Jump to content

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian)

Add links
From Wikiversity

Abd (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Nomination for full custodianship

[edit source]

Having reviewed his edits, use of the tools and engagement with the community, I can confirm that Abd has satisfactorily completed his probationary period, with significant contributions to Wikiversity, good judgment regarding custodian intervention, and a commendable desire for transparency. I have been particularly happy with Abd's handling of routine vandalism and spam, the Popo Le Chien incident and the Howard Community College pages (including recognising the problems his mass move created and working with Scott Foerster to find a solution). Abd has demonstrated that he can wield the tools with care, recognise and learn from his mistakes, and accept and improve from feedback. Abd possesses a strong commitment and desire for Wikiversity to succeed, and I have no hesitation in recommending Abd for full custodianship. --Draicone (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Abd

[edit source]

For transparency:

If any user has concerns about questions raised in the !votes, please ask in the Questions section, and I will respond there. Unless and until that happens, I'm limiting and collapsing my responses.--Abd 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) revised --Abd 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed response to Ottava Rima --Abd 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Ottava's contributions here since his sabbatical on 23 February 2011, a total of 14 edits. Aside from four welcomes yesterday, his entire record consists of

  • Opposing the block of Popo Le Chien, based on a total misunderstanding of the issues. He removed that, probably when he realized how silly his views were. See the meta discussion. Any other alleged violations of block policy?
  • Expressing opposition to the Wikiversity Assembly proposal, designed to address long-term problems. (That proposal does not involve my use of custodian tools.)
  • Opposing my edit to Custodianship policy, a change designed to avoid the kind of mess seen before (around my previous custodianship periods), and properly proposed on Talk. Lack of response allowed that change, it doesn't ratify it. It will be ratified if the edit stands for a substantial period, that's standard wiki process. I can be reverted, and we can go through CR, site message, etc., but is this really necessary? What's wrong with that change?
  • And now this, here.

In the same period, I have well over 3000 edits to Wikiversity. In my probationary period, and in spite of intense activity, there has been no controversy that was not quickly resolved with apparent consensus. My block log shows 45 blocks in this period. My deletion log shows about 180 deletions. I began using Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist to prevent certain kinds of spam, as I had extensive experience with this elsewhere. I'm working closely with global recent changes patrollers (some of whom I have strongly disagreed with at meta, on global issues, but I am still able to work well with them -- and they with me!). I have been responsive to every complaint, but there have been very few.

With Marshallsumter, I'm following what has become well-established, and I'm proud of our traditions, I consider them crucial, making Wikiversity the saving grace of the WMF family. We allow original research, and welcome editors who may have been banned elsewhere, as long as they follow our policies. If anyone becomes aware of standing copyright violations anywhere, please raise the issue by discussion on a resource talk page, by discussion with the editor who allegedly created the violation, at WV:RCA, by request to me on my Talk page, by placing a speedy deletion tag, or, if that doesn't produce satisfaction, then with WV:RFD. Otherwise, I have no intention of allowing any user to be harassed here, which had started to happen.[3]. And see my response at [4].

In the Popo Le Chien case, there was harassment on both sides. I dealt with both sides, firmly but with respect for our traditions, and the result was quiet improvement of Boubaker Polynomials and no more disruption from either side. Compare the deletion request at frwikiversity. Still open as a train wreck, even though the conclusion is obvious. --Abd 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Ottava has specific concerns, he's welcome to raise them. However, note: Ottava is long banned from en.wikipedia, but, more recently, is also indef blocked on meta, due to the kind of highly personalized and tendentious flame wars he frequently foments. In spite of being a productive contributor, in the past, given what happened since his desysopping here, last year, it seems his mission has become disruptive, revenge (not just here, but elsewhere as well). Just saying. I fully intend to follow recusal policy. --Abd 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by S Larctia --Abd 22:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that our relationship got off to a bad start. However, see this train wreck on Wikipedia, the results, and my comments at User talk:Mu301 and on S Larcia talk. My goal was to nip this in the bud, while not disregarding the ongoing legitimate concern, which is about possible copyright violation. And see User talk:Marshallsumter, where I caution and advise the user on copyright (as to my opinions). (WMF practice is different from common academic practice.) It's being claimed on Wikipedia that there is Tremendous Danger to the WikiMedia Foundation if Wikiversity Allows This! That's preposterous, to anyone who knows copyright law. As a custodian, