Requests for comment/Danny B.’s abuse of admin rights

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. No actions needed setting apart from Billinghurst's suggestions. I already also suggested Danny B to avoid interactions with Juandev, also leaving any action needed towards him to another sysop or to a global sysop/steward would eventually avoid any polemic. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC statement by Juandev[edit]

December 3, 2013 Danny B. as a Czech Wikiversity administrator blocked me on Czech Wikiversity for one day. The reason set in the action summary was: Personal attacks: repeated lying on the activities of other users and presenting these lies as a truth (cs: osobní útoky: opakované lhaní o činnosti jiných uživatelů a vydávání těchto lží za pravdu).

I feel in this case innocent and damaged. I also think that Danny B. has abused his powers, because he is in conflict of interest (widesprad policy). The fact that we are in conflict is widely known. For me it’s more like a persecution, rather than conflict. You can read more in the previous RFC (where no recommendation was left to solve the problem).

Other cs.wv administrator was asked for re-examination of a case, but with no results. That’s why I open this RFC. It was coined, what was a reason for such action summary, but Danny B. never answered when asked:

The day I was blocked I was so angry, that I have used open proxies and follow editing (but not hiding my identity). For this reason, I was blocked again by Danny B. Now I know I had to calm down and wait until the end of block. And I am sorry for that.

Statement of Danny B.[edit]

Views by users[edit]


The Czech Wikiversity only possesses two local sysops, so I don't believe that it's possible to enact or enforce an uninvolved sysop policy with local resources alone. Outside intervention might be appropriate, since the dispute is unlikely to be resolved at a small wiki and since the greater dispute involves more than just the Czech Wikiversity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information and viewpoints at a previous RfC about Danny B. and Juandev. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I am the other admin on the Czech Wikiversity. I have protested already against the above described act of blocking Juandev "for lying about other useres"; in my oppinion, the accusations written by Danny B. were absolutely nonsense. I asked Danny B. to explain the accusations, but I have received no answer about it.

I am not versed in the technical side of WM software (my primary interest to become an admin was to systematize the contents of Czech Wikiversity better and more useful for educational purposes, and Danny B. assured he could take care of the technical problems). For me, I cannot see any blocking on Juandev's account, so that I am not able to end his blocking. --Mmh (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this RfC, I am not demanding someone to allow me to edit using "that" IP. I am asking for comments on Danny's behaviour and his actions towards me on cs.wv done in the mentioned block.
But if we are talking about my inability to edit Czech Wikiversity, you probably allready noticed, it is because the IP I normally used is blocked, without an exception. To reverse this technically an admin can:
  1. go to Czech Wikiversity's Special:Block
  2. untick the option Zabránit přihlášeným uživatelům editovat z této IP adresy (en: Cannot participate by logging in either)
  3. Click on Znovu zablokovat uživatele s tímto nastavením (en: Re-block the user with these settings)
--Juandev (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Juandev, but in complaining about Danny B.'s behavior, you wrote:
The day I was blocked I was so angry, that I have used open proxies and follow editing (but not hiding my identity). For this reason, I was blocked again by Danny B. Now I know I had to calm down and wait until the end of block. And I am sorry for that.
It is one thing if you are blocked for a day, even if improperly. It is another thing if you remain blocked. Did you really file this RfC because of a one day block for alleged incivility, extended by twelve hours for disruptive block evasion, a matter that was over two months ago? Your only block? The process for addressing an improper block of that kind would be on cs.wikiversity. Complaints like that, here, do nothing but irritate people and waste time.
If the block was improper, Danny B. should be told so, by the cs.wv community. As well, if Juandev was uncivil, he should be told so, and not here, as invited by this RfC, but the same as Danny B., on cs.wikiversity.
Juandev, you complained that Danny B. had not responded, but he is not required to respond. His lack of response would not stop the community from speaking. It would not stop the other sysop from asking him not to block you again. It would not stop the other sysop from assisting you. He is not required to obtain Danny B.'s approval. The normal way that these things are fixed, as to blocks, is that the user is unblocked, or the block expires and nobody worries about it.
Yes, you were angry. And that led you to do things that caused more problems. That's all. If you are sorry, then take responsibility for the consequences of what you did. That's what "sorry" actually means. I've been indef blocked for offenses I did not commit, and didn't roll out the big guns. It's not a meta matter (except for meta blocks, another story). One simply works to assure the community that there is no problem requiring the maintenance of a block. Attacking a blocking administrator is almost always a bad idea, rarely does it end well.
If an administrator is abusive, they will usually be abusive to others as well, and you will find more success in defending others than in taking high umbrage at being warned or blocked yourself. Meatball:DefendEachOther, I cut my teeth on that one.
Above, you give instructions for converting a hard block to a soft block. There are three options, and that is the one probably to be least preferred. Why? Because if it is an open proxy, one does want to prevent it from being used by logged-in accounts without some sort of attention being paid to the matter.
Unblocking the IP would be simpler. IP blocks are not normally to be maintained long. There is no sign of other disruption from this IP, so maintaining it as blocked is probably a bad idea. (I suspect that, in fact, the IP blocked was not an open proxy, comments have been read this way, but there may be other interpretations. It was the "master account," which could mean the IP considered to be using the open proxies.)
If there were global disruption, stewards would globally block, and then Mmh would need to use the third option anyway, the one recommended by Billinghurst. You would be assigned the "IP block exempt" user right. I gave explicit instructions for this on the Talk page here.
Billinghurst provided guidance, I highly recommend it:
I don't see that this RFC as a credible way to progress the issue, it is simply a continuation of combative processes, and more blame. Both of you screw your heads on and get a resolution.
For the sake of cs.wikiversity, will you do this? --Abd (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really file this RfC because of a one day block for alleged incivility, extended by twelve hours for disruptive block evasion, a matter that was over two months ago? --> No. I file this RfC because of a one day block for alleged incivility, the conflict behaviour, which was not resolved. Czech Wikiversity doesnt have so detailed methodology to solve conflicts. We tried one and it failed. Normally on Wikipedia you start with disscussion. If it failes you file RFC. If it fails, you may go for mediation or arbitration. So for cs.wv the logic second step is Meta's RFC (see Requests for comment ..."It may also be useful to gain wider input regarding conflicts on Meta, or unresolved issues on other Wikimedia projects with the hopes of obtaining resolution.")
Regarding the IP block. My RFC is not about IP block, thats why, I havent mentioned it in my statment. I am just giving a side information to admin Mmh, who doesnt know how to make an exception. So I am explaining it technically to him. How this problem will be managed depends on the local cs.wv community.--Juandev (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is true for the entire problem, Juandev. A meta RfC is far from the "second logical step." This would be a shallow understanding of both Wikipedia and meta. Meta RfCs do allow an opportunity to "gain wider input," but that wider input generally has no authority over a local wiki. Wikipedia RfCs are for participation by Wikipedia users. The first step is very-small scale discussion, yes, typically on user talk pages. However, there are many other local steps that can be taken, but because you were blocked, you could not initiate them or take them. That's why the local block (of your IP) needed solving first. It is now solved.
Above, you have claimed that cs.wv "does not have so detailed methodology to solve conflicts." It is a wiki. Wikis *intrinsically* have conflict resolution methodology, it is almost impossible to stop it. You may not have an equivalent of v:Wikiversity:Community review, which is the process used on en.wv for, among other things, desysopping when needed. But any user could create that process on cs.wv. It's just a page creation! A single administrator could not stop it, without the agreement of other administrator(s). (If wheel-warring between two soled administrators sets in, there is an issue where meta might become involved, i.e., stewards might intervene
You did not request desysopping here, that was done by another user. However, this process cannot result in desysopping, I don't think that has ever worked. That requires a local discussion, which stewards will then review. Occasionally it's worked when a local 'crat came here and requested desysopping. You know who that would need to be, right?
You have been advised, by a steward, to get it together on cs.wikiversity. You will not accomplish that with this discussion here. One of the projects I have in mind is a study of meta RfCs. Are they working? What kinds of results do they produce? My impression is that "user RfCs," on meta, about behavior elsewhere, are almost entirely a waste of time, yet they can become train wrecks. We might set up, here, a mediation process with the goal of reconciling users in conflict. That might work better, though sometimes users don't want to be reconciled. --Abd (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I am asking some questions on Talk, before I give more opinion or propose solutions. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There are more levels of this problem:

  • Juandev is one of founders of czech Versity. He worked here for long time, but big part of his (and other few contributors) contributions were things like "Fridge not cooling (Juandev)" or "Lightbulb/changing (Juandev)" or "Database of dreams". For this Versity was called as "Juandeversity" among some other people, and there vere some efforts about closing this project. Now there are some people who wants to cleanup csversity, make structure, and delete "ballast". But Juandev usually said: "this is useful researching project, do not delete it". So many cleanup efforts crashes here.
  • Danny_B. is techical-oriented user. His contributions are mainly in other namespaces (Templates, modules, gadgets...) and he develops tools. So he wants that souce must be clean and structured. This is one of conflict-points of his works, when he delete something from page because "not semantic, not designated for this purpose".
  • Conflict between these two is long history. I don't know what Danny is supposed to do to Juandev, but I am sure, tha Juandev in 2011 in maillist called Danny "thief", and when others wanted some proof, he told that Danny in Mediagrant obstructed some his requests, so Juandev feels robbed. And there were more insults betveen them in czech WMF chapter.
  • czech editors are in three groups: One (mainly people connected with Czech WMF chapter) is against Danny, because his technocratic opinions, second (mainly working in other projects than WP too) is for Danny and third does not care this problem. So there is hard to find somebody independent
  • There were some anonymous edits on some projects, which were reverting Danny's contributions, attacking him, revealing personal informations etc. and some of them looked like Juandev's - but no evidence.

It seems that Juandev is still frustrated (Danny have reason to be so) and looking for opportunity how to defame or harm Danny. And this RFC looks like another instance.

JAn Dudík (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue with JAnD as far as I know, that he strongly supports Danny B. So the argumentation, would not bear fruits. But I would like to place here my point of view on what was said by JAnD.
  • I wonder, why Jan Dudík calls this project Versity. Its not Versity, nor PerVersity its officialy called (and recognized by WMF) Wikiversity. || I dont feel ashamed for the pages I created there. Wikiversity has been an experimental project and the ways to study and research are different. The Database of Dreams is a nice example of the Wikiversity research. It was developed by v:cs:User:Kychot with the aim to study peoples dreams. The method used is to collect high amount of data (=dreams) and than research them using statistics. Mathematics used to describe dreams are recently used by doc. Antonio Zadra at Center for Advance Research in Sleep Medicine under the University of Montreal. || So I think that the fact that Jan Dudík, doesnt like the content of Wikiversity, doesnt give him a right to be uncivil. The term "Juandeversity" is not known to me and I hear it for the first time. But Jan Dudík is known to me for his uncivil expressions: JAnD sais, we want to preserve stench and warmth on the wv, the page is rubish, JD accuses admin Mmh from having My illness (=a therm probably created by user Milda from his sockpuppet as checked by steward at the time of a deletion of this term from cs.wikt) || As far as I remember, Danny B. was talking about the possibility to close Czech Wikiversity, but never come with serious proposal.
    • "Now there are some people who wants to cleanup csversity, make structure, and delete "ballast"." --> JAnD, Danny B., Milda, Lenka64, Zdenekk2 call the wikiversity content "balast" and they would like to delete most of its pages. Most of this users came to the Czech Wikiversity this summer(JAnD's involvment and his contributions to main ns), (Milda contrbs), (Lenka64 contrbs), (Zdenekk2 contrbs) and started to oppose proposals[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] of deeply involved users (me (main), Mmh (main), Kychot (main), Kusurija (main)) for the evaluation of the project, tyiding, structuralizing and making it better and understandable.[1] We followed to disscuss even we were overloaded by Danny's deletions (done without community consensus) and proposals for deletion on tens of pages. By the beggining of winter 2013 we agreed on an experimental clean up in one group of pages. After some days I was blocked all my edits were reverted (by Danny B.) and as confirmed by JAnD above cs.wv is massively deleted by Danny B. (without community consensus).
    • So many cleanup efforts crashes here. --> clean up efforts presented here by Jan Dudík are based on mass page deletion by Danny B. and mass page deletion proposals by user:Zdenekk2. These deletions makes big mess in cs.wv, because Danny B. doesnt fix links and page associations. Jan Dudík is not talking about clean up effort done since early summer 2013 by long time contributors. These efforts were opposed firsty by Danny B., who was commenting the only efort should be mass deletion. Danny B. was talking about "other" concept, but as several times asked for such concept, this concept was never proposed by him. Other rarely oposing newbies were invited tu further discussion, but they never came.
  • As an admin, Danny B. had been more like working on issues he liked and rarely helped to the community if asked. || So he wants that souce must be clean and structured. --> wv is not about clean and structured source. The goal of wv approved by WMF is to host learning and research communities, is to host learning and research content. I think technocracy should not stay on the first position in the project development. Two big problems of Danny's systematic deletion is a) no community consensus behind, b) messyng wv by orphaned pages (i.e. Danny renames pages, than deletes former name, but not fixing relations to the former page name).
  • For me Jan's point of view is partly the same as mine. But I feel it is also manipulative at the point presenting untruth. Sadly Jan's POV is also a libel.--Juandev (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Juandev over a long-term period committed offensive confrontational behavior against his opponents on cs.wikiversity (sometimes using open proxies), IRC queries and even real life, the most of them against Danny B. Due to the "unacceptability of using of sysop rights in own dispute on Wikimedia projects" Juandev felt unpunishable for this activity, when second of two admins, as Juandev's friend, ignored his inappropriate behaviour.

