened on IRC is entirely inappropriate. Best to close down this discussion completely. TeleComNasSprVen 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It's a very different issue, since the other user did not represent himself as a functionary or representative of wv's management in his "off-wiki" activities. None of us should really do that in general, but claiming that role while behaving in the way he did seems a genuine concern. --SB_Johnny talk 13:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple pages somewhere with logs, in particular one where he is in a strange confrontation with Adambro:
 * User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10 -- note that this page was deleted by Ottava shortly after this link was added to the page. --SB_Johnny talk 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is blatant recusal failure. Ottava doesn't seem to understand that the coverup is as bad or worse than the thing he's covering up. So he made a bullying comment on IRC. That's not good, it shows an attitude problem, but ... it is not recusal failure, only threatened failure. His deleting of the log is a recusal failure, using admin tools, more serious.
 * Further, it's been asserted that IRC is a part of Wikiversity process. I think that's an error, and that using IRC is not, by any means, the best way to discuss Wikiversity policy and practice. But it's a bit disengenuous to assert IRC as part of the process, encouraging its use as such, then exclude the logs. My intention was to cite the log, it's already linked from the RfC, so the redlink which displays that it was deleted by Ottava will be more damaging. Ottava, truth will out. --Abd 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no recusal policy and the privacy policy makes it clear that IRC is not part of Wikiversity but off site just as emails between users are off site. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty strange. I specifically asked Ottava if I could quote his comments from IRC on Wiki and was left with the impression that wouldn't be a problem at all so I don't understand why Ottava has gone ahead and deleted User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10 now, without even advising me of any concerns about this. Did I get the wrong impression here? Looking back at the transcript I don't see how I could have. Adambro 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I said you could make a few quotes. It has a whole log and I did not know of that. Here is what I said: "[2010-07-12 22:31:36]  If you want to quote the part where I said people lack confidence in you [2010-07-12 22:31:38]  go ahead" and later "[2010-07-12 22:35:11]  Well, you will most likely be attacked because of http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Privacy_policy#IRC_chat" - Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Context is important just as this situation illustrates and why I asked, and I thought, got permission to quote more to post more of your comments. I asked "may I quote what you've said on IRC on wiki?", you responded "which part? and didnt I already say that my statements could be quoted? I think three times". I then said "I'd like to post everything we've both said since around 17:24 UTC (I think that's the right time)" to which you responded "You might as well just post it up at WR because that is where it will end up". There was no objection from you and it was clear you'd given the okay to quoting you on WV earlier so I'm not sure why I should have concluded you weren't okay with User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10. That you said "didnt I already say that my statements could be quoted? I think three times" suggests I asked you for permission earlier to which you made it clear you were happy about but I don't think I have logs for that period. Perhaps you do? What had we discussed regarding quoting? Posting a more comprehensive log rather than stand-alone quotes I would think benefits everyone since the context is clear. Adambro 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement about WR denotes that there is clear sarcasm operating. I gave you permission only to quote me regarding my lack of confidence in your actions regarding blocking JWS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ←

(outdented) Ottava, that page was up for a very long time, and you were aware of it for a long time. Removing it today is seriously problematic. I will make a proposal about this below. --SB_Johnny talk 22:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is more of this conversation here. --SB_Johnny talk 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Two problems are evident:
 * Deleting the copy of the IRC conversation in question from WV - if Ottava has nothing to hide why not let it stand? It is worrying when custodians use tools in ways that interfere with open review and discussion. The obtuse responses to Adambro's query for clarification about what permission was given for quoting seem to be intentionally diffuse.
 * I'm guessing this was the IRC thread which involved Ottava making strong and repeated threats to block Adambro? If so, I found it to be rather strong and bullying. The manner seemed to be consistent with a belief in being Wikiversity's "top organizer". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rock drum
Colloquium: some response should have been offered to this at the time, but there were other issues that overwhelmed the attention. In a nutshell, Ottava accused this person of being a sock puppet, but refused to say exactly whose sockpuppet it was supposed to be.
 * A little dose of AGF towards Rock drum here would have been helpful. A look through Special:Contributions/Rock drum indicates to me that this is someone we should be encouraging. Newcomers may seem delicious, but please don't bit them! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The user was not blocked, so where were the problems? And I won't provide personal information about a user so why would I say who exactly he might have been? The user was providing information that did not match up, and their relationship with Moulton made it rather obvious that they either were the one individual or proxying for that individual to cause problems. The user also uses the phrase "on us" to describe his edits, which compounded the concerns. They obviously weren't the inexperienced user they were claiming to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Beetlebaum" vs. Ottava's alternate account
Note in this conversation allusions to an "undisclosed" puppet of JWSchmidt. This discussion is about an undisclosed alternate account owned by Ottava.

 * It isn't undisclosed. Sj knows about the account and information on it was provided to the Foundation via him. It is also known by multiple admin. These are standard procedures across the WMF for dealing with such accounts used for such reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Ottava - What other accounts have you used to edit en.wv? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not linking to it as it contains personally identifying information. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an account that the Foundation knows about used only to post up content that is similar in nature to content that I have produced elsewhere. It was created to allow easy relicensing of content so that there would be no future concerns between information published under my real life name and that published as Ottava Rima. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * For what it is worth, I once inquired off wiki about Ottava's use of other accounts. He was fully forth coming about the accounts details.  But it was clear from context this was personal information not to be divulged.  I was lead to ask because of a dicussion by people which were (if I remember their terminology correctly) accumulating evidence.  I examined the edits of the various accounts and personally found nothing questionable.  As he says it truly seemed to be a tool to handle relicensing issues. Thenub314 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

KBlott
The block of KBlott was actually quite appropriate, however the way it was handled was not. This seems to be a case where a mentoring approach would have borne more fruit, as opposed to the punitive "anti-sock" approach taken in this case. This seems to import some of the less desirable aspects of the Wikipedian system where guilt is often ascribed before a careful examination of the situation.

See the user's talk page for a general overview (see also this diff). The user was not warned before being blocked. Ottava claims to have investigated the background, but this seems to have mostly involved asking the admin on WP who blocked the same user there. Abd has since investigated more thoroughly, finding evidence that provides fairly substantial reasons to give the person the benefit of the doubt.

 * A short block for using the real name could indeed be justified, as long as we have what is, for Wikiversity, probably not the best policy as to administrators (I'd leave it in place for ordinary users). However, blocking before warning and repetition after warning is not, nor is indef block for a first offense. I'll certainly include information on KBlott as part of the review, but what is far more relevant than the original block is how Ottava justified it and has argued about it. It is part of a long-term disruptive pattern. --Abd 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * There is no requirement for warnings before blocks nor is there a restriction on blocking someone for multiple problems - outing, plagiarism, and major cross-wiki abuses. We do not have a blocking policy but the proposed version does not require a warning. Stop with the imaginary claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a policy, custodians are expected to exercise common sense and certainly to avoid negatively impacting the community. --Draicone (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Ottava has publically outed himself on the foundation-l discussion list, using his first name on WV doesn't seem to me to justify blocking a new user without warning. The Public health strategies for HIV edits by KBlott have been left to stand, so they seem OK. I checked the deleted page which was copyvio of http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/events.taf?function=show&cat=allconf&EventID=GC05&SPID=1498&level1=speakers&level2=bio, so deletion was appropriate. However, pasting an academic's one paragraph bio to Wikiversity doesn't warrant an indef block without warning. I would like to see this user receive appropriate warning and be un-blocked. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are suggestions on User talk:KBlott that the user agree to not use real names, avoid uncivil discussion, and avoid copyvio, with a promise from SB_Johnny to unblock if KBlott does so. The issue here is not whether or not the deletion was appropriate, per se. If the page remained more than a short time, which I cannot tell because I cannot see the record, deletion may have been hasty, blanking might have been more appropriate with, perhaps, a speedy tag. The user could then have corrected the problem or retrieved the material for off-line work. The problem was how the user was treated, which may have been colored by the "conversations" Ottava has reported with MuZemike on Wikipedia, who was truly draconian there, behaving in a questionable manner for a checkuser. (While checkusers may independently check for socks, the norm is to respond to requests, thus avoiding undue attention to what may be legitimate socks, which WP policy allows for some purposes. MuZemike, by his hasty actions, actually outed KBlott in a certain way, and the state of conflict involving KBlott at that point was not such as to suggest socking, so the question of bias, of prejudiced investigation, perhaps upon private request, looms. That was not behavior I'd expect from a mature checkuser.)
 * The manner in which KBlott was treated on Wikipedia may have led the user to believe that there is a conspiracy against him or her. From my review of the Wikipedia events, I'd say that the conclusion is probably inaccurate as to the extent of the the problem there, but that there may also be some behind-the-scenes activity that is POV related. The harsh treatment by Ottava here, the opposite of welcoming, encouraged the user to believe the same was happening here, which may or may not be the case. I have seen no evidence that Ottava is biased, other than the puzzlingly harsh treatment, which is explainable by Ottava's sensitivity to critical opposition, set off by the use of Ottava's first name. --Abd 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't know as you missed over this, but Darkcode/Darklama was asked to review the block immediately before and after it was made. And I did give KBlott notification on exactly why his page was deleted and I was attacked. The response by me we very civil and were responded with only accusations of conspiracy and AIDS related propagandizing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing an action with a single buddy custodian isn't enough if there is recusal failure (which there was with the revision deletion and the block). The particular user was sensitized by prior rough treatment at Wikipedia, and so overreacted to your actions, just as the user did on Wikipedia. We want to have a different environment here, a kinder and more tolerant one, and we need custodians who understand that. If Darklama had blocked for the outing, we'd not be seeing any criticism of you for the copyvio deletion. Or only the mildest of suggestions as to how to do it better. If Darklama had removed the revision outing you, no problem. That you do not understand how to avoid an appearance of recusal failure is a serious problem, and Darklama did not help you by agreeing with you privately. However, there is a problem with private consultation like that, it can lead to an appearance -- or a reality -- of cabalism. --Abd 21:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Darklama is not my "buddy". 2. Darklama was not the only one in there nor the only one who responded. 3. Darklama was given an hour to go ahead and do something and, when he didn't, I went ahead with the block when I was given information regarding Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * He was "given an hour"? Darklama is polite to a fault, but I have reason to doubt that he likes being ordered around.
 * Darklama has been incredibly generous over the years both with his time and with his expertise. It infuriates me to no end that you treat him like a soldier under your command. --SB_Johnny talk 21:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked
See this for more information on KBlott being unblocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If KBlott should have remained blocked, then the unblock without obtaining assurances was inappropriate. I'm certainly not going to object, just pointing out that Ottava is thrashing about here. Recusal failure, as existed with the block, never requires undoing the action, which should only be undone if it was actually harmful or at least not needed. It appears that Ottava wants to have it both ways: to be relieved of criticism for the block, and to still argue that it was proper and continue to impugn the user based on Wikipedia activity or how the user responded to Ottava's action (badly). There is a simple way to be relieved on the point: simply acknowledge that the block was improper because of recusal requirements, and maybe apologize to the user for "excess response and not enough positive encouragement." An error. That's all. It's not difficult!
 * And if you have come to agree that the block is no longer needed, then you can also unblock, and it certainly looks better than, then, letting it stand! As it is, you've left the user with no guidance, at least not from you, having unblocked without any conditions or agreement from the user to avoid future problems. Could you be hoping that the user then screws up again, vindicating you?
 * KBlott is not the topic here, long-term recusal failure and long-term incivility and tendentious argument is. I highly recommend, Ottava, that you slow down, maybe even take a break for today, see how others respond. It might cause you some pause to notice how little support you have, so far, in this CR, and how much opposition. Could it be that you have made some mistakes? What mistakes? Instead of intense self-defense, maybe you should actively ask the community for guidance! Good luck. --Abd 21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Background from Wikipedia ARBCOM

 * It's a very long read, but the evidence page shows that these issues are long-standing and that he has proven unable to back down when doing such would have been appropriate.
 * He later appealed, and the block was switched to indefinite. Note that part of the decision relates to his history of accusing people of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.
 * As a somewhat trivial point, a large proportion of Ottava's contributions here are actually a form of "proxy editing" articles he's interested in on Wikipedia (for example, this page). While there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does explain why he came back after "retiring" last year.
 * I never retired last year. I was busy with the WikiCup last year. I only had two months of admin inactivity. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You claimed to have retired during a discussion about your arbcom case, which I was trying to discourage you from pursuing because I was pretty sure what the outcome would be. --SB_Johnny talk 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lying is against the Wikiversity Civility policy. The word "retired" doesn't appear anywhere on your link. What I said was that I "stepped down" from active duty as a patrolling admin and any interaction with you. There was never anything close to a retirement and you know it. Yet, you persist in making blatantly misleading comments. As you even point out: "BTW, you don't seem to be resigned as far as I can tell[7]." Thus, confirming that your above statement contradicts a previous one, showing a manipulation of truth to try and push an agenda. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Retiring and stepping down are more or less synonymous. Also, you said you "resigned" here, which seems like another synonym. --SB_Johnny talk 01:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * P.S. Sj has stated publicly that my lecture notes and the rest are actually what Wikiversity is supposed to be. Sj is a Foundation Board member. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, on this page, is providing more and more evidence, impeaching himself. That's convenient! Does Ottava have any friends who will advise him to sit on his hands, take a wikibreak, anything sensible? (Or, alternatively, to advise us to "stop harassing this poor innocent servant of Wikiversity"?) --Abd 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is not at all helpful or constructive. --SB_Johnny talk 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that my comment was on User talk:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima, a talk page for my draft of an intended CR. It was not posted here, in an actual Community Review. SBJ copied that discussion to this review, which is okay with me, but I don't want the context to be missed. --Abd 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that Abd. I was going to remove it, but got distracted by all the back-and-forth going on when I moved the stuff! --SB_Johnny talk 01:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is also a discussion going on at meta, though it seems to be stalled. --SB_Johnny talk 02:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, more canvassing. You know, you haven't made one edit since you returned that suggests unbias dedication to Wikiversity. All you do is try to go after others, and the above is just an example of that. A failed RfC that died because of the problematic originator and you are trying to resurrect it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC at meta is over similar issues to part of the problem here, incivility and tendentious argument, disruption to a collaborative environment. As Ottava does not have tools at meta, that part of the problem is not covered there. It is not canvassing to point to related discussions, from an existing one, particularly in such a neutral way. The meta discussion is mostly relevant here as a reference showing that the incivility and tendentious argument problems have been reproduced across the WMF wikis. I'm not inclined to comment there, beyond thinking that maybe I'd link to this RfC there. But no rush.... By the way, who else did SB_Johnny "go after"? And looking at the history of interaction since he came back, I'd say it would be more true that Ottava went after SBJ (attacking the return), and ignored warnings about blatant incivility, which simply reproduced what Ottava had been told by me, by Jtneill, and which were .... obvious, and not stated as attacks. They were warnings, disregarded. He could, indeed, have been blocked, and was, once, by me. --Abd 22:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC at Meta failed to gain any support for anything besides adding more pictures to the RfC, suggesting it was just as frivolous and misguided as this review. Note, Abd was trying to start things there and his efforts failed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of background, phew. Wikiversity involvement should be treated independently of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it raises the issue that if there are continually re-occurring issues here and elsewhere about incivility, how the WV community feels about this - whether we are happy to go along with Ottava in a trusted role given such a chronically inflammatory and abrasive manner and tone. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Had Ottava behaved properly on Wikiversity, there would be no question of his Wikipedia history, yet Ottava cited Wikipedia history (in a misleading way) with regard to the block of KBlott. "Canvassing" is not contrary to Wikiversity policy, and the whole concept of canvassing as a problem is related to the concept of decision-making by vote, as distinct from consensus and/or cogency of argument. In the custodian approval process for Diego Grez, there was clear canvassing for negative votes, documented, and the result was the failure of that approval, even though a majority favored it, and Ottava had no problem with this. He was opposed . And we lost a good custodian, and he has just formally retired. We should review the entire process. --Abd 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. KBlott's background shows that he was banned for inappropriate socking and harassing while making bad content contribs then came here. I was here and an admin long before any Wikipedia ban.
 * 2. Canvassing is something equivalent of Recusal. You cannot argue that one must be followed and the other not.
 * 3. I did not vote on Diego's adminship and SB Johnny closed it as failure. I don't know why you would drag my name into it when I worked closely with Diego and he is a friend of mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Ottava did not vote against Diego Grez. However, that CfC was 6/3, 66%. 7/10 if Moulton's vote were included, which is, of course, problematic. Had Ottava voted to support, it would have passed, almost certainly, it was right on the edge. There was a proposal for continued mentorship but Diego made it moot by resigning the bit. If Ottava had supported his "friend," he'd be a custodian today, I assume. But little can be assumed from Ottava's omission, and I apologize for my error, I struck it.
 * As to canvassing, it's defined on Wikipedia as an attempt to bias a !voting process by partial solicitation of participation. Generally, as an example, notifying all editors of an article up for deletion, with a neutral notice of the discussion, is considered legitimate. An admin, however, was once blocked for canvassing because he posted a notice to the many editors who had placed photos of themselves on a page designated for that purpose, which was then up for MfD. This was probably not a proper block, even though the effect could "prejudice" the voting, the same as notifying editors of an article, who, after all, worked on the article and must think it worthwhile, usually. This canvassing charge is simply a continuation of Ottava's SOP: if someone disagrees with Ottava, they must be a disruptive user, so ... what can we find to attack them with?
 * This charge is particularly egregious because Ottava effectively suggested that SB_Johnny write to the inactive custodians!
 * 13:34, 16 November 2010 SB Johnny proposed emailing inactive custodians.
 * 15:22, 16 November 2010 Ottava Rima Have you bothered to email them? [...]
 * 16:19, 19 November 2010 SB Johnny notifies the RfC about emailing, giving the content of the email, sent to all inactive custodians who have email enabled (all but one). SB_Johnny acted with exact propriety.
 * The notice was neutral. This kind of notice would not have violated canvassing standards on Wikipedia. It is preposterous, the idea there is something wrong with neutrally notifying all affected users, when it is such a small number, of a process that would directly affect their rights. What was effectively demonstrated was that these "inactive custodians" would still respond if suggested, which means that they are, in fact, available if a need arises, and some of them specifically asserted that. They were then attacked by Ottava, for whatever excuse he could think up, dredging up old conflicts, real or imagined, etc. This is behavior unbecoming of a sysop, definitely, it's questionable whether or not it would even be allowed for an ordinary user, but first things first. Being a disruptive ordinary user is a minor problem, compared to being a disruptive sysop, which can cause deep and lasting damage. --Abd 18:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote on Diego's instatement because of Abigor's involvement, a user I had a long term negative interaction with. I did lobby for Abigor's comments to be ignored, which they do not look like they were. I was not the deciding crat nor am I a crat.
 * As for the other part, SB Johnny did not notify all inactive users, including those like JWS who would probably not want some of the inactive admin back. Many of the inactive admin left after having large negative disputes with other users. I already pointed out one with an inactive user that returned and his accusations against Countrymike. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS isn't an admin and so certainly not an inactive admin. I'm unsure therefore why it is significant that he wasn't contacted. He wouldn't be directly affected by any proposals regarding inactive admins. Adambro 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS is directly connected to most of the inactive admin and would be directly affected by the proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a weird usage of "directly." JWS, and any user, would be indirectly affected by the proposal. Only inactive sysops would be directly affected. This exchange, again, is an example of Ottava's use of his ability to make up arguments endlessly, and to assert them, without restraint or regard to the actual cogency of the argument. This is what is meant by "tendentious." It's on-topic here simply as another example of the kind of argument that got him blocked on Wikipedia. --Abd 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS was involved in most of the issues surrounding why many of these people left, see: Countrymike et al as an example. He was our top admin and ran the community for many years, and was in charge while most of the inactive admin became inactive. I am not sure why you do not think JWS was intrinsically involved, especially when he mentored most of the current and past admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikiversity participants to understand that the point of this section is to show that Ottava has a hard time taking constructive criticism and backing down when confronted with issues? I have a hard time thinking of and finding any other relevance this section could possibly have. -- dark lama  19:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. It was not part of my original draft CR. It would not, in itself, be grounds for any action on Wikiversity, but the ironic part of this is that, in justifying the block of KBlott, Ottava referred heavily to Wikipedia history, thus providing a kind of justice to such consideration with regard to him. What the Wikipedia evidence shows is indeed that there is a long-term trait here, that simply took time to become visible on Wikiversity. It does lead to some conclusion that the problem won't go away simply because of some admonishment, it's more deeply rooted than that. This case should not set any precedent that those blocked on Wikipedia cannot be productive and collaborative participants or even privileged users at Wikiversity, and it should not substitute the judgment of ArbComm there for our own independent judgment. --Abd 19:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not like the comparison of myself with KBlott. 1. I was an admin here long before being blocked at Wikipedia, KBlott was not. 2. I did not come to Wikiversity after being blocked, KBlott did. 3. I was not blocked at Wikipedia for socking and using socks to attack people or to alter discussions inappropriately, KBlott was. 4. I did not post copyrighted content without permission as KBlott did. I don't really know how there can be any comparison between himself and I. If en.wiki matter is to be used, Abd's blocklog for repeated pushing of fringe material, inappropriately waging war against others, etc, could also be used to demonstrate a problem in the origination of this CR. Claims of Wikilawyering by Abd against others could be seen as less credible when it was point out he was blocked after his ban for "personal attacks and excessive wikilawyering". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Aw, I'd love to have a neutral examination of that block log here, but, Ottava, you know that it would attract flies. The POV isn't actually fringe, being what is found in recent peer-reviewed secondary sources, the last five years, and all I wanted was for the article to reflect what Wikipedia guidelines would require, the same as others banned for the same reason, but the pseudoskeptical cabal (same people as were involved in other cabals, widely known and even confirmed by ArbComm as such) is still politically strong enough to cause local crap to come down, and I concluded that it's not worth the effort to battle them on Wikipedia, just for one damn article, and if Wikipedia wants experts to contribute to articles, it can protect them from attack like this. It still hasn't gotten that.

 * KBlott was not blocked for attacking people, that's not what the Wikipedia record shows, there is a detailed examination at . He was blocked purely for socking, and in a particularly egregious way. Basically, if personal attacks were the cause, there was probably private complaint, and private conclusion by a checkuser that action was required. In other words, if this was the case, and it looks like it must be how MuZemike explained it to you, then there was indeed some improper conspiracy against KBlott, and his paranoia was not entirely unjustified.

 * But once he was blocked, he responded as many naive users respond, with "OMG! They are Violating the Basic Principles of Truth and Goodness and All Because They are Members of the (NotMy)Cabal!" And he tried to complain to members of ArbComm and Jimbo. Surely they would want to know about it! Not Allowed. That was the source of almost all the "socking." it wasn't concealed socking, but it was, explicitly and openly -- and naively --, block evasion. This is classic Wikipedia dysfunction. A sane project would have firmly guided him, disallowing what was illegitimate, short-blocking him if necessary, and letting him know what to do about what was legitimate. Instead of doing that here, Ottava, you simply reproduced the Wikipedia dysfunction for him. By itself, that would not have led to this RfC, but as a addition to many other problems, it and your penchant for attacking anyone who disagrees with you broke the camel's back.

 * Ottava is just repeating the habit with me, as he's done for many months, and getting nastier about it, digging more vigorously for any mud or appearance of mud he can find to toss. We do not need to make any decision about whether what happened on Wikipedia was right as rain or wrong as hell. We need only look at what is in front of us, here on Wikiversity, and not be distracted by irrelevant arguments. I'm not a sysop. He is. And I did not file this CR, though I was about to do it. Ottava enthusiastically earned it and defiantly demanded it. --Abd 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Abd's observations
The text and headings below were copied from User:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima. Abd had started creating a community review in August 2010, shortly after the events described there took place.

"Incivility"
Ottava Rima has been warned for incivility, many times, has not acknowledged, apologized for, nor has he removed or struck such comments, and he has continued the behavior after ample warning. This was the subject of a Custodian feedback request, which failed to resolve the issues.link to version as archived.

 * Talk page warnings for incivility
 * 22:09, 28 July 2010
 * Response: reverted warning with (removed), response on Abd talk.
 * more incivility. Hence I blocked for two hours.

 * confirmation of civility reminder by Jtneill, after review at.
 * Requested strike of uncivil comment, based on response to incivility warning, calling Abd a "hypocrit."
 * Note that Ottava promptly filed Community Review/Jtneill after this set of edits, as an apparent retaliation.

 * another warning, based on in which he called an apparent good faith comment a "lie."
 * reverted warning without comment. (Note: users may remove content like this from their talk page, but it is generally disapproved for an administrator to do this except for vandalism or grossly inappropriate comments or questions. Removal without comment of a warning may be equivalent to denial of the appropriateness of the warning.) --Abd 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Ottava blocked me, Sept. 6, covered in another claim. After the block was reversed by SB_Johnny, Ottava became increasingly and disruptively uncivil. I was attempting to discuss the proposed changes at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy, and Ottava continued to claim that I was disruptive, instead of discussing the content, this is a sample. Attempting to edit the policy was "vandalizing," discussing it in depth and detail is "pontificating," and, of course, I'm "overall nasty." All with no evidence. Ottava disregards Civility policy; he sometimes claims, if incivility is pointed out, that it's "true," which is not an excuse for incivility. And also, it happens, it's not true. I was not vandalizing, and while pontification could be a fault of mine, it's rude to say it, and "nasty," well, that means "uncivil," and then the question is whether or not the language used and the facts alleged are necessary. He's calling possibly good proposed policy content "vandalism," which is preposterous on the face and uncivil. If it was vandalism, why has he not requested a custodian block me for it? --Abd 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Block threats"
Ottava has repeatedly threatened to block Abd while clearly involved in conflict with Abd. In no case were these threats based on blockable behavior, as confirmed by others. --Abd 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "Only warning" re my primary revert of Ottava's edit to the Candidates for custodian page. Ottava reverted. Darklama restored it, pending completion of the process. If you continue even though this long standing policy is -very- clear on the matter, you will be blocked and a ban proposal will be put up. The community rejected Ottava's position. What's important here is that Ottava threatened to block if I dared to revert him. He's asserting that he has superior rights as a custodian. It may surprise some, but that is not the way it's supposed to be. He is prohibited by normal recusal policyrom blocking while involved in a dispute.
 * Stop self-reverting. This made no sense at all. Self reverting in the manner you are doing is disruptive. Do it again and you will be blocked. Ottava provided no diff, and the edit I guessed he was referring to was completely proper. It was a proposed edit to a proposed policy page. Later, I made more or less the same edit without self-reverting, having provided opportunity for discussion, and Ottava revert warred over it and blocked me, see the section here on use of tools while involved.
 * another threat of sanction, later in the same discussion. Anyone can be blocked for helping a user evade a block - reinstating a user's edits like that is helping them. I had been helping enforce the Moulton block, by reverting his contributions on sight, as is allowed by the policy change I've been proposing -- and it is standard practice. However, those reverts are not content decisions. I was logging and reviewing the edits and if they seemed acceptable, non-disruptive, I reverted them back in, usually having provided time for comment, for I kept a record of these, see, usually stating my intentions. Ottava is here taking a position which is harsh, which represents content censorship, and which has been rejected on Wikipedia. Restoring useful or harmless edits of a blocked editor is not an offense. "Proxying," which would be automatically restoring them, or making edits on behalf of a blocked user, could be. Generally, any editor who can make a choice can undo the choice. If I reverted, I could undo my revert! Then, if someone else objected, they could revert me. It happened once or twice, and I did not restore the material; rather, I used other devices to make the history transparent. Nobody objected to that, so far. Several times, though, Ottava or Adambro have complained about "proxying," which is not an accurate description. --Abd 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Recusal failure"
Ottava revert warred with Abd on two policy pages, warned Abd that he would block if Abd continued, then, when Abd made another revert, the first on that page, seven minutes after the warning was issued, Ottava blocked Abd, including preventing Talk page access, without necessity, for reverting had ceased. Ottava accompanied this with incivility, failure to assume good faith, and invitations to leave Wikiversity, which continued after the block was lifted by SB_Johnny.

"Other bullying"

 * Ottava threatened Adambro with desysop, on IRC, if he placed a block longer than 24 hours. If Adambro was to be recused from blocking, he'd be recused from all blocking, not just blocking of 24 hours or more. Ottava was attempting to coerce Adambro to follow his personal opinion, not policy, not by persuading him, but by by threatening him. This discussion was appalling.

 * When Jtneil confirmed that Ottava had been uncivil, Ottava promptly filed a Community Review on Jtneill, with trumped-up charges hastily put together, and no prior attempt to resolve disputes. From the timing, this was clearly retaliatory.

 * When Jtneill agreed with my position on the closure of my custodian candidacy, Ottava threatened to "report him at meta." Later, Ottava filed Community Review/Jtneill over this and other issues, without having followed standard dispute process. Community Review is the last step, not the first, and it was blatantly obvious that Ottava's filing was retaliation for Jtneill confirming my civility warning, just as it's quite clear that Ottava's sudden turnabout on my custodianship was a result of that. From a situation where there had been hardly any comment about my actions from him, suddenly his comments treated the whole period as a disaster from start to finish.

