Summary: SB Johnny is a far more serious danger to the independence of Wikiversity than anyone else.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 19th November 2011, 5:49pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 18th November 2011, 10:43pm)
This much is true these days... on the wikis where my global lock has been overturned, I've presented zero disruption. On the wikis where the global lock is enforced, I do seem to cause disruption, at least how they define it.
Right, but you were "banned" because Jimbo said so, and he said so because he doesn't like you. I don't think it's necessarily a bad sign that teh communiteh decided to ban the poetlister.
It's a distinction without a difference. "The community" is the community aware of and active on meta. This is not the Wikiversity community, nor is it the global community.
Meta is utterly unsafe, except for Ottava, who has a Special Immunity Badge. Same at Wikiversity. SBJ has protected him because he's a convenient attack dog.
Of course SBJ approves of the Poetlister ban. But Poetlister wasn't disruptive at Wikiversity. SBJ is, on Wikiversity, pretending to be unclear about the community consensus. That's because with Ottava and others around, it's possible to gather quick comment that rejects the long-established policy that non-disruptive users are not to be blocked without a community consensus, and those who are obviously not present on Wikiversity to build the place, but to either tear it down (which could even include SBJ) or to make sure that personal enemies are not allowed to function there, can present an appearance that SBJ and others then use to claim that my unblock of Poetlister wasn't "consensus." It wasn't consensus. It was an action within custodial discretion, and clearly so.
By standard practice, an unblock doesn't require consensus. SBJ even noted this himself when unblocking Thekohser. Basically, SBJ uses whatever arguments he can find to rationalize his actions. And the claque falls for it.
There was no emergency with my sysop bit, as claimed by SBJ. I'd made two button pushes considered inappropriate. Both were quickly reversed. The first, and only really important one, was the unblock of Poetlister. I did not unblock immediately, I waited almost five days, making sure that there was some agreement with the Wikiversity blocking policy. The relevant sections of that "proposed policy" have stood for years without challenge. That's [also] an expression of consensus.Block log.
21:58, 6 November 2011 SB Johnny blocked Poetlister1 with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (Globally blocked per community consensus on meta. We need consensus here to override that)
SBJ pretends that there was no community consensus on meta. What's so is that there was no RfC. There was an operating consensus. What SBJ is doing is ratifying meta consensus when he agrees with it, and not when he doesn't. The prior position was clear: Wikiversity manages its own wiki, including deciding who may edit. Meta may make a global default, by locking, but local wikis may decide about local accounts. Attempts to shut down Wikiversity because of "defiance" there went nowhere. The real danger to Wikiversity comes from within, as we will see. More accurately, it comes from a certain faction in the community, largely technocratic, mostly non-academic.
13:35, 15 November 2011 Abd unblocked Poetlister1 (In discussion, no justification per WV policy for block was shown. No danger exists from unblock. User has not been disruptive here.)
I mentioned discussion. Specifically, besides prior email discussion with my mentor, Jtneill (the other active bureaucrat on Wikiversity), and with Thenub314, there wasOn Poetlister/Poetlister1Request custodian actionUser talk:BilbyUser talk:Poetlister1User talk:SB JohnnyColloquium discussion of Poetlister1
Because of controversy, I appended a notice that I'd unblocked to this discussion.On blocking policy/bansPermanent custodial discussion for Thenub314
(also mentions Poetlister) Thenub, in this candidacy statement, clearly said that he'd block to enforce a global ban, if the ban followed global ban policy. That policy doesn't yet exist. And who decides "global ban policy"? The WMF has the right, but it doesn't want to touch this. However, it might be convenient for some if meta becomes a global government. The practical effect, though, will be to make the rest of the WMF wikis helpless appendages to Wikipedia, for Wikipedia users can easily dominate at meta. A large non-English 'pedia may also do this; it's an issue of mobilizable user base.Blocking policy
has not changed significantly.Community Review on global bans as of my unblock action.
Wiki decisions, in theory, are not made by voting. Rather, arguments are to be considered. Comments may be deprecated by a closer based on the nature of participants; a participant who shows up just to comment may not carry the same weight as one who is a regular contributor to the wiki. So, given established policy and practice (confirmed by SBJ in the past), given a discussion showing significant weight toward confirming the policy (most notably see the opinion of Jtneill in the Global Ban Community Review), I acted within custodial discretion, and because of the extensive discussion, and because of policy on unblocking, I was well within WV policies and practices.
15:14, 15 November 2011 Thenub314 blocked Poetlister1 with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (Wheel warring, no discussion about this user took place.)
The one who wheel-warred was Thenub314. He did not discuss the unblock with me, nor with the community, before reversing it. He unblocked, rather, on a procedural argument that is widely understood as bankrupt. (I.e., improper custodian action. It's mostly done in the other direction, i.e., admin blocks, admin was involved, should not have blocked, therefore unblock. It's an error because the block reason, hazard to the wiki being asserted, should always be considered.) SBJ did this in the matter of Ottava Rima's block.
"No discussion"? Is he crazy? (No, he's obtuse and argues from conclusions.) If anything there was too much discussion, not "no discussion."
With unblocks, an unblock template is routinely reviewed by another custodian, who may decide, especially after discussion, but may also decide immediately if policy is clear. The policy suggests an uninvolved custodian if possible. That's why I first went to Request custodian action and RCA. However, policy was clear, no policy-based arguments had appeared in almost five days, hence I saw my responsibility as being to unblock.
And what this revealed was some serious corruption, specifically ownership of the wiki by SBJ, and his willingness to lie to keep control. There are some who considered the action foolish, but that assumes that I'd care about the consequences of confronting SBJ.
That I undid an action of his, no matter what the arguments, was, for him, an emergency, and so he went to meta. When a relatively straightforward request for emergency desysop did not work, he lied. And Thenub314 supported this.
There was no violation of my custodial agreement. There was a dispute over the agreement page, and I'd deleted it, for technical reasons (page in user space, sole author, not wanted in user space, revert warring on move back to Wikiversity space) -- and revised the agreement, but that was merely a proposal. I undid this rapidly. I never violated the agreement. There was no risk; had I violated the agreement, SBJ -- or anyone, really -- could have requested a steward desysop immediately.
The meta decision, given the BS they were eventually fed, was proper. Jtneill, very conservative, is not willing to re-sysop, preferring to present the matter for vote, which is a reasonable decision in itself, though it will probably result in "failure." I prefer not to call in the reserves on a matter where I'm involved. Guess what? I won't be involved next time. (If you want to understand this, read the Talk page
for the voting page, together with the original voting. Analysis reveals much about what is going on.)
I've always said I didn't need the tools to do my work on Wikiversity. Indeed, they were a distraction and a restriction. I spent months handling spammers and vandals, welcoming users, and generally supporting the community, highly active and highly useful, recognized by SBJ in the first voting on my permanent custodianship. I'm now free from that obligation. Feels good, frankly.The meta request.
Notice that SBJ does not mention the "rash actions" at first. He doesn't want to call attention to his personal involvement. Notice that he leads with the BS issue of "altering the terms of his agreement." What I proposed would have made me like any other probationary custodian. However, when there was objection, I reviewed the original discussion and concluded that some, at least, had depended on the agreement for their support, so I undid those changes while I still had the tools. That was transient, and involved no emergency. Any custodian could simply have gone ahead and enforced the agreement, as it existed when made (the original agreement referred to a permanent version. In moving this to my user space, SBJ broke the links, that was part of my objection). SBJ took advantage of that opportunity, fully. It allowed him to actually ignore the agreement, while blaming me. But the substance, clearly, was the Poetlister unblock, and the principle, being asserted by Darklama -- with Ottava Rima -- of unblocking allegedly requiring consensus, which is a principle which removes the protections of policy and allows a transient majority to dominate.
SBJ is clearly on the side of the conditions that have largely paralyzed the wikis, not allowing them to adapt to changing circumstances. These ways of operating favor the continuation of power of people like SBJ. It's ironic that one of the claims made about me is that I supposedly was rigid and didn't respond to criticism, but, in fact, the record shows the reverse, and those making the claims of rigidity are the most rigid. Not a surprise, eh?
There is discussion of this, to some extent, in my current Permanent Custodian voting, currently in the site message on Wikiversity. I just love one of the arguments: candidate is not qualified because candidate has been rejected, three strikes and you're out. Besides being circular, this prejudges the outcome. This is the third probationary custodianship, which was made "permanent" by a compromise in the second voting. (There was no PC vote in the second period.) It is the third voting. SBJ now claims (in the meta discussion, misrepresenting the history) that the compromise was a mistake. Nice that he admits his errors, eh? Mistake because?
In that vote, SBJ would not have been able to legitimately close. Jtneill would have closed. Jtneill is conservative, for sure, but the pattern shown on the Talk page is unmistakeable. I don't know what he would have done. The compromise avoided that mess. A desysop in midstream misrepresents the situation to the community, some of which will assume that if this was done, must have been a good reason, which is a misunderstanding of how stewards work.This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 20th November 2011, 6:49pm