A few months ago disputes between "founders" and "new users" about clean-up of very poor content of cs.wikiversity have grown into personal, offensive and confrontational form. Thus Danny B. announced Advent program of zero tolerance towards personal attacks and trolling regardless the difference of the originator of such misconduct (in Czech language we have nice short idiom "padni komu padni" used when investigation or punishment is done regardless to personal relationships). While others backed up, Juandev was continuously trying to raise the boundary of the tolerance. According to it, I don't consider one-day block of Juandev's account and subsequent restart due to circumvention of the block using open proxy to be Danny B.'s abuse of sysop rights in own dispute. Using method "if sysops would be my enemies, their can never block me" should not be accepted.

I'm sorry if this statement is not accompanied with appropriate diffs, but using the time to creation and improvement of project content is more important for me than to disputes with one user, who tries to discredit his opponent in the international Wikimedia community. --Milda (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another strong supporter of Danny B. describing something which never happened (untruth information given here) and presenting libel as the comment of Jan Dudík. Milda supports what I wrote bellow my previous comment (A few months ago disputes between "founders" and "new users" about clean-up of very poor content of cs.wikiversity have grown), that suddenly several users supporting Danny B., but who had no previous valuable record to the Czech Wikiversity came. They where never strongly contributing to cs.wv fullfiling its goals. But they put a preasure on actual cs.wv community, that most of its content should be deleted. The preasure woth both agressive and uncivill, verbaly attacking different users and flooding them.
This group (Danny B., Milda, Lenka64 (known as Dubicko), JAnD and potentionaly others) is known to me as a group, which comes to the projects, hurl invective to the "active" community and leave the project void. Examplary case is Czech Wikinews, the project which was in a pretty good shape and growing. It had several admins and they were creating several news a week and growing. Than started the disputes between Danny B. and Aktron (the founder of cs.wn). So Aktron have left. During the time other acitive users where leaving untill the end of 2012, when the last hightly active users Okino was chased out.[17] Members of this group comented that the project will be wealthy without Okino a very active contributor. When Okino left the contribution to the content of Czech Wikinews community rapidally decreased, not just becaus Okino, but the opposition group stoped to edit or was doing that wery sparsely. This can by shown on this graphics.--Juandev (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billinghurst (steward)[edit]

Technical information: The extended block on the IP at the underlying heart of the abuse was placed by me. Me alone, based on my analysis of the edits, and some other detail that I was able to ascertain from tools available to me as a steward.

Interpretation of that block's success: From the imposition of the block it is my understanding that the block effectively stopped the abuse. The cries of innocence from the affected party and other statements that were produced at the time stretch credibility, and subsequently, that person has a trust deficit with me. The abuse that was occurring was simply unacceptable, and there are and should be consequences for such continued misbehaviour. That said, I have seen other evidence of poor practice by others at that wiki, so I doubt there is a complete purity.