Abd's conclusions
Ottava has behaved as if he owns the wiki, and has consistently argued toward his own conclusions rather than toward resolving disputes and settling controversies. When confronted with his actions, he has presented false and misleading explanations, and has mischaracterized the behavior of others, seeking to lessen their influence in the community. He has wikilawyered whenever it suited him, demanding that others follow strict standards that he invented, while he himself has ignored basic policy. When I blocked him for incivility, for two hours, he unblocked himself, went to meta and requested immediate desysop, claiming that this was routine, a position the community rejected per custodianship policy. He cannot be trusted to be honest, straightforward, and restrained in the use of tools.

Community review with Jtneill
In response to some of what happened above (with Abd), Ottava opened a community review of Jtniell. It should be noted that Jtniell and his students account for a very large proportion of Wikiversity's daily activity. Jtniell was just beginning his semester and introducing his students to Wikiversity when the CR was started (and listed on the sitenotice). Fortunately Jtniell took it all in stride, but this is another situation where an overly confrontational approach on Ottava's part came very close to doing serious damage to the health and growth of our community.

Recap
The behaviors outlined above are not those we would expect from a custodian, and in particular from a custodian who claims to represent the community in his correspondence on public fora such as foundation-l. In addition, his use of the tools in some cases is questionable.

Undelete User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10
This page was created July 13, 2010, recording an irc discussion wherein Ottava repeatedly threatened Adambro with desysopping. The dialog is actually quite surreal, and seems quite relevant to this discussion since it is a clear example of Ottava's inappropriate assertions of authority.

Ottava deleted the page on 21 November, 2010, during the construction of this review. As can be seen in the section above, there seems to be some dispute about whether he gave permission, but the fact that the page has been there for 4 months seems to belie this claim.

I propose that we undelete the page at least for the time being, and he can list it at RFD if he likes. The timing of the deletion is more than suspect, and it seems a bit unfair that only sysops can view it now. --SB_Johnny talk 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This was the first that it came to my attention and since that you knew about the page existing and knew that it stood in violation of our privacy policy, your attempts here are even more worse than just posting links to inappropriate content. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe I remember you commenting on it when it was linked from WR, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
 * Regardless of that, a resolution at CR can override policy when appropriate, and I don't think hiding evidence of wrongdoing by a custodian (when the wrongdoing was done while he was wearing his "custodian hat") is what the policy was meant to be used for. Allowing CR to override policy when a policy is causing a problem is exactly what the CR policy is for. --SB_Johnny talk 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to "override" our privacy policy can be deemed a very egregious offense, you know. Especially when the person instigating it has no history of legitimate content work for over a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong (see CR policy).
 * By the way, this page was linked to from quite a few places, including your own talk page, but also:

 * 1) Wikiversity:Colloquium (← links)
 * 2) Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy (← links)
 * 3) Wikiversity:Community Review (← links)
 * 4) User:Adambro (← links)
 * 5) User talk:Ottava Rima (← links)
 * 6) Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions (← links)
 * 7) Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Threats to the Wikiversity project (← links)
 * 8) Wikiversity:Community Review/Problematic actions/Policy development (← links)
 * 9) Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/8 (← links)
 * You're sure you didn't know about it? --SB_Johnny talk 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very, very wrong. No one has the authority to override privacy on the WMF, and there are even Ombudsman in place to guarentee that. To even make the suggestions that you do above is an egregious offense and verification that you are being disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Posting up from the irc logs is not addressed in the Foundation privacy policy, only in the local one. CR trumps policy where policy is being abused. --SB_Johnny talk 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SBJ is correct. Even outside material where there was an expectation of privacy can be revealed under necessity. It would be preposterous to claim that Adambro could not cite an attempt to abuse him on Wikiversity IRC, as part of a Community Review. That's protecting the abuser, and criticism like I saw in that log -- which was scrubbed of all comments by users other than Adambro and Ottava, and stood for many months without objection on-wiki, in spite of multiple mentions -- was a violation of channel guidelines, itself. By someone with ops, I think. It was a public place. I'm not an IRC'er, I may have details wrong. --Abd 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * SB Johnny claimed that CR can trump any policy. I gave one blatant example to prove him wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikiversity CR can trump any Wikiversity policy. It cannot trump, say, the foreign policy of the United States, or, more to the point, WMF policy. But it is quite clear from precedent that WMF policy would not prohibit undeleting that page. But suppose it does. The community here is still free to request it, and any sysop can do it, and if it is a violation of meta policy, as interpreted by stewards, they can and will override it, and they could oversight it so that even custodians can't read it. And the whole thing would be totally stupid, because the logs exist off-wiki and can be put up off-wiki. You can't stuff the cat back in the bag, Ottava, it's out. You'd be far better off apologizing for what you wrote on IRC. But, it seems, this is the one thing you cannot do, at least as far as you've shown us over the last five months or so, as well as about everywhere else. It's a fatal flaw, incompatible with being a custodian. --Abd 02:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It's moot, in fact. It's possible he didn't notice it. Most of those links were placed by JWS, who was famous for dense posts of links under names that would reveal nothing; for example, the Colloquium link was simply displayed as Adambro. On the other hand, Ottava immediately responded to comments containing the link and more visible than the other usages, at and . Arguing about whether he knew distracts from the basic fact: he did threaten Adambro, and relevant comments could be posted from the page without undeleting it. Simply undeleting it is easiest and cleanest, it only shows conversation between Adambro and Ottava, all other IRC entries were deleted, as Adambro explained.

 * And Ottava is now threatening SB_Johnny for asking the community for a decision to undelete, calling it "a very egregious offense." it's all part of the same pattern. WMF privacy policy is clear: external information can be used on-wiki when needed. The Wikiversity IRC channel is semi-public, and semi-official, anyone can join it, normally. Expectation of privacy there would be foolish. However, any possible claim against SB_Johnny would have to be based on actual undeletion without community consensus, and, instead of doing that, SBJ asked for a community decision, which is exactly appropriate. Ottava, we can be sure, tables turned, would have undeleted, he believes there is no recusal policy. --Abd 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support. However, the deletion itself is a clear example of use of tools while involved, which is more serious even than the bullying that the IRC logs evidence. Ottava is openly claiming that there is no recusal policy. Frankly, I'd want to desysop anyone who made such a claim, unless they backed down. It's common law for wikis. He may be correct that there is no formal policy. There is a proposed policy. --Abd 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose - nonsense and the privacy policy was passed for exactly these kind of situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose - the Wikiversity policy on this seems to be a proposal, not yet endorsed, so it isn't clear what standards should apply (it wasn't mentioned, but I presume this was on #wikiversity-en, as if it was not on a public channel there is less room for doubt). But I feel that posting a discussion between two people, without the express permission of both (or at least a clear understanding that the public posting of the information is possible), is ethically questionable. - Bilby 12:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support Permission to post Ottava's comments from IRC was requested and granted:
 * [2010-07-12 21:31:27] maybe, JWS was write after all, perhaps we should publish IRC logs on Wiki
 * [2010-07-12 21:31:51]  I have no problem with others of the community seeing what I stated as I already talked to them about your removal dating back two months
 * [2010-07-12 21:31:58] I would be quite happy for all my discussions on IRC to be published, Ottava, how about you?
 * [2010-07-12 21:32:10]  darkcode - you aren't most :P
 * [2010-07-12 21:32:27]  Adambro, if you paid attention you will see that I already stated I had no problem with it.
 * That seems pretty clear. As I've highlighted elsewhere, I asked if I could quote him on WV elsewhere in the IRC discussion and he didn't object. That Ottava suddenly objects now, just as this behaviour has been discussed I think is rather telling. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Ottava has tried to suppress discussions of his behaviour. I'm struggling to see how this isn't another example. Adambro 12:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I verified twice the only area that could be given permission to be quoted, and Adambro himself says that nothing but the one line has an accusation. And suppress information on my behavior? It is already published on Wikipedia Review. What are you even talking about? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting I've said regarding "nothing but the one line has an accusation". Adambro 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith that you really don't remember, even though you've done the same thing twice before in this discussion. Keep this diff handy because it keeps going back to it and you keep forgetting it exists. You, in the discussion, ask "'the part where I said people lack confidence in you', which part was that?" This was brought up as the material that was allowed to be quoted. It was pointed out that only my statement saying that you could quote me on lacking confidence in you is the only one with a statement regarding those lacking confidence in you, thus being the only statement you could quote. This was pointed out multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, you are saying that you only said I could quote the statement: "If you want to quote the part where I said people lack confidence in you" at 22:31:36? That was literally all you were happy for me to quote? How does that fit with your comment earlier that "Adambro, if you paid attention you will see that I already stated I had no problem with it" in response to me saying "I would be quite happy for all my discussions on IRC to be published, Ottava, how about you?". Adambro 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support I was hoping he would undelete it himself after discussing it with Adambro, but given Adam's statement above, it looks pretty clear that permission was given at the time, which makes it available now under CC. --SB_Johnny talk 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I already provided the sentence which verifies what portion I was referring to. It was only on my accusation against him, which, as Adambro showed, only exists in that sentence where I "gave him permission". Taking lines out of context to make them mean the most absurd things is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support As per SB_Johnny. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for the record, as, even though he's now undeleted, he is still complaining, and failing to address the central issue: the use of tools while heavily involved. --Abd 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored
I restored it not because I gave any permission, as I did not. I restored it because it shows where Adambro was inappropriately using long term blocks to cause distress and harm to JWS, a long term user who was one of our most important admin. If Adambro wants to make accusations of impropriety of me, then I will give permission of documentation that he lacks the appropriate judgment necessary in a custodian and has done an egregious abuse in using ops to directly bring harm to another user. Thus, I am giving blatant permission for the IRC log now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was obvious from the beginning that the IRC log showed far more negative evidence about Ottava than about Adambro, who did act with propriety during that session. Ottava was asserting that Adambro's action in blocking JWSchmidt was improper. The action, however, was within Adambro's allowed discretion, absent recusal rules. Ottava cited my opposition, which was that Adambro, involved in conflict with JWSchmidt, should not have been the one to block. In other words, Ottava effectively cited my opposition due to recusal failure, which I'd discussed at length with Adambro, whereas Ottava, when he's involved, denies that there is any recusal policy at all.
 * There are problems with some of Adambro's actions, but they pale in significance with Ottava's. Adambro, when he is not supported by consensus, does not keep beating a dead horse. He accepts the community judgment, and I believe that differences of opinion with him over recusal can be resolved by providing better guidance from the community on recusal failure and how to avoid it while still protecting the wiki. There is a proposed policy at Recusal, which defined recusal failure, and sets up simple procedure for a custodian to follow if the custodian believes the wiki will be seriously harmed if the custodian does not act, but would otherwise be restrained by recusal policy. Recusal failure includes any situation where an appearance of bias would be reasonably expected. Recusal policy is about improving relations between the administrative corps and the general community, it is about appearance as much as about the reality of bias, and it is not a "suicide pact," because emergency action is allowed.--Abd 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The IRC log was used as part of JWS's review of everyone's actions, and Adambro's blocks of JWS were used as evidence that Adambro had to be removed. The IRC log provides evidence that more than just JWS found fault in Adambro's blocks and can be used as proof that there was consensus that Adambro was acting inappropriately.
 * There is no recusal policy, so the rest has nothing to do with this. But, the privacy policy does say that users are allowed to remove personal information about themselves and does prohibit use of IRC logs without permission. It is clear that people have conflicting views on what was permitted or not, but I decided to no longer care about protecting Adambro. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolution passed: Ottava backed down by restoring the page. -- dark lama  19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove custodian rights of Ottava
Let's not drag this out any longer than is necessary, for the sake of Ottava and everyone else. If there are serious concerns within the community about Ottava's behaviour then as a bare minimum he should have his custodian rights removed. Other remedies, such as blocking, could have limited effectiveness whilst the user concerned has the ability to remove any block and if there are serious concerns then such a user shouldn't be in a position of custodian which often involves dealing with new/inexperienced users. Adambro 09:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits / custodian actions can be undone. Let's not rush this and allow the entire community to take part in the process. --Draicone (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion could rapidly result in an injunction prohibiting Ottava from using admin tools in any possibly controversial way, rigorously following the proposed policy at Recusal, pending a final decision here. That, in fact, could be an injunction declared by any sysop, given the support for total desysopping currently expressed; the objection from Draicone is only to rapid close, and I agree with that objection. Ottava is entitled, by policy, to a seven day period of comment before routine desysopping. However, an injunction could be issued at any time, enforceable by block, and the use of admin tools to unblock himself, this time, would be grounds for immediate desysop at meta if the block were as grounded in community consensus and common understanding of recusal policy as it would presumably be. Desysopping is easily reversed by any 'crat, if done in error and considered to cause serious damage. There is no rush, though, I see it as unlikely for Ottava to do something truly rash, once there is this much attention available.
 * A snow close is possible, but one day is way too quick. --Abd 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 supports by the creators and 1 support by an individual with little recent history here. Only 2 uninvolved supports and it has only been a few hours. You are quite hasty, especially with improprieties and lack of effective statements pointed out above by those not myself. Your statement above verifies the impropriety of this CR. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an example of useless argument for the sake of argument. The vote was, as he acknowledges, 5:1, with Ottava being the only opposition. I wrote that one day wasn't enough for even a snow close, yet he criticizes me as hasty. In fact, my sense of the community was, before this was filed, of majority support for desysopping, at least. The !vote is now 7:1. What's it going to take for Ottava to get it? But he has the right to wait this out. He's used tools twice since this opened, but I've written that a sysop always has the right to undo an action, and that's all he has done. There is no emergency, so far. What I'm surprised about is how heavy the support for desysopping is. I'd expected it to be more controversial. Maybe some more opposition will appear. I have no crystal ball. --Abd 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a bit too fast? We usually leave deletion discussions open for awhile, yet we're willing to desysop on an accelerated time schedule? Geoff Plourde 01:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Support removal of rights

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support The level of unpleasantness that has been coming from Ottava's direction for some time is not acceptable for a custodian. Adambro 09:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: this user voted before there was any defense and with little substantiation of any policy breaking. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support The deletion of the IRC page and his unblocking of himself a few months ago, makes a pretty solid case that he can't be relied upon to use the tools responsibly. His replies on this page don't seem to show any understanding of the issues raised. --SB_Johnny  talk 12:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a mentor, I had the full right no matter what to overturn any of his actions. You know this. You know it is in place for a reason, especially if a mentee acts out of line like that. Your justification is not within our standards here and the community backed up my action. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: this user voted before there was any defense and with little substantiation of any policy breaking. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Ottava's cumulative and unrepentant incivility and use of tools to serve his own advantage without community consensus has weighed on me to agree that this project is likely to be better off with Ottava Rima not having custodial tools. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This user is unable to substantiate his claims nor find policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Ottava has made valuable contributions to enwv, but I am not satisfied that his use of the tools has been appropriate, and this is a basic standard that must be met. The IRC log incident has not occurred in a vacuum and is symptomatic of a broader lack of understanding of the boundaries. --Draicone (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user left Wikiversity after furthering the harassment of user Countrymike and has no community participation until canvassed by SB Johnny. The above user has a background that provides serious concerns regarding his judgment and participation at wikiversity, and his return to Wikiversity is under serious question. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed regarding inactivity - stewards, please consider my comments in the context of my inactivity. That said, I don't feel I "furthered the harassment of user Countrymike" in the slightest, and the suggestion of as much is an indication of an attitude that I do not feel is appropriate for custodianship. --Draicone (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On IRC last night, Countrymike said that he felt harassed by the extreme questioning and prodding of him during his request for Custodianship, questions you said were appropriate and should be made mandatory. The accusations that you backed up were insinuations that he was a vandal, which lacked any evidence and showed a lack of consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Because there has been no showing of an understanding of the problems, because he is continuing to argue that there are no recusal requirements at all, the problems will likely continue if the tools are not removed. While he has repeatedly violated civility standards, and could be blocked if he continues, I do not support blocking him, other than short blocks as might be immediately necessary, until he has had an opportunity to digest the response of the community and recognize that some aspects of his behavior are incompatible with participation at Wikiversity. There is much evidence that has yet to be added to this CR. If he resigns, it may not be necessary to waste the time. --Abd 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This diff verifies a complete conflict of interest and the inappropriateness of Abd's campaign against me. It is easy to see that the timing is perfect for him to get rid of the only active admin to try and justify a return to Custodianship that the community denied supporting him in. The vote can also be seen as revenge voting as I was the mentor that led to him being opposed for Custodianship in the first place. Abd has spent quite a lot of time talking about his hatred for those who "abused" him on Wikipedia and suggests that his motives at the WMF are less than what is necessary for an appropriate academic environment. His lack of appropriate academic work would suggest also the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Ottava exudes an insulting attitude toward good contributors, and the tools merely become his extension of enforcing that attitude. -- Thekohser 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The above user is still permanently banned according to the WMF and is only able to function via technically override of the Steward function in direct contradiction to global SUL lock. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user is requested to provide a link to the official WMF resolution that "permanently bans" User:Thekohser. -- Thekohser 20:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bans by the WMF and their Stewards do not need resolutions. Otherwise, all sorts of vandals and the rest would need such. A quick check of Thekohser's global block log will show blocks saying: "expiry time: infinity (Globally banned user)". The account is formally locked and only through exploiting a glitch is he able to edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava here demonstrates that he has not accepted the 75% community consensus re Thekohser. There is no "permanent ban" of Thekohser "according to the WMF," that's obvious from the many projects on which Thekohser is unblocked. See for an example. There is a global lock, with some apparent reluctance at meta to lift it, and many questionable aspects. Meta stewards are free to come here and undo what was done, if there is an actual WMF-supported ban. There is not, it's obvious, and there is disagreement among the stewards, that's all. Ottava is fighting old battles, and apparently never sets the cudgel down. The "override" or "glitch" is a design feature of MediaWiki to allow local control as an option requiring a 'crat. The action was clearly supported by consensus, which Ottava opposes. --Abd 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Community consensus would be needed at Meta to override the global lock. The lock is in place as verified here. Backdoor abuse of SUL breaking is not an effective way to dodging an actual Meta discussion on an unlock. Also, the Founder declared here a global ban for Thekohser, and we have not passed any community consensus to override the Founder's ability to do such. Both parts would need to be effected before his account can deemed "kosher". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S., at least one of those votes in the "supermajority" is very iffy in that there was no real activity by that account. This discussion and many of the controversial discussions has an odd number of inactive people appearing to vote at opportune moments. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava doesn't seem to understand real meta process. The global lock could be undone by a single steward, and we know that there are stewards opposed to it, but stewards, unfortunately, even though policy requires decision-making to be open, do discuss issues privately, either in small groups or collectively, attempting to preserve some appearance of unity. In any case, Thekohser is not popular at meta, and it would be difficult to obtain a majority in any discussion there of lifting the lock. But it would also be difficult to get a real consensus to globally lock, and that's never been shown, either, because most stewards to recognize the importance of local sovereignty, and see themselves as "stewards," i.e., as servants of the local wikis, not the reverse.

 * Mike.lifeguard was famous for "cutting the Gordian knot" by taking independent action, often personally opinionated, and what happened at Wikibooks is a pretty clear indication of the situation. Short story: Mike personally blocked Thekohser there, after a delinking and an unblock, founded on local consensus, by Adrignola. Mike also manipulated the situation to get Adrignola dropped as a checkuser, on a techicality. In the end, Wikibooks held a decisive discussion, with the same result as here, 3:1 in favor of unblock. Mike.lifeguard promptly resigned and retired. You can quibble about this vote or that, and you can quibble both ways. As SB_Johnny pointed out, though, in unblocking Thekohser, it should take consensus to block, not consensus to unblock. As to the Founder, the Founder himself acted to remove the ability to intervene as he did here, when he realized the depth of the problem it caused. The "global ban" was an expression of personal opinion, at a point when Jimbo believed he could personally enforce such a ban, and in spite of many opportunities to actually establish it, Jimbo did not show or obtain confirmation of the ban. The vigorous action by stewards was along the lines of retainers of a King following up on a comment like "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Jimbo is human, and I would not expect anything else of him. Stewards are also human.

 * (Collapsed because these arguments are spinning out. Whether Thekohser is The Kosher or not is irrelevant here. Even though I'm Muslim, and thus much kosher law applies to me, I'm not contemplating eating the account, and Ottava is not the Rabbi who stamps our accounts as "Pareve" or whatever. I originally wrote this as a personal comment, not pulling in Ottava's and other comments in response, but it is better to collapse the whole sequence, which is not about the issue being decided, and anyone closing this will surely be aware of the situation with Thekohser.) --Abd 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support At the very least temporarily, per the resolutions at meta:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima and until everybody has had a chance to calm their nerves down and their fingers on any admin buttons. TeleComNasSprVen 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The meta RfC was mostly deemed frivolous with the proposal to add more pictures the only one with any real support. Multiple users posted responses chastising the filer. Also, no one is using any admin buttons, so this support seems moot. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not just the filer they chastised, mind you. The RfC was mainly about you, Ottava Rima, even though some did go after FT2. But the conclusion remains the same; and the resolutions, despite still being open, are clear and are the result of consensus. If you don't use any admin buttons, there won't be a need for them, and if you are using them incorrectly, like in the deletion of the page above, then it is just more reason not to have them. TeleComNasSprVen 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Ottava admitted on IRC that he doesn't feel he is being incivil, appeared to allege that the problems were with everyone else and did not in any way indicate he was willing to change his behavior in order to help improve the credibility of the project. His type of politicking is one of the primary reasons I've been largely uninvolved with Wikiversity.  (Who really NEEDS and WANTS that kind of stress?)  It is detrimental to the project.  As I'm not particularly active on Wikiversity, Ottava doesn't care if he offends me.  (Potential editors don't count.  Only existing ones.  And only the ones he cares about.)  I can't see his behavior improving as I don't believe he fundamentally understands why people find his activities to be detrimental to the project. (Oh! And I'm here because Ottava was canvasing for support on IRC.) --LauraHale 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens on IRC stays on IRC. You should not make public logs. TeleComNasSprVen 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TCNSV misunderstands the policy. People may report their experiences with IRC, that is mentioned in guidelines. LauraHale did not post a log. I agree with one thing: the policy is confusing. --Abd 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Laura did post a log, I did not see the link. The log was scrubbed of some irrelevant users and reposted by Jtneill. --Abd 03:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This user is inactive. Laura, your statements are ridiculous. I have very little interaction with anyone and you are on the Wikiversity IRC channel all the time. You have never expressed any problem with me and your statements are completetly unsubstantiated. If anything, it would show that you are politicking. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support I originally had the hope that Ottava Rima could do some scholarly work directed towards the goal of supporting Wikiversity research projects. Unfortunately, Ottava Rima has repeatedly demonstrated a penchant for abuse of custodial power. Since Ottava Rima seems to believe that a few Wikipedians can ban Wikiversity scholars and the rest of us must accept such abuse of power, I am forced to wonder if Ottava Rima has ever been interested in Wikiversity as a collaborative learning community. I'd like to see more constructive scholarly editing from this Wikiversity community member rather than attempts to disrupt the activities of other Wikiversity participants like poor innocent User:Rock drum. Removal of the tools might allow Ottava Rima to get back to an emphasis on our shared goal of building a wiki devoted to collaborative learning. --JWSchmidt 14:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rock drum was admittedly proxying for others even if he wasn't an actual sock. And JWS, did the removal of your tools increase our shared goal of building a wiki? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Am I permitted to vote on this matter?  As long as Ottava remains in denial, his behaviour will not change. --KBlott 00:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, KBlott, you are permitted to !vote, and your !vote was moderate and, in my view, a succinct and accurate description of the situation. Note that, in theory, it is cogency of arguments that count, but numbers do, in practice, make some kind of difference. It's up to whoever closes a discussion, or, in this case, it might be up to a steward at meta pointed to this discussion at some point, for only stewards can remove sysop privileges. --Abd 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Community Reviews are not a vote. Anyone abiding by our policies would have seen that. This isn't a discussion that gets "closed". That isn't how CRs work. Did you even bother to read anything on CRs or our page on Consensus before hand? Furthermore, if anyone on WMF gets to "vote" as you suggest, I could bring in those like Abigor that you threw a fit over when they came over. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This user's vote was blatantly canvassed for here. The canvassing by Abd also took place on Wikipedia Review. You are just one of the many iffy votes showing that the "vote" is being gamed, so feel free to do whatever you want. I do enjoy it that user with almost no edits who came over here disruptively from Wikipedia, who is a blatant plagiarist here and sock puppeteer on Wikipedia, is voting against me, with Abd basically canvassing such on his user page. It really makes this all seem so honest and ethical. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava's diff shows nothing that resembles canvassing, and canvassing is not contrary to Wikiversity policy even if it did. Perhaps Ottava has this edit in mind. That edit pointed to a section here, titled, and was intended to show Kblott, as the text demonstrates, that KBlott had acted contrary to Wikiversity policy, and so should exercise caution. It did not even occur to me that KBlott might, three days later, !vote. Ottava is continuing his procedure of attacking anyone who votes against him. A closer might indeed wish to notice that Ottava blocked KBlott, but also that Ottava unblocked KBlott under community pressure. KBlott was encouraged by me to cut Ottava some slack and not to take it personally, see please drop it, KBlott. I strongly suspect that KBlott was motivated to vote at 00:39 by more recent commentary from Ottava, a candidate edit which would have been on the short KBlott watchlist would be here. --Abd 01:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Asked a room full of people in IRC and they all said it was rather blatant canvassing. Your posting on WR was even worse. And it is odd how you canvass people who don't have a strong, positive relationship with Wikiversity. So many people with so few edits, then saying anyone on the WMF should have the right to vote. Odd stuff. You'd think that if he honestly believed in his claims against me he wouldn't have to stoop to such actions. His own actions verify that this whole thing is a sham. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had quite a few edits on WP. I would have more edits on WV if I were not blocked by you.  Didn’t you say that you were resigning anyway?  --KBlott 06:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no edits before this matter and you were continuing the problematic behavior from Wikipedia. The user who banned you came over to voe, and I am sure that if Abd wants to continue to say these shenanigans are okay and popular vote wins, then 10-15 people who don't like you, don't like him, etc, could easily come over, put up a ban proposal, and win. You guys want to play games, violate our policies, and fake consensus, then it is only a matter of time before it bites you. We know from KC, Salmon of Doubt and Centaur that it has happened before. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity unblocked Thekohser, who is a major critic of the WikiMediaFoundation, and currently Moulton is unblocked here, and Moulton is extremely unpopular on some of the wikis, and both are blocked on Wikipedia (as is Ottava, by the way, and it's easy to see why from his behavior here). There is not going to be a pile-in of comments here from outsiders, supporting some sanction against you, you have done nothing to merit that, and it's preposterous, but if it did happen, we could handle it. Ottava is referring to some old situations that are unlikely to recur, from before we developed some skill with this stuff. As to the scurrilous charges Ottava makes, understand that he's going down, as a direct result of his own actions, and he's searching for people to blame. "You guys" refers to the Wikiversity community, which has finally woken up and recognized just how uncivil and disruptive and dangerous he is. You, KBlott, had no role in the preparing of this RfC, except as an immediate example used of excessive custodian response to a problem, and the resulting attacks against you when Ottava defended his excessive response.

There is no consensus faking here, on the support side, though there may be some level of recent attempt to canvass votes opposed to Ottava's desysop. A closer, probably a 'crat, will sort it, and this one may require some steward attention to verify that the result is proper, since Ottava has viciously attacked both of our active bureaucrats. (It's also possible that one of the less active 'crats, who have not voted, may close. Even these, though, might be thought to have a conflict of interest, since Ottava had just proposed that they lose their 'crat privilege!)

You are not, by the way, "banned" on Wikipedia. One admin, a checkuser, blocked you indef, and, as far as I see, you have not followed procedure to ask for unblock; instead, you, naively, like others before you, socked to appeal, causing others to reject you, not for your point of view, but for socking. You also used a sock or two before that, though not as Muzemike described here, as far as I've been able to see, look at, where I collected some evidence on the situation. (That is on Wikipedia Review, the equivalent of a neighborhood bar where people gather to chew the wikifat and kvetch and plan, and participants include certain arbitrators and administrators, as well as long-term banned users. Quite a place, actually. Rowdy. It is a place to learn how Wikipedia and the WMF *really* work, but, remember, take everything with ample salt! Ottava is active there, continually on the verge of being banned, and you really have to work hard to be banned from Wikipedia Review.)

MuZemike's comment here could, in fact, be used as evidence that he acted improperly on Wikipedia, but that's a question for them to sort, not us. You are welcome at Wikiversity, but please be careful about copyright violation, and don't be so quick to assume bias. Ottava is now biased against you, but that's about the criticism of him over the way he treated you, probably not about your point of view on AIDS, which I don't know and don't care. We don't ban people for point of view here, nor for advocating -- within limits -- a point of view, period. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia, thankfully. --Abd 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * You sure do make a lot of assumptions about others, Abd. And Abd, you put forth a system that was the same that existed in 2008 - where people canvass for support and bring in inactive users to game our community. Even Adambro above is relatively inactive, as are you as you do almost nothing except in this area. We got rid of the three that caused a lot of destruction here a while ago, but obviously you don't care about our history or this community. You should see the level of hate that Stewards, Global Sysops, and Admin at Wikipedia have toward you, and if you want to instill an unethical system as you push you will suffer far more than you could ever hope to cause me to suffer. That is what happens when you push forth a corrupt governmental system - the Caesars that took over through murder ended up being murdered. You already mock the Community Review system by using it in a manner not even close to how it is supposed to be while ignoring all of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of rights

 * - obviously. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to support anyone's statements. I agree, Ottava can be sometimes very aggresive towards others, and this was one of these times, but so what, don't we all commit errors? Aren't we humans? Wikiversity is not the place I once knew, and that's why I'm leaving it. Goodbye. Diego Grez 01:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - This is a bit of a case of TLDR, I tried with good intentions, but to be honest I can keep up with the rate at which this page is increasing. I disagree with some (maybe even many) of Ottava's actions listed above.  But I also agree with many that are not listed here.  At the end of the day my feeling is that he is too valuable to this project as an administrator to simply desysop without first trying other methods to make the point about what is (or is not) acceptable to the community.  I am also uneasy with SBJ starting this community review, given the amount of conflict he has had with Ottava and that he stated to me that his only reason for being on wikiversity on these days is to end the drama.  Which strikes me as a different claim of authority on WV.  Simply because the easiest way to get rid of drama is to get rid of the people involved in drama.  Further this was quickly put up on Wikipedia review, and people who are mostly inactive here suddenly showed up to support removal of tools... well it strikes me that the deck has been stacked against Ottava in this instance.  Besides we are all occasionally gruff when frustrated.  Am I misremembering that SBJ has been known to use rather strong and abusive language with JWS?   Overall, in my time here I have not witnessed anything that would make me think removal of tools is the right response. Thenub314 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I showed up was because Ottava himself was linking to the conversation on IRC. If it feels like inactive people are coming in, then I'd look at who is doing the linking to encourage people to come in.  --LauraHale 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the confusion. Your always active on IRC, if not on wiki.  I was really thinking of Thekohser, and I just should have spit it out.  But it seemed bad form to name names, since who knows if he is the only one.  But I certainly wasn't directing my comment at you.  I am very sorry. Thenub314 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I didn't take it personally and probably a bit egocentric to think you were referring to me. :) --LauraHale 05:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * There is a ridiculous amount of canvassing. This discussion has no worth or merit. Ottava may not be perfect but this is a farce and he deserves better than a rigged vote. Seddon 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was no canvassing as canvassing is normally described. There has been off-wiki discussion, on IRC and at Wikipedia Review, by myself, Ottava, and others, but I'm not seeing votes that arrived here from WR, but a Support for desysop vote that came here from Ottava pointing to this CR on IRC. So ... since !votes don't count, but cogency of argument, I assume a close here will consider the arguments, and only !voting as some kind of rough indication of consensus.
 * It may be a tad rude, but since Seddon has no prior edits to Wikiversity, if any !vote here were to be questioned, it would be his. Seddon, how did you come across this discussion? And what does canvassing have to do with the actual evidence presented in this CR? Ottava has already claimed he is resigning, so massive evidence of incivility and bullying that might otherwise be added has been given no priority. Should we keep kicking him when he's down, beating a dead horse, or what do you suggest? --Abd 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know you posted it at Wikipedia Review, and a lot of people there believe that all you do is cause trouble, spread hate, and should be banned across the WMF, right? Its not my fault that they don't like your games here. You turned this into a farce, you can't undo it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Seddon has proof of your inappropriate cross-wiki actions. Are you saying that he has no right to voice his opinion about such things found here? He is very active at Meta, the hub of all projects and would seem to be an expert witness. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Per Seddon. I might not be an active editor here but I know Ottava enough that I can attest that although he might be a little rough around the edges, he is well intentioned and I find these claims very baseless on those grounds. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, user has no prior Wikiversity contributions, so we may ask what brought this user to !vote here. I wasn't seeing signs of significant canvassing, but now I am. --Abd 02:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, from you, on WR. You opened the door. After all, you said "Any WMF user may" regarding voting here. You want to say someone with no previous experience or been inactive for years has the right to vote yet say others aren't suddenly? Odd how that works out. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they may !vote, and their arguments may be considered. It is also, however, traditional to note when a new user appears only to !vote, because it may indicate canvassing. Ottava has conflated a simple note of inactivity, and a question about possible canvassing, into a denial of their right to !vote, which is more what his position has been on others who *were* active users here, some of whom have lengthy contribution histories. 'Nuff said. --Abd 03:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a few people found in the above are Wikipedia Review regulars. By the way, "lengthy" history is meaningless if there are large gaps of inactivity. JWS's contribs show him to be inactive. Adambro was inactive. SB Johnny, except for this, was inactive. Draicone? Inactive. Laura? Inactive. Funny how that works out. Funny how no one was bothering to help out around here but when you post this they all suddenly appear again. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't keep track of every project that I am involved in. I thought I had edited here but I was wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am friends with some of the people in the small wiki task force so that is how I found this. I avoid Wikipedia Review with a passion and haven't been on IRC in a few days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The issue here is not Ottava's intentions, it is his capacity to function as a custodian, representing the Wikiversity community. He clearly has lost that trust. Ottava might have the best of intentions, but be unable to handle the stress. --Abd 02:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet you haven't proven any actual policy violation. Therefore, all you have are "intentions". And lost whose trust? Wikiversity's community? I only see Jtneill actually responded above. The rest are all users with long term inactivity, even you, when you aren't pursuing me, hasn't enough activity. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Custodianship is not a user right, and it does not require policy violation to remove it, rather the cause for removal, in general, is a loss of the community's confidence that the user will use the privilege fairly, and will, in addition, serve as an example of proper behavior. The frequent incivility is adequate as a cause, and it is up to the community to decide if a cause is sufficient. As to those who have !voted, Ottava's position to exclude recently inactive sysops, not canvassed here, is preposterous, this would never fly on Wikipedia. Ottava set up conditions where these inactive administrators -- those most likely to have a solid perspective on the original goals of Wikiversity -- would be specially attracted to the wiki, by filing his RfC on removing their bits, but now he's essentially claiming that the emailing done to them -- at his invitation, prior to the filing of this CR, pointing not here but to the RfC -- was somehow "canvassing" for votes. No, Ottava shot himself in the foot, by his tendentious argument in that RfC, and his attacks on these admins there when they showed up with contrary opinion. Ottava's proposal to sanction SB_Johnny for filing this Review has, so far, failed miserably with not one Support but Ottava himself. It's obvious, and the continued tendentious argument by Ottava is a very bad sign. It looks to me, from other evidence, that he's planning to be blocked, and he's setting up the conditions for that. This RfC would not have resulted in a block. He's pushing for that to change. Not My Decision. --Abd 02:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * " "policy violation" is not required for desysopping" So, lets just make it up as we go along. Rules, who needs rules! Community, who needs community when you can make up things and canvass for support to get your way. That is the very definition of bullying, and ignores what Wikiversity is about. Why do you feel the need to degrade this community in such a manner? And votes is not consensus. People already have consensus that the whole voting is null and void. I guess you missed that. You know, they actually discussed things and showed where there were major breaches. Oh, and those people are actual active users, instead of the lynch mob you canvassed for above. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I canvassed nobody, nor am I making anything up. There is one vote possible above from my discussion of this on Wikipedia Review, possible, Thekohser. Not necessarily probable, and certainly not canvassed, i.e., solicited. Ottava, your careless disregard for the truth is dangerous. It's correct that votes are not consensus. But consensus is also obvious here. It's not going to be up to me to decide, Ottava. You, below, claimed to be resigning. So what are you arguing about? I'm thinking, now, that you did not and do not intend to resign, that your resignation was fake, intended to reduce pressure and gather sympathy. Or else why all this smoke? Either resign or don't! You know how to resign, you go to meta and ask them to remove the privilege. Anything else is just posturing. You used your bit today in an action which may well have been justified, but, because you were revision deleting your own edit, it also should immediately have been reported so that an independent custodian would review it, because of the appearance. You understand nothing of this, because Ottava's rights are unchallengeable, you think. That's been the problem. If you do not resign, then, given your continued tendentious argument, and the appearance that you may have been canvassing, yourself, I'll be forced to post the rest of the evidence, probably tomorrow night, so that people will have a more complete CR to look at. --Abd 03:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is pure canvassing yet Abd refuses to apologize. Blatant abuse, no apology. And he is asking to be made a Custodian! Funny how his basis for being a Custodian is getting rid of me would cause an increase in demand for more Custodians to do work. So, he orchestrates people to come over then immediate tries to get Custodian status for himself out of it! Wonderful! Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * - KBlott was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia due to sock puppetry in an attempt to POV-push his AIDS denialism. It is clear that he will go to any length to disrupt on any WMF project, as he has done here, I'm sure. I fail to see how not blocking him would have been the right thing to do. MuZemike 04:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, MuZemike was one of the CUs confirming KBlott's mass sock puppetry and disruption at Wikipedia, and was consulted during the matter to determine if he was a threat to Wikiversity. MuZemike has long term experience admining at WMF projects and in determining the threats of sock puppeters. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I would expect Ottava to do any actual fact checking, however, my record on WP clearly shows that I am a strong opponent to denialism. Ottava would know this had he read my “Test and treat” page, before he deleted it. This strikes me as odd, since he would have had to have read it in order to determine it was a “copyvio”.    MuZemike didn’t bother to check his facts either, before he blocked me. --KBlott 06:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC) (P.S.  MuZemike’s WV talk page was created today. MuZemike has only one contrib on WV.  His contribs on WP consist largely of video games and blocking, which his does prodigiously, and without investigation. --KBlott 06:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

Comments
On the subject of new users appearing to !vote and canvassing: I have certainly said to a number of people, WMF related and none, they should check out the drama going on here the past few days. I called attention to this particular CR in several ways (mostly IRC, but also in person, telephone, etc.), not of which I would categorize as canvasing. Most of comments were along the lines of "Have you seen the craziness going on at wikiversity." Perhaps I bear some responsibility in new eyes deciding to read this community review (as does Abd's wikipediareview post, or any one else who discussion this issue with uninvolved people). Let's put the canvassing allegations away unless there is some more substantial reason to be concerned or has some kind of proof. For better or worse drama attracts readers and new comments. Let's hope the new folks stick around to develop the content, it is always nice to see new faces despite the circumstances. Thenub314 06:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The canvassing matter wouldn't be an issue if Jtneill et al followed the CR policy by removing any "voting" going on. CR is discussion only where the person with concern makes recommendations. There is no punishment mechanism nor is this to post up minor concerns without policy violations and get a bunch of people to make revenge votes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Again just interjecting to make a correction: many past community reviews have contained polls when the taking of an action was under consideration, as a quick scan of the archived reviews will show. --SB_Johnny talk 16:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd, because the only ones I can really see are based around abusive actions you put forward. Coincidence? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussions above show a clear lack of confidence from long time contributors in Ottava Rima's position as a wikiversity custodian. While Ottava has made a large number of quality content contributions to the project, the loss of trust from the community requires the removal of tools. Personally, I hope that Ottava will take this as an opportunity to focus energy on continuing to create content that we can all be proud of. I'd also like to thank the new users for contributing to our community review, and I hope that you'll take an interest in joining one of our learning projects as you familiarize yourself with the site. Although we value all contributions, an issue such as this revolves around trust - the trust of community members who have been involved and participated in some way prior to this disccusion. --mikeu talk 21:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * ✅

Censure SB Johnny for Community Review
On 18 November, User:KBlott, banned sock-puppeter at Wikipedia came to Wikivesity came to Wikiversiy. He immediately created three pages, with two directly copied and pasted from copyrighted websites. The user then makes accusations of AIDS denialism against the admin deleting the material and begins to out the admin. Following discussion with admin on Wikipedia who were involved in the situation there, the user was immediately blocked so everything could be sorted out. User:SB Johnny and User:Abd immediately begin to use Wikipedia Review to try to defend the user when there was clearly nothing to defend. They then reopen a clearly unjustified and dead Community Review in what can only be seen as revenge and part of a long term disruptive campaign that has been marked by SB Johnny desysopped and leaving for a long period of time, and then resysopped without community consensus. SB Johnny has failed to produce any content and spends his time only defending the undefendable. SB Johnny also has a competitive "educational" website that directly benefits from the destruction of Wikiversity. As such, this CR, the actions of the past 6 months, and other inappropriate actions, are verification that SB Johnny cannot be trusted in any position on Wikiversity and is censured for opening up a CR for completely inappropriate reasons.

Support censure of SB Johnny

 * Support - per obvious abuse by SB Johnny and long term destruction of the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, it was you and your meat puppet (MuZemike, above) who have accused me of AIDS denialism, not the other way around. --KBlott 09:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose censure of SB Johnny