Overall, I am unaware of the general misbehaviours of either of the warring parties, or their long-running history, and frankly I don't really care. That parties make it so personal is forever a disappointment to me, they are then solely focusing on themselves, their ego, rather than on the long-term productive scope of the projects. You don't have to like people, but you do have to get along, or, at least find a way to co-exist. Stop your extreme edits that upset others, get the work done in the areas where you do agree. Use talk pages, use talk pages, use talk pages, if you cannot agree get a third/fourth/fifth party opinion. Learn to get along. Set standards of behaviour. For each combatant, IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

I don't see that this RFC as a credible way to progress the issue, it is simply a continuation of combative processes, and more blame. Both of you screw your heads on and get a resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were already calling to stop combativnes and start to work on the project scope. I listen to you, but I couldnt as you blocked my IP address without exception. But this RFC is not about you, its not about your IP block. It is about the abuse, which was not resolved on cs.wv.--Juandev (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to resolve it there. Unless Danny B. were to agree to some kind of mediation here, I don't see it happening here. I'm beginning a process of reviewing all Meta RfC's. It's looking pretty grim, when it comes to users complaining about alleged abuse on the WMF wikis. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions[edit]

Proposal by Michaeldsuarez[edit]

Danny B. has avoided interacting with Juandev on Meta, including a previous RfC. Danny B. and Juandev need to interact with each other on Meta. Danny B. needs to answer Juandev's questions and respond to his or her criticism. Otherwise, reconciliation (the ultimate goal) isn't possible. If Danny B. offers appropriate, non-controversial answers and responses but Juandev isn't satisfied with them and continues to press Danny B., Juandev should be advised to back off. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how this will help to solve problem. What questions should be answered?--Juandev (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that the situation would be better if you and Danny B. were on speaking terms. Avoiding interactions with you doesn't make the issues and animosity go away. Ignoring you simply prolongs the conflict indefinitely. Right now, an user is "avoiding interactions" with me, yet that user is still watching me and my talk page on Commons: [18], [19]. Obviously, that user privately told Billinghurst not to give me copies of deleted revisions. That user is still obsessed with me, and avoiding direct interactions with me isn't making that obsession go away. Even without direct interactions, you two will be eternal opponents. Reconciliation is the best route to take, and in order to that to be achieved, there needs to be an dialogue between the two of you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping of Danny B.[edit]

Speaking as a completely uninvolved and neutral person, never having heard of this dispute before nor the background of the people so involved within it, beyond the information I could glean from the introduction and the text of the previous RFC subpage, I believe I am qualified to mediate on this dispute. I shall attempt to make this as brief as possible:

  • It is acknowledged that Danny B., as well as Mmh and Juandev, are both highly active and useful contributors to the Czech Wikiversity project.
  • It is acknowledged that there is a significant lack of balances and checks of administrator abuse on the Czech Wikiversity project, due to the lack of not only other administrators and bureaucrats able enough to monitor each other's actions, but also the lack of significant community members and contributors needed to handle such a large ambitious project.
  • It is acknowledged that, however small a community there might be in place there, we have had two members, Juandev and Mmh (the latter the only other administrator on cswikiversity) as well as several outside members mediating in the previous RFC on meta, come to a consensus that there was misuse of administrator tools.

The following is thus proposed:

  1. Danny B. is to be desysopped for misuse of administrator tools. Please note that this has no bearing on his standing as an editor, which has an excellent track record thus far. It merely means that he is perhaps unfit to wield the administrator tools or carry them out, not that he should be blocked from participating in cswikiversity.
  2. To continue with administrator-related tasks, he may propose them to either Mmh or the stewards, who will use their discretion and better judgment assist as necessary those tasks deemed appropriate for cswikiversity, as they may have better use of the tools than he does.
  3. Danny B. may reapply to administratorship after a significant amount of time has elapsed, preferably after the community has matured enough for more administrators to keep checks on each other's actions.
  4. The cswikiversity community is urged to develop requests for adminship and adminship review processes to better handle these situations, rather than having to rely on Meta-Wiki's limited global authority to govern other wikis' affairs for them.