 * This seems just another attempt by Ottava to suppress any criticism. I fail to understand how Ottava can suggest SB Johnny has opened "a CR for completely inappropriate reasons" when at least three other users including two custodians one of whom is also a 'crat have also expressed concerns. Adambro 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Expressing "concerns" is not enough, especially when you have a conflict of interest (see the lack of confidence above - you were using blocks to harass JWS) and Jtneill went through a previous review based on his ill-founded accusations and poor decisions repeated above. As pointed out, SB Johnny made completely inappropriate claims regarding a clear case of copyviolation followed by outing and abuse. Such a foundation is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Any one can call for community review, as you yourself have done Ottava. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Community Reviews need proper evidence and reasons. There is none here. The only context is SB Johnny trying to justify a copyright violating, outing, disruptive user with a history of sock puppetry to further the same abuse on other projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether there is proper evidence is for the community to decide. For the user who is the subject of the community review to decide there isn't proper evidence and so demand the user who initiated the review is censured seems somewhat questionable. Anyway, if SBJ hasn't provided proper evidence I don't see how censuring him will help address the problem. To address the problem which you suggest, lack of proper evidence, requires SBJ to be able to expand on his previous comments. Adambro 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I am not allowed to put forth a proposal because you unilaterally disagree with it? It is odd how you are saying that which would contradict your own statement. And accusations without proper evidence or background are a major violation of Civility. Did you forget about that policy? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in my comments did I say you were not or should not be allowed to call for SBJ to be censured. What I suggested was that it doesn't look a particularly smart thing to do or helpful. I am aware of the civility policy. Adambro 16:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sure SBJ could have made some better decisions, but this is not sufficient grounds for censure. Let the community consider his CR comments in context instead. --Draicone (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user was canvassed by SB Johnny, and left the community 2 years ago after he harassed our user Countrymike. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence available to support that suggestion? Adambro 15:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He admits to being emailed to join in discussion by SB Johnny here after SB Johnny admits to emailing people. It isn't a coincidence that SB Johnny emailed support then resurrects a completely dead proposal by Abd on shady grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed him about the "RfC", because the issue affected him (and the others) directly. Your treatment of these people (and yes, they are people, and yes, some of them let me know that they weren't happy about how you were treating them) is what motivated me to start this Review. And yes, we've discussed it on IRC since then, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that either. --SB_Johnny talk 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely appropriate and transparent then it would seem. Adambro 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Transparent canvassing isn't appropriate. I could email every user directly affected negatively by my loss of ops and have them respond to this, for example. Would you like me to do that? Canvassing is an imbalance of discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine the "canvassing" didn't relate to your custodianship. It related to the discussions about dealing with inactive custodians. Contacting inactive custodians regarding such proposals doesn't seem unreasonable. Adambro 16:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The canvassing brought back a user who left 2 years ago with a direct negative impression of me and put into a "combative" relationship by me via SB Johnny's actions, and this immediately preceded SB Johnny's actions on this matter. This CR was dead a long time ago and the timing lends itself to more than coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * And every disagreement with Ottava results in a personal attack from him. This is the behavior that might lead to banning. --Abd 16:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Far from reality to call this an inappropriate use of the Review mechanism on Wikiversity. -- Thekohser 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user is still permanently banned according to the WMF and is only able to function via technically override of the Steward function in direct contradiction to global SUL lock. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above user is requested to provide a link to the official WMF resolution that "permanently bans" User:Thekohser. -- Thekohser 20:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bans by the WMF and their Stewards do not need resolutions. Otherwise, all sorts of vandals and the rest would need such. A quick check of Thekohser's global block log will show blocks saying: "expiry time: infinity (Globally banned user)". The account is formally locked and only through exploiting a glitch is he able to edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, Thekohser, let others point out the problem, you are just, as said on WR, "feeding the Ottava." Give your opinion here, and you do not need to defend your right to do so. Here is a full response to Ottava's claims about your account:, posted above.
 * The blocks mentioned by Ottava are mostly blocks set by a steward going about replacing a global lock with a pile of local locks, specifically to allow local consensus to operate through any local sysop. When local wikis actually started unblocking, one steward decided this was a problem and, obviously contrary to prior consensus, reinstated the global lock. When it was realized that 'crats could undo the lock locally, this was considered enough to preserve local autonomy, under the situation that many stewards believe Thekohser to be specially disruptive. There is, however, no official ban, and that's obvious, or there would be reversal of the local crat actions, simply by reblocking with steward tools. They are not about to do that. Hot potato, when this was tried here on Wikiversity, an RfC was filed on meta to remove Jimbo's Founder flag, and when similar interference in local autonomy took place at Commons, !votes piled in, resulting in a massive 400:100 (roughly) favoring removal. Jimbo caved and had the Founder privileges changed to not allow him to interfere like that. I don't think any steward is eager to venture forth where Jimbo so spectacularly failed. I agree with the defacto consensus at meta, at least it's reasonable. Personally, I'd unblock under tight conditions. But that's up to each wiki, in reality. I do not agree with the banning of Thekohser, in general, because allowing -- nay, encouraging -- participation by critics is crucial to overall sanity. --Abd 21:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no global unlock of Thekohsers so nothing else really matters. And Jimbo did not lose authority to set bans here. His ban was there long before any Meta discussion and there was no meta discussion to override Jimbo's ban of Thekohser. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre. Thekohser's account remains globally locked. So? All this means is that it takes one of two conditions to allow him to edit a WMF wiki, assuming he is unblocked locally: a renaming by a 'crat, or him not having linked the account in the first place. Global locks are set by reference to a particular global SUL, including all linked accounts. It doesn't affect unlinked accounts with the same name. However, the global contributions display will show all accounts with the name, showing which ones are linked and which ones are not....
 * Jimbo never did have authority to ban. Where is that established? He had authority to block, and to desysop anyone who unblocked. That's gone. That a single steward at meta believed that Jimbo had the authority to ban does not establish a ban. It does establish a defacto ban through lock, but only of linked accounts. The WMF may declare a ban, as could stewards, but both are exceedingly unwilling to override local consensus, which is quite propoer. Ottava seems to think that an unenforceable authority exists, that the local autonomy which is exercised is illegitimate, but there is no policy violation involved. And what does this have to do with anything here? Global locking was designed to deal with vandalism, and globally banning a vandal is SOP where there is cross-wiki vandalism. It was the use for non-vandalism that led to all the flap and confusion, because different wikis have differing policies and needs about what they will permit. Jimbo believed, at the time he declared his "ban," that Thekohser was doing cross-wiki damage, likewise Mike.lifeguard probably had an example in front of him from de.wikipedia. But both probably confused inconvenient criticism with damage. And ... water under the bridge. The issue here was the filing of this CR, was it abusive? And all of the above from Ottava is part of his habit of jamming together every criticism he can find in every area and asserting it in one place as if it proves something about the current topic. Yuk. This is getting old. --Abd 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Jimbo never did have authority to ban." I think you are replacing your own desire for actuality. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Completely offtopic, this community review is only about Ottava Rima. If you want to discuss the actions of then open up a different one. TeleComNasSprVen 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose This is merely an attempt to move the train of discussion to a siding. →StaniStani  23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose This looks like a vendetta initiated by Ottava Rima. I feel supported in opposing this based on chat room comments where Ottava Rima was making snarky comments about the user in question and generally seemed to be trolling for sympathy from people in #wikiversity-en. --LauraHale 01:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Is there any reason why this remains open when it should be obvious to even the casual contributor that there is not a snowball's chance in... of the community supporting this? --mikeu talk 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would probably close it as well, but given the topic that would be a bit strange for me to do ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 13:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent emergency, and I see no emergency here, a closure should be by someone who is not involved. Mu301 could close, but did express a bit of an opinion above, and given the overall situation, it's better not by him. Anyone can close, even someone involved, if it is obviously consensus, and the proof would be lack of reversal. Ottava could close as a special exception, as the proposer. Otherwise it sits here. There are lots of CRs that have sections and proposals that don't close. --Abd 16:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed - no support from the community for acting on this. --mikeu talk 12:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments
While I'm actually a bit hesitant to respond to this, I feel I should correct a few statements by Ottava in the heading: On the other hand, while I question having the "censure" as a topic on this particular page, I don't see any reason why Ottava can't call for it if he feels it's appropriate to do so. --SB_Johnny talk 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The KBlott issue wasn't my primary motivation for opening this. The timeline is also a bit misleading: the WR thread was actually a day or two after I started looking into it, and was as much about the apparent "rulez-based" block on WP as it was about WV. I've already told the guy I would unblock if he would follow our policies.
 * 2) I didn't think Abd's review was "dead", but rather that he wasn't finished writing it. Abd's section is only one of the headings, and the issues he raised weren't by any stretch a figment of his imagination.
 * 3) If my status were of great concern for the community, I can't imagine there wouldn't have been a CR about it by now.
 * 4) The "other site" he's referring to is NetKnowledge, which I do not own, and which I don't see as a project that can or should deprecate Wikiversity. It's not particularly active in any case, has terrible server problems, and the only reason I would support "evacuating" Wikiversity in favor of it would be if WV was in serious danger of being shut down.
 * 1. The KBlott matter was the first new matter on Abd's CR in a very long time.
 * 2. How does a review dealing with actions from July that were not opposed by the community anything of current concern?
 * 3. People don't care about community reviews. Wikiversity tends to just tend to itself and work with classroom stuff. The only exception is you and Abd who have violated the "mind your own business" atmosphere in order to cause drama.
 * 4. The inactivity of NetKnowledge would be a good reason to kill Wikiversity and drive others over there. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm hesitant to reply, but I wouldn't want the lack of a reply to be considered as an admission.
 * Ottava, your response above is a failure of AGF to the point of complete absurdity. --SB_Johnny talk 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And your statements are not? Odd how you can accuse me of impropriety for almost meaningless actions while you have wheel warred with the WMF Foundation, overrided WMF locks without authority, reclaimed your own ops without policy authority or community consensus, etc, etc, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of looking horribly silly by stating the obvious, this CR is actually about you, not about everyone else ;-). My lack of a response to your response will not imply that I think you're right. --SB_Johnny talk 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * CRs are about incidents and everyone involved. Having a creator of the CR having a large, negative history and a severe conflict of interest is key to a CR. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspend Action and Allow for Full Discussion of the Issues
I'm moving that we suspend all the other proposals here for awhile. I think we're moving a bit too fast here, especially when compared to the length of our deletion discussions. Geoff Plourde 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems, from what I can interpret from the links above, that all other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted, and that is why we are having this community review. Ottava Rima does have the right to wait out the seven days that this review is in place. I suspect the large amount of discussion is due to the MediaWiki:Sitenotice that lingers around here; it is a pretty powerful tool, after all, and was used as a quick way to facilitate discussion at Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship for example. Most likely, it will do the same for your adminship request. TeleComNasSprVen 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the last time I've seen this level of participation, but I would rather not see us make a hasty decision without being careful to consider all aspects of the issues that have been set forth here. However, Ottava's intention to resign may make this whole process a moot point. Geoff Plourde 02:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the process would have been necessary, and inititated, with or without or his presence, per the link above to the meta RfC that I posted, and his actions and reflected history here. What here is hasty now, since all we have to do, all we can do now, is wait out the seven days till this is over? TeleComNasSprVen 02:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This "resolution" is based on a misunderstanding. There is no proposal for immediate action. When there was apparently a possible snow conclusion, I actually wrote, "not yet," precisely because I thought that some support for Ottava might appear, as it did. Ottava attacked this as "hasty," apparently assuming that anything I wrote must be against him. But Ottava apparently intends to resign. I have no desire to kick him when he's down, this must all be extremely difficult for him, and I see that he's been trying to make amends here and there, which is great. I'll note, though, that it was only a day ago that he was full of bluster and rampant incivility, defiant, and even his resignation still assumes that he was completely right, it's just that we don't get how important he is. I'll answer that in place, it is an unfortunate delusion, even though he was certainly important, and even though he made very substantial contributions to Wikiversity.

See this at meta and this "bye" and this "bye" here, as well as the statement below. Absent some unexpected emergency, I suggest we wait a few days, the seven standard may not be necessary because of the resignation, if that sticks, perhaps come up with some consensus conclusions, and close, and, unless some contrary reason appears -- it might! -- request dropping the sysop bit at meta, if Ottava has not already resigned there.

If Ottava would promise to follow recusal policy, at least the draft, if he'd promise to drop the cudgel, so that he no longer is such an embarrassing presence, if he'd accept, say, a mentor, someone trusted by both him and the community to say, if needed, "well, it didn't work, meta, drop the bit," then he could continue. Or he can leave for a time and reapply later. People mature and change. I do not see a need for a ban discussion, civility problems could be addressed by ordinary means if needed. From his latest posts, I don't expect any problem, and if he still wants to edit, that should be fine.

Unfortunately, in putting together resignation diffs, I came across this. It's not terrible, but it is an apparent attempt to stir up trouble for Wikiversity, over what is now quite an old issue. To my knowledge, there is no WMF position on Thekohser, per se, and I very much doubt that Sue Gardner would want to involve the WMF in this mess! Ottava seems to have real trouble letting go. But this would not be cause for action here. --Abd 03:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The link to meta is wrong. Ottava also appeared to take a similar stance on my talkpage. I think it's okay for him to bring up an old issue, especially if it concerns him. He's just asking questions, from my perspective. I don't believe he would want us to swamp his talkpage with "come back" messages though, but yes, we do appreciate his contributions and his attempt at reform. TeleComNasSprVen 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I second this motion. Polls are evil, Poles are evil, VotingIsEvil, HealthyConflict. -- dark lama  03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with the above. Poles are evil, Especially the kind of straw poles.  Seriously though Geoff is correct, we should cool our heels a bit. Thenub314 04:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with the above. Voting began before I could even defend myself, Abd admitted the allegations were not yet substantiated, and the amount of inactive people suddenly appearing makes it all more of a fake lynching party that serves more to disrupt than any real "community" view on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a misleading summary of what I "admitted." I noted that some of my allegations in the sections I had been drafting were not fleshed out with diffs and references. However, Ottava's behavior during this CR and what immediately preceded it was so blatantly incompatible with sysop status that this was moot. Given his current attempts at meta to reverse this, supported by two of our custodians, and his filing of a CR (not the first step in our process!) on the closing 'crat over this, I have added a little to my sections. There is no lynching because there is no punitive process suggested.

Custodianship policy requires that the custodian act with civility. The evidence of incivility was fresh and overwhelming, and arguably justified emergency desysop, bypassing the normal seven-day process, which would have ended tomorrow. My opinion is that there was a process error in early close, of no actual harm, beyond an appearance, and that can be remedied. This CR may remain open and continued comment proceed for even longer than seven days. If an injustice was done, local and meta policy is clear: there must be a determination by a local bureaucrat, if that is possible, that resysopping is in order, and then the 'crat will perform the action. Only if it can be shown that no local 'crat is available to act will stewards intervene, as they did when I requested opping Jtneill due to the missing 'crats at that time; they have shown extreme reluctance to do that without a closed local discussion, except for re-opping after a voluntary resignation without any cloud.

Stewards routinely act on desyop requests that have some color of legitimacy, even if they are based on deceptive information. For example, they desysopped me on Ottava's request, that misrepresented this as being routine under Wikiversity policy, when it was anything but. My remedy would not have been with them, but here, with a 'crat, who could re-op. Since I needed, by policy, to find another mentor, and it was highly contentious, I did not attempt this and did not appeal. But the desysopping shows normal meta procedure -- they do not deeply investigate reports and, in practice, they will consider an emergency desysopping upon a showing of cause, even by an ordinary user, not to mention a 'crat. The remedy, for wikis with 'crats, is local. Another 'crat here, any one of them, could reverse the action if the 'crat determines that either the welfare of the wiki requires it, or there is consensus for that, preferably both. However, three of the five local 'crats have supported desysopping so far, one is quite inactive, and the remaining one has not commented on this. Ottava could appeal to this 'crat, from whom, a few days ago, he might have removed the bit. Instead of following process, he has filed a community review which, even if it were to succeed, could not restore his bit unless a 'crat agreed and closed it and acted on it.

Ottava does have a fast track available to regain the sysop bit: it would be to reapply for custodianship and obtain a mentor. Our policy allows a custodian the unconditional right to mentor any user, there is no community approval needed. However, a mentor who did offer the tools to someone who is blatantly abusive could themselves be sanctioned, particularly if actual abuse resulted. That would be up to the custodian, and a mentor is responsible if abuse is allowed. --Abd 20:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A note
I can count on possibly 6 people who would opine in my favor and possibly flipping 2, but I no longer care. I have been the only consistent admin to do the grunt work here for a long time, and there is a lot of work. When busy, we have 500 new edits a day with about 10% vandalism. I have to perform on average 5 logged actions a day for maintenance. That is ignoring the backlogs in CSD, importing, and the rest. Because of lack of participation, I was unable to work on any of my own work, and my efforts were mostly to keep Wikiversity as a decent project. I am tired of being attacked and watching as no one bothers to step up. I constantly ask others to take over and no one will. So, I just don't care anymore. I have done some final things, and I will be putting up my pages for deletion - they wont be finished and are meaningless without their context. Without a consistent admin around, the project will be overrun and back to its embarrassing state that Sj commented on a long time ago which prompted all of my serious watching of every contrib and doing all the maintenance. So, I will say goodbye, and I will leave saddened that Wikiversity will soon go back to being a ghost town filled with random vandalism and once again the laughing stock of the WMF.

Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Peace be with you. —Moulton (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I agree with Moulton in wishing peace for Ottava, Ottava is showing the root of the problem here. He believed that he was indispensable. He could easily have had two more custodians to help. I was here to help! -- and I largely cleaned up the speedy deletion backlog when I was a custodian, which process ended with Ottava's action at meta. And so was Diego Grez helpful. Ottava's not responsible for Grez's departure, directly but ... he could have made it happen differently, I don't know why he didn't. His proposal to drop inactive sysops, far from helping, would have removed a possible source of additional help when needed, and instead of working to bring in such help, he tried to drop them, and when they returned to comment, he attacked them as untrustworthy. Bottom line, when anyone believes themselves the necessary center, the "top organizer," essential, it's a routine effect that they drive away others who would otherwise pitch in, it happens in organizations all the time, it's boringly routine.

To work with others, one must be able to handle disagreement without turning it into a battle. It's not always easy, to be sure. But ... Ottava went way overboard in his tendentious insistence, in every conflict, that he was right and anyone else appearing to disagree was lying. It's kind of hard to negotiate consensus with a liar, eh? I wrote to him that he could learn lessons from this that will help him the rest of his life, that could make all the obvious pain worthwhile. I hope he'll think about it.

If he stays "gone," we'll just have to bumble along without him. I have greatly increased confidence in this community, which, in March, was radically unprepared to deal with conflict. I think it's matured, and I think that we will be able to face the challenges of the future. Wikiversity could end up being a truly spectacular part of the Wikimedia Foundation family of wikis, it has potential that transcends Wikipedia, that's why I'm here.

We can put Moulton on vandalism patrol. Game, Moulton? :-). --Abd 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The vandals can form a posse and patrol themselves. —Moulton (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Like rival gangs of taggers. Perhaps we could have designated tagging areas. Power to the People! --Abd 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * There is a reason Homo Schleppians invented games and sports. It's a way to discharge the addiction to dopamine-driven activities in a relatively harmless and beneficial way without blowing up the planet.  —Moulton (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * TLDR here, I've stopped reading after "His proposal to drop inactive sysops, far from helping..." Abd, let's not trample on dead horses. TeleComNasSprVen 05:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TLDR, on this I agree. Though when Abd says "I was here to help!..." it sounds like he is blaming Ottava for his lack of custodianship, which I felt had more to do with Abd himself, but I suppose that is a bit off topic.  In truth Ottava is not (and could not be) responsible for anyone's failure to become a custodian.  And blame should not be placed on his shoulders for the people who didn't end up as a custodian. Thenub314 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, Ottava directly removed my custodianship, by going to meta and requesting the removal, misleading them about the cause, and if you look at the cause, it definitely involved him and, indeed, the very substance of this RfC. And then, once that happened, there were enough people uncomfortable with the idea of a custodian not approved by his mentor, that a !vote did not pass. I did not seek that vote, and I don't blame those people. And I don't consider not being a custodian a "failure," because it is, as Ottava mentioned, "grunt work," done properly. If I wanted to be a custodian, if that were important to me, I would be one. It is an opportunity to serve, that's all. I did not seek it, I just wanted to have rollback to help with vandalism! It was Ottava who suggested custodianship, and who offered to mentor, but who apparently expected deference and special treatment as part of the package. Long story, told, in part, elsewhere in this RfC, I think. I just don't like to see revisionist history. I did not wish to drive Ottava away, but it was absolutely necessary to confront the damage he was doing. If he'd apologized or backed down only a little more than a day ago, all this would not have been necessary. He demanded it. --Abd 06:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry to see Ottava leave. I'm sorry to see the page reviewing Ottava's behavior start, with not a shred of concern of Ottava's well being and emotional state. It seems to me, a lot of people put their heart and soul into this project, some risking quite a bit in doing so (real workplace performance, family time, etc). We need to be more sensitive toward each other, extending a message of caring concern when someone exhibits defensive, aggressive behavior. I know, easier said than done. But if you're still reading Ottava, I hope you will reconsider, and review what has happened here. The motion was made, debated and apposed. A lot on incivility was displayed towards each other in this process. Perhaps, as an aside, motions should only be tabled when we have someone volunteer to chair and moderate the debate. Your final message revealed more of your concerns and motives than anything else I managed to read previously. All that should be separate from the work you describe in your final message however. Leighblackall 05:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you reconsider, but I think I understand. If I were in your shoe's I would certainly feel attacked by multiple people on multiple fronts. Thenub314 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on Ottava's talk page, I think there are possibly better outcomes of this review than Ottava leaving the project e.g., more of this kind of approach?. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jtneill, your bad accusations and claims of impropriety without any proof that I violated policy poison the atmosphere enough to run off any active person. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are, indeed, unsubstantiated allegations in this CR, because part of it was posted by SBJ from my draft, and it hasn't been fleshed out with diffs, but everything alleged can be documented, amply. That hasn't been done because it seems to be unnecessary; however, if Ottava -- or anyone else -- wishes to point to a specific allegation lacking proof, I would provide it as to anything I wrote, and I'm not aware of anything significant that Jtneil wrote that cannot be substantiated, quite well, if needed. Right now, though, it seems like beating a dead horse. --Abd 04:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is odd how you admit the allegations aren't substantiated here, with many people voting that don't have the background to know enough about the allegations. Thus, people were voting to desysop without any chance for me to defend myself and without any proof backing up the allegations. And you think this was appropriate? Moulton would have some great names for such behavior, and he did send me quite a lot of material to draw some names out of. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I did not admit that "the allegations" aren't substantiated here. I acknowledged that some allegations may not be substantiated. Plenty is. I offered to substantiate any allegations, insufficiently substantiated, that were of concern.
 * I urge all readers to consider whether allegations from any side are substantiated sufficiently or not, and take unsubstantiated allegations as just that, and request substantiation if an allegation seems serious to you and is necessary for coming to any conclusion. Please do not make assumptions either way. --Abd 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think leaving is the best outcome either. Ottava's strengths are in developing content, particularly in his field of study. Conflict management is probably something he should stay away from, but a lot of contributors here stay away from that. --SB_Johnny talk 12:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Content is based on context, and I will not have any of my work surrounded by vandalism and complete and utter crap like there existed before I took over the RC patrolling. You may enjoy having your work mocked because there are no admin willing to do their job, but I do not. I am an academic and my work would be tainted by such a disgraceful atmosphere. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "academic" is not named "Ottava Rima." Even if it were true that his content would be garbaged here, it would not reflect on the academic. The pages are not signed, to see authorship from the page itself, one would have to look at history, and would see an anonymous editor called Ottava Rima, and then the source of any vandalism. This is a preposterous argument, it is just Ottava thrashing about. If you might want to link to the content, link to a preferred version in history, or, even, take it elsewhere and host it there where you can maintain it, the license allows you to do that. Wikibreak is highly recommended, now, rather than later. Get some perspective, Ottava. --Abd 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My work is not anonymous in academia. Sj can tell you that. And if you think the WMF projects aren't attacked for vandalism and the rest, and Wikiversity more so, then you don't know what you are talking about. Look at Jtneill's work. You need some perspective, Abd. You don't work in a university classroom and build pages here for that. You don't understand the people who use this project for that nor do most of the people here responding even though such is the majority of our activity. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They know you as "Ottava Rima"? Why? I'm not seeing disagreement with me from academics who use this project, and I've had to, several times, defend them from damage from you. I haven't begun to put in this CR all the evidence I could assemble, and the reason is that you, within about one day of filing, caved and started "resigning." Without actually dropping the bit, though. I didn't file this CR, I wasn't ready, I hadn't fleshed out my sections. But your own current activity attracted so much negative response to you that it wasn't necessary. Ottava, you made your own bed by crying "lies" over and over. People dislike that. They dislike it even if it's true! But you used that word when it was preposterous, nobody sane would see the interchange as involving lies, but only, at most, differences of opinion about interpretations of, say, policies. You used it when the argument you were having was moot here, and about ancient history. You should understand that your "approach," how you deal with conflict, is crucial to a community's trust in you as a sysop. You showed that you couldn't be trusted, that your continuation as a sysop would continue to lead to conflict and disruption. By your inability to recognize and modify your behavior when warned about problems, by your continual effort to redefine every problem as being due to some agenda against you, you made it very clear to the community what action was necessary.
 * Ottava, why do you think I blocked you for two hours for calling SB_Johnny a "liar," on-wiki? You were my mentor, and you had been my friend. That action cost me my bit, as I suspected it might. Why would I do this? Think about it. If you think it is a proof of some hostile agenda, well, you are simply falling into some very bad habits. It was the opposite. I was trying to do you a favor, to call attention to something that you must see about yourself, or it will ruin your whole life. Including in academia, I very much doubt that the situation there is that much different than it is here. You might possibly be more careful there, but, if the underlying habits aren't addressed, that reserve will eventually fail.
 * Seriously. Take some time. Talk it over with some friends, in person, if you have any who will truly be honest with you, I hope you are so blessed -- they are not necessarily easy to find, and if you reject anyone as a friend who is honest with you, well, there you go. You will be filtering out the very information you need to develop your own understanding. --Abd 00:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jtneill is the only active academic here besides me, and he knows me by my real name and knows of my work. So, your statement above falls flat again. You are a petty, vindictive person who is unable to get over your own hatred for those at Wikipedia. I bent over backwards to give you freedom to pursue whatever fringe nonsense you wanted and what did you instead do? Start attacking anyone you could here. You even attacked both JWS and Moulton, two people who you should see as kindred spirits. I bet you would attack yourself if given the chance. You are a really angry person and it isn't good for anyone. And for your information, I spend a lot of time with friends. You, however, probably have no one as you spend all your time trying to destroy people and hurt their feelings. No wonder JWS and Moulton responded so negatively to you. I bet your desire to randomly make up rules to aid in your belittling and attacking others didn't make them feel too comfortable either. Moulton even called you out on that repeatedly. Abd, you no longer have the ability to hurt me, thus, you have no power over me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
As pointed out here at the Colloquium, Abd canvassed the matter on Wikipedia Review and even went to a user's talk page encouraging them to post when they know that they might have a negative view of me regardless of the fact that the user was new, lacked any experience, was banned at Wikipedia for abusive sock puppetry, and violated many of our rules including plagiarism and outing.

It isn't a coincidence that the "votes" to desysop above are pure votes, many posted before there was any defense, with many unsubstantiated claims in the community review, and with people who have been completely inactive appearing randomly. Community Review isn't a lynch mob. It isn't a tool to bash and attack others. The mere fact that a desysop proposal was put up without any proof of violation of any policy shows a complete disregard for the community and its standards, and a violation of the Community Review process.

Community Review is done by consensus only, defined as: "Consensus is not established just by counting votes. Wikiversity is guided by ideas that are in harmony with the education-oriented mission of the project. In judging consensus, it is the responsibility of all community members to give the most weight to rational arguments that support positions and points of view that are in harmony with the Wikiversity mission."

This is clearly being violated by a vote system, mass canvassing, and other problematic behaviors. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's the substance of a CR that matters. A vote might be one piece of the jig-saw. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not according to our Consensus policy, a policy Crats are supposed to know and follow. Jtneill, why is it that you failed to back up any of your claims, claim I broke rules when there were no policies forbidding my action, then state the opposite of what our policies say? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your statements and make statements within policy, because only policy statements are allowed: "Consensus is not established just by counting votes. ... it is the responsibility of all community members to give the most weight to rational arguments that support positions and points of view that are in harmony with the Wikiversity mission." Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * (ec with above) A closer may close contrary to !votes, but should be prepared to justify that -- and should explicitly justify that -- based on arguments and evidence, so that the reason for a decision is clear. It is within the closer's discretion what weight to placed on !votes by new users who have not participated on a wiki before; with those !votes, quite likely, only new arguments will be considered. The argument made here that "inactive users" should be deprecated is entirely novel and to be rejected out of hand. These are the very people whose !votes would normally have the most weight, if they are long-term and privileged contributors. But, in the end, wiki process gives very substantial authority to closers to use their best judgment. I find it odd that there is a protest against a "vote system," when no such system has been proposed here. Further, no incident of actual canvassing has been alleged by Ottava. Rather, the canvassing charges fall into three categories:
 * SB_Johnny wrote to the inactive sysops whose privileges would have been directly affected by Ottava's proposal to remove their privileges after a defined period. That was an apparent response to a question from Ottava, "Have you bothered to write them?" So he wrote them, sending all of them a neutral notice of the discussion, and disclosed that to the RfC. This is normal and proper process on Wikipedia, which has strict rules against canvassing. By the Wikipedia rules, no canvassing occurred there. What actually happened was that these admins did look at Ottava's RfC, made comments, and were uncivilly attacked. And this, I believe, inspired SB_Johnny to file the CR on Ottava. These admins now had direct and fresh experience with Ottava's incivility, and they had an interest in watching the wiki perhaps more closely than they might otherwise have done. (We don't know, of course, how closely any of them were watching.) But that a number of these admins showed up and commented in the CR is simply not surprising at all, and no canvassing is necessary to explain it. Ottava shot himself in the foot, by attacking them, by giving them strong reason to watch what was going on. Ottava might, with a great stretch -- and incorrectly -- claim that participation in the RfC was canvassed, but not participation in this CR. "Canvassing" is not just any notification of a process, it is widespread notification to a biased group not entitled to notice. Those who have worked on an article on Wikipedia may be notified of an AfD, it is not canvassing if the notice is neutral and not to a selected group, even though those who have worked on an article may indeed be biased toward keeping it!
 * I comment frequently on Wikipedia Review as to some Wikiversity news and problems, as do several other Wikiversity users, including Ottava himself, he is quite active there. I did not solicit anyone to come here, but it is possible that Thekohser noticed the CR here from the discussion there, or not. He's generally quite aware of what's going on anyway. I see no other user !voting who might have shown up from that discussion. And that level of appearance because of outside discussion is simply not a distortion of a process by canvassing.
 * Ottava has claimed that I canvassed "users." But no evidence is cited except for one user, KBlott. The diff he cites shows nothing even remotely resembling that, but there was an edit where I pointed the user to a section of the CR where it was affirmed by some that this user was legitimately blocked and that his page was legitimately deleted. I pointed the user to that section, which bore the name of KBlott, to lessen the user's irritation with Ottava, not to amplify it or fire him or her up or encourage the user to !vote. On another page, I strongly encouraged the user to drop any idea that Ottava had been biased. There was no "suggestion" at all, anywhere, that the user vote, as Ottava has claimed on the Colloquium. I was quite surprised to see the user !vote, two days after my mention of the CR, but ... from the timing, the cause would likely have been continued tendentious and uncivil argument by Ottava on Talk:Jtneill, which that user would have been watching because of prior editing there. As with LauraHale, who responded to apparent attempts by Ottava on IRC to gain support, it's likely that Ottava has effectively been canvassing for desysop votes.
 * and then, perhaps in addition to the IRC efforts by Ottava to gather support, there are now two !votes that suddenly appeared from users who have no prior edits on Wikiversity. They are both in opposition to desysopping, with the only arguments being given that the process was distorted by canvassing and that Ottava's intentions were good. Since this RfC doesn't involve impeaching Ottava's intentions, but rather his behavior, these votes show no understanding of the problem, and the major claim of canvassing here has come from ... Ottava. Hence it is quite likely that these were canvassed by Ottava or perhaps someone sympathetic to Ottava. I've asked those users to explain how they came to vote. Perhaps it was by some other means. --Abd 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What closers? This whole CR was tabled as having votes before there were any discussions, thus negating what a CR even is. A Community Review is a discussion, not a vote. It is to voice concerns, not to flash mob lynch someone. You haven't attempted any dialogue, thus, you haven't participated in the Community Review per our policy. The motion to table passed without a problem, and that is -your- fault.
 * P.S., when you make blatantly false statements, please remember that you are violating our Civility policy: "Ottava has claimed that I canvassed "users." But no evidence is cited except for one user, KBlott." - The WR link was proof enough that you were canvassing. That is an egregious offense and a violation of the purpose of Community Review. Hell, the fact that you would even post it verifies that this is not a Community Review but a means to attack and harm another person, which goes against our CR policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a further note, I posted a link in the IRC room that everyone there already saw - SB Johnny was there. Darklama was there. Draicone was there. Hard to canvass when the opposition fills the room. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a slight correction: I did email the "missing custodians" in relation to the FrC on their status. I have not emailed them in relation to this CR (and aside from Draicone, who has been a regular presence since he came by for the RfC, none of them have weighed in here as far as I can see).