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omg... "Juandev is active and useful contributor to the Czech Wikiversity project"... Juandevs IP address was blocked as long-term abusing open proxy on Czech Wikiversity by Billinghurst [20]. --Lenka64 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I managed to read a little bit of Billinghurst has said, so I suppose it's a much more complex issue than I originally thought. The overall general health of cswikiversity and its participants seems to be in total disrepair. Juandev does note above: "The day I was blocked I was so angry, that I have used open proxies and follow editing (but not hiding my identity). For this reason, I was blocked again by Danny B. Now I know I had to calm down and wait until the end of block. And I am sorry for that." However, this does not excuse his behavior either. What other remedies could you propose to prevent this factional separatism, beyond the proposed points? This could be like Croatian Wikipedia all over again. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not mine IP. Its a public IP and I have told this to the acting steward. You can google it.--Juandev (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On the balance of probability I would have said that Juandev is behind the socks and the abuse. There is no evidence that there is another member of your community at the IP who would undertake that sort of negative abusive activity. This is not random spambot activity, this is targeted and specific abuse where the person thought that they could do it unidentified by hiding behind external IP addresses." (Billinghurst) --Lenka64 (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the obvious: Blocking an IP, even a hard block, as this may be, for arguably disruptive behavior, is not an abuse of admin rights. The issue here would be the initial block, maintained, in effect, without local consensus, not subsequent enforcement of the block, though enforcement can be a subsidiary issue, i.e., if enforcement itself causes substantial collateral damage. The issue here, then, is not Juandev. Juandev could have socked to high heaven after being blocked, and that would not make the block legitimate. I'm far more concerned about the only restraint on Danny B being another admin who is apparently clueless as to how to be effective. In saying that, I'm not blaming him, I am, again, just pointing out the obvious. This is a soluble problem, and my biggest issue with meta RfCs is the lack of focus on soluble problems. "Danny B was abusive," vs "Juandev was abusive" is not a soluble problem, in a way that avoids damage to the wiki. But we imagine that we solve problems by identifying the "bad guy" creating them. It hardly ever works, it just moves problems around, changes faces, etc.
The other admin could, for example, if local admins have the right, make Juandev IP block exempt. It's commonly done, when legitimate users get caught in a range or IP block for open proxies, and if it can't be done locally, a cswv admin could certainly request a steward do it. Juandev could request that, but if it is requested by a local admin, it will be more solid. If Juandev continues to use that IP for access, he should be aware that he might get whacked for socking, even if he hasn't, but checkuser will reveal more information than raw IP. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tele: I don't believe that it's appropriate to punish only a single party. I suspect that Juandev is somewhat obsessed with Danny B. He or she is the most frequent poster to Danny B.'s talk page. Juandev is also constructing a bad faith "open letter" without any solid evidence ("Danny B. didn't respond to my question" is not evidence). My proposal provides a means to limit Juandev's postings to Danny B.'s talk page for a reason. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was about Danny B., but I agree that you are correct Juandev's behavior was not exemplary either in this matter so I was thinking of some form of sanctions against Juandev as well. I'd perhaps go with your solution, in addition to mine. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Juandev is strongly encouraged to drop the cudgel. In saying this, I am not rejecting his upset, only pointing out how the upset creates further problems. I have been through certain analogous experiences, I know full well how upsetting admin recusal failure can be. However, if we care about the wiki, we will focus on what will resolve issues, not just for ourselves, but for all users, and "Get rid of the bad guy" is rarely a useful solution, long term. Wiki structures create roles that people fill, kick on Bad Guy out of a role, someone else will fill it. Wikiversity, as I understand the goals -- from the founders and as what I see as obvious possibilities -- is intrinsically far less creative of contentious dispute than the 'pedias. It is quite possible on a Wikiversity site to live and let live, unless 'pedians bring and apply 'pedia limitations to a wikiversity. Imagine a university where the only subjects that can be taught, studied, discussed, written about are "notable encyclopedic topics," with minority points of view excluded, with original research excluded, and you are imagining something that is far, far from a university. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be said that TeleComNaSprVen doesn't know anything of the "background of the people so involved", as he had at least interacted with Danny B. (and me, that's how I know) on Incubator some years ago. See e.g. here. --MF-W 19:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. @MF-W: To be honest with you, I had completely forgotten about that earlier engagement on Incubator. No worries though, even if you decided that way, I had nothing personal against neither him nor you. Beyond that, I had never bothered to research Danny's background before. What does probably help in his case is that, I've noted, Special:CentralAuth/Danny B. shows him holding multiple advanced permissions levels on several different wikis, so his work has been honest in other wikis. But the controversy here, on the Czech Wikiversity, is staining his record, and his lack of response is further indicative of his lack of willingness to reconcile the issue. Has the indicated party also made attempts to contact Danny B. on his talkpage on Meta? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to have a complete record. Examples, where Danny lost his possitions or resigned after strong opposition: Administrator on Wikidata, GAC member, Global interface right, Importer at Wikiversity Beta, Administrator on Czech Wikipedia.--Juandev (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered to mediate the dispute between Juandev and Danny B., though still just by mentioning it. I would not pretend to be neutral or uninvolved, though I recall no prior interaction with Danny B. I have had friendly interaction with Juandev in the past. However, my offer is about supporting Wikiversity. I want the Wikiversity projects to be successful, and we need all the help we can get. That includes Danny B. and Juandev.
TCNSV, in this RfC, added a proposal to desysop Danny B,[21] also seen above, and what was pointed to above by MF-W was a successful TCNSV desysop discussion initiated on Incubator by Danny B. I read all the links provided above by Juandev. Fascinating.
The list of discussions that were closed adversely to Danny B could be relevant to a full consideration of this user, but if there is going to be a list, there should be a complete list, not just one cherry-picked for adverse conclusions.
CentralAuth shows Danny B. is currently a 'crat on 8 WMF wikis, and sysop on 9 additional wikis, and since importer rights are mentioned, he has import rights on an additional three wikis. That is advanced permissions on 17 wikis. His WMF-wide edit count is at 39,415. In that context, a handful of adverse discussions does not necessarily mean much.
Reviewing Danny B. contributions, and aligned with what Billinghurst wrote on the RfC page, Danny B. has had difficulty handling criticism, and that skill is crucial to administrators and especially bureaucrats; the Wikidata discussion shows this, his responses alienated supporters.
However, desysopping is not the first remedy to be advised, it is not even the second. Cs.wikiversity may need assistance in developing process for restrainiing the "enthusiasm" of highly active users, who often, putting in so much work, develop a sense of ownership. Because the Wikiversity concept is intrinsically less creative of content controversy than the encyclopedic concept, Wikiversities may be good places to develop policy and efficient procedure on this. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RFC on this same matter was closed because there was no actionable request made in the course of the RFC, no concrete outcome specified and merely a list of grievances between two users on Czech Wikiversity, a not very well monitored self-governing wiki and apparently the source of many disputes and factions. To ward off such concerns, I have proposed an actionable remedy thus, in the style of the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee. No matter how wrong it may seem an outcome, this is still an open RFC and the discussion is meant to be open to all, not only just editors from the Czech Wikiversity; it may very well gain enough support to pass, or it may be rejected out of hand. I made this proposal after reviewing the actions made on Czech Wikiversity, and I did in fact take into account Danny B.'s status as trusted sysop on multiple other wikis, which is why I chose not to call for his block. I've also yet to take into account Juandev's part in the disruption of Czech Wikiversity, so other users such as Michael are free to propose remedies for the other party as well.

If I remember correctly, I've only ever had limited interaction of Danny B., if any at all, outside of Incubator Wiki. On other wikis, I've had almost no encounters with him at all, and his lack of response here is IMO another indicator of his reclusiveness and strong willingness to withhold opinions or interactions with others. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this would be the way how to solve this problems. But it doesnt depend on me or TeleComNasSprVen, but on the community.--Juandev (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with the results, Juandev? Even though Danny did not give his statement yet, you have been unblocked and can continue to resolve your disputes (in Czech or otherwise) on your own at the Czech Wikiversity. You can even ask him for his statement there now. I've called above for the Czech Wikiversity to develop its own policies regarding administratorship rather than rushing to Meta to help. But it's only up to you, perhaps Danny's cooperation, and the Czech Wikiversity community to start that process. Is there no longer a need for Meta's intervention? Hopefully, the answer is yes. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say "no". This RFC was opened uppon Danny's abuse of rights and slander left when blocking. You and others have presented POVs and there are two recommendations. Czech Wikiversity community havent still adopted your recomendations, so I am not satisfied. Ill be satisfied, when some real actions will be done. Nor Danny replied to the questions as proposed by your collegue.

But I am very happy, that this RFC came with some feedback. Thank you for it very much!--Juandev (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]