I was planning on sending them another email urging them to help out with the RC patrolling and rote admin jobs, but given the concerns voiced above I'll wait until this discussion has wound down. --SB_Johnny talk 11:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not email people to say "look, there is a vote". You do not do that. That has never been acceptable. IF you were to email the inactive users, it would have been under the assumption that there was no vote - you ask them "do you want to keep your Custodian bit on Wikiversity even though you left 2 yeas ago". That would be fine. You didn't do that. You emailed them, just as you went all over Wikipedia Review trying to get support. None of that is acceptable behavior and more of a rule violation than anything you've put up above on me. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with this CR. If you feel my sending those emails was improper and worth a separate review, then just go ahead and start one, but (again) it doesn't really have anything to do with this review. --SB_Johnny talk 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing
Ottava reports a conversation on IRC. Nothing has changed, unfortunately. Posting that is a blockable offense, not for the log -- he only posted his own words -- but for the incivility. --Abd 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can be blocked for off Wiki statements then you know your WR statements can be used, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides Ottava's premise being highly misleading and bordering on a complete fiction, this is not a log of a conversation but rather a log of Ottava's monologue. --Draicone (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above) You cannot be blocked (with few exceptions) for off-wiki statements. But you quoted yourself on your Talk page, thus you brought your comments on-wiki, and, because of that, you are responsible for them. Suppose, Ottava, I called you a rude name on WR. If I came here and wrote, "Last night I called Ottava an XXXX," and especially if the context makes it plain that this is what I believe, I'm not making some confession of grievous error, I could be blocked for incivility, and I certainly should be, at least, warned. You've missed the point, so badly that the lack of clue could be fatal to your continued participation at Wikiversity. Exclusion seems to be the outcome you would prefer. If not, you are certainly trying hard to obtain an outcome you don't want. --Abd 04:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if someone else publishes the log it is fine but if I publish it it is evil? Then why should I ever give any permission to publish something? Aren't you then making another justification for me to keep it off of the board no matter what? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody else explain this to Ottava. That he published the "log" -- it's not a log, it's an extract of his own statements -- was not an offense, if the statements had not been offensive. Read my comment above. I am responsible for what is said here, by me, even if I'm quoting myself from elsewhere. I've written stuff on Wikipedia Review that if I'd copied it here, I'd properly be blocked. Similar statements of mine about a major admin at Wikipedia were quoted, by that admin, on Wikipedia, and I'm sure it had about everyone falling down laughing at how stupid that was, because he essentially allowed me to call him a Bad Name, on Wikipedia, without suffering any consequence for it. He was responsible for it, on-wiki, not me. I could have claimed a privacy violation, perhaps, but ... I don't care about that kind of privacy. I wrote it in public, I'm generally responsible for it. But context matters. --Abd 00:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal bias and vendetta supersedes reality one again. Just curious, why do you blame me for all the things that happened to you over on Wikipedia because you acted inappropriate, broke the rules, and were put out? Does it some how make you feel better that we have so few people that you can bully your way all over the place? It is nice how you were able to canvass so much support from people who clearly aren't active or aren't regulars around here. It is also nice that you turned to people who would easily turn on you, while thinking you can benefit from it all. So you built up a wonderful little sandcastle after you kicked over mine. I'm sure it will be painful for you when reality sets in. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not blame him for one single problem of mine at Wikipedia, except that by showing sympathy to him, I attracted some hostility from one disruptive user, and that, surely, was not his fault. I'm not "put out." I'm not blocked on Wikipedia. I didn't canvass support, unless two emails checking for support counts (support which would have appeared in any case) -- this is comparable to Ottava asking about things on IRC, except not so broadcast). I didn't "turn to" anybody except the active Wikiversity community, which I trusted, generally. I had nothing to do with the appearance of old-timers.

Ottava, I am well over twice your age, I was active on-line, in contentious environments W.E.L.L., when you were barely out of diapers. You have no clue about my motivations, nor what I expect. I didn't, by the way, break the rules at Wikipedia, except the unwritten one, "Thou shalt not mention the emperor's nudity," see w:User:Abd/Rule 0. I did confront a major cabal, effectively taking out a highly favored -- and highly abusive -- administrator, and that is always hazardous, so I've got two standing topic bans, based on ... totally unclear, but, in fact intuitively obvious. "Don't mess with us," is the simple explanation. "Shoot the messenger" would be another summary. And, sure, it could happen here. Last I noticed, the Wikiversity community was human. But I do see something more hopeful happening here, and it may have to do with the favoring of academic traditions here. "Painful" assumes that I'm attached to outcome. I seek consensus, always, and it can be painful, to a degree, when that's misunderstood and rejected, but ... painful compared to what? I've got children and grandchildren, deeply satisfying love in my life, and Wikiversity is a tiny part of my "agenda." I'll do my best here, but it could fall to pieces and make little difference in my life. I might be better off, even, I was better off while I was site-banned from Wikipedia, I took some major steps from the freeing up of time, opening up new vistas.

Sandcastle. Yeah. Ottava's sandcastle. Ottava, you built a sandcastle, that's exactly correct. In your mind. Who lives in castles? Kings live in castles. Ottava Rex. Was that you? But I did not kick over any actual academic work of yours, nor did I do anything but confront your incivility and bullying and a few odd rash administrative actions, and you might notice that I did not create the section asking for your bit to be removed, I was hoping that you might come to your senses. From your position, that was the sovereignty of a King being challenged. A "top organizer," the one on whom all order and sanity depends. I did not kick over the castle, the tide took it. And you stood by shaking your fists and saying, "See what you did! You'll be sorry!" --Abd 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Abd, you blatantly canvassed this page on WR and on user talk pages in a way to poison the atmosphere. If that isn't an attempt at bullying and outright abuse, you really don't understand what the words mean. You are a very mean, angry, and nasty person without any regard for anything but your own petty revenge system. Your outright disregard for propriety is proven in these actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

An immediate block based on the grounds of incivility would be inappropriate. Sometimes it is best to conflicts a little breathing room so the participants can work things out themselves before we jump to blocking users. Both Ottava and Draicone are experienced users, even custodians, we should give them a chance to work out their own before outsiders jump in and start talking about blocks for incivility. Particularly where there hasn't been any on-wiki conflict that I am aware of.

Keep in mind what constitutes incivility is largely relative. There is a serious danger in reading and interpreting other people's conversations. Often it is easy to get it all wrong. So lets just, as been suggested before put down are bats and stop taking swings at each other.

I suggest we leave this to Draicone (or Ottava) to incorporate into the community review as they see fit. Or to work it out on their own if the prefer, if there is actually anything to work out. Thenub314 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we should concentrate on this little image before we start another thread. Stop hand nuvola.svg TeleComNasSprVen 05:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but we also shouldn't try to close the discussion prematurely (as noted above). Then again, more reflection and less debate could be quite healthy at this point. --SB_Johnny talk 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, nobody is proposing immediate closure. There is no rush, as far as I'm concerned. Nor has anyone proposed, for example, blocking Ottava. I've stated that his post yesterday of his comments about Dracoine was blockable incivility. That should be considered a warning, that's all (though there have been many other warnings). I'm not the one to decide, and were I a custodian, I'd not touch him with tools. After all, I did write Recusal. --Abd 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Any other proposals?
Here's how this CR stands as I see it - there is significant community concern about incivility and lack of recusal by Ottava. There is stronger support so far for the proposal to remove custodian rights than there is opposition. As it stands, Ottava is likely to have custodian rights removed - unless an alternative solution can be suggested and for it gain greater support. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your bias is showing. This proposal is at 100% and takes into consideration the masses amount of ethical violations, canvassing, and inappropriate "voting" going on. In essence, the CR has no proposals that can be deemed "passed" because of egregious improprieties. Why is it that you sided with a proposal in which 6 people were clearly canvassed to get support yet when all of our regulars, Darklama, Geoff, etc, all say to table this whole thing you ignore it? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, that proposal seemed to assume that there was going to be a speedy close. While you may indeed, by the level and volume and widespread distribution of disruption over this, be creating an emergency, it's more likely that this will close 7 days from the proposal to desysop that was made by Adambro. That "resolution" was only against a hasty close. 7 days is not hasty. There is no clear sentiment in that "resolution" to "table this whole thing." Ottava is distorting the truth, badly. And anyone can see it, but, apparently, Ottava. --Abd 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not assume any close. It closes the CR because the CR violates all process. Can you not read? You f'ed up by turning it into a vote instead of a discussion only that is supposed to get at concerns. CR is not a tool to beat or bully users with. CRs don't have time limits. They don't "close". They are always open discussions. You really are out of touch with how things work here. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Abd. Why is 7 days too hasty here but not too hasty in the current setting? Thenub314 07:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As to your question, Jt, there would be plenty of ways to resolve this without desysopping, but they would all involve Ottava saying something like "Oops! I screwed up, thanks for pointing it out," and then working with the community to make sure that problems would not recur. Without that, I see no hope for anything but desysopping, it's gone way too far and this has been way too disruptive for any other outcome. My sysop bit was taken away by Ottava going to meta and basically misleading them as to our policy. I made no such fuss, I pointed out the problems, but didn't take over page after page with protest, didn't disrupt meta with charges, and I didn't retaliate, unless one wants to make the preposterous case that this CR, which I did not file, was retaliation. Anyone who fights this tendentiously to keep a sysop bit, and to attack those who point out possible problems, in the face of so much opposition, shouldn't have it, period. Ottava is attacking both active bureaucrats! It has gone beyond all bounds. --Abd 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Screwed up what? I unblocked a user and undeleted a page. What else do you want me to do? You make demands, I accept them, then you say how I am being so awful. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jtneil: Regarding your original question. While Geoff's proposal didn't get much attention, I would like to call your attention to it again.  We should not take action at the present time regarding tools at the present time.  If you feel the community review is not a clear statement of grievances then perhaps we could distill it down to a list of actions that those people who wish to desysop find unacceptable.  We give the feedback to Ottava, and we give him a chance to incorporate the feedback into his work, should he decide to continue editing here.  Thenub314 07:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What Jtneill conveniently forgot is that CR isn't a list of grievances nor a vote to punish people. This is a model CR: Community Review/Jtneill. Notice how you put up the specific violation, show how it is a harm to Wikiversity and rules broken, then you spend your whole time discussing the matter. There are no "votes". There are discussions. There are recommendations to change things, but that is it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see CR as a way to discuss issues and to ask the community to help find resolution. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose closure of this CR
This CR has aroused passionate arguments and defenses, and it has been difficult for many involved. The subject was, specifically, alleged behavior considered incompatible with being a sysop, for a long-time and active user, and strong feelings were understandably aroused and expressed. While issues other than those involved with sysop privilege were raised, now that those privileges have been removed, other issues can be handled with small-scale attention by custodians, routinely, if a need continues. There was no proposal on the table to ban the user, which would require a CR -- and which I do not favor -- and plenty of advice has been offered here. At this point, it seems prudent to me to ask for a close of this, to avoid beating a dead horse, kicking a man while he's down, etc. Keeping this open will waste a great deal of time, because complaints were made that the evidence was inadequate, and thus more work would be required to flesh it out, more debate would appear about bias and personal agendas, etc. Whatever is needed here could be incorporated in future process if necessary, by anyone, and if abuses were involved by any party, that could be separately examined with respect to that party. On request, courtesy blanking of this is possible, which would destroy no evidence and would leave the case in history for review as needed. I was planning to add more evidence before Mikeu closed with desysop, and, I guess I'm selfish -- that's a lot of work just to attempt to show that this was all justified! Let's move on, and I wish Ottava the best of luck, and remain grateful for all his contributions to Wikiversity, and regret deeply that it became necessary to oppose some of what he did, and see. --Abd 22:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I think we should leave the decision on whether to close to Ottava, since whatever further criticisms or discussions that happens will be for his benefit. For now, I'll remove it from the sitenotice. --SB_Johnny talk 22:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for now. --Abd 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening of Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu
Community Review/Mikeu was filed because of the long term abuse of the Bureaucratic role by Mu301/Mikeu. Closing this after 4 days when there is a clear, unanimous motion that the whole matter is tabled is just one of many inappropriate actions by Mikeu regarding this matter. His ignoring of Wikiversity:Consensus and concerns raised about mass canvassing, vote stacking of inactive users, etc, and that Community Review are only decided through policy related concerns, shows that he is no longer fit to have any authority on Wikiversity. This is a long term abuse, with many op abuses used to harm and intimidate multiple users, even going so far as to propose real life harassment of a user. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to filing the above-cited community review, out of process (there is discussion of the process there), Ottava went to meta to request reversal of the decision, and was supported in that by two Wikiversity sysops, whose positions should be noted. There seems to be some rather drastic misunderstanding of how meta works, because precedent there is clear that the remedy for error in desysopping, if there is one, is local, if there are local 'crats. The meta discussion is at . --Abd 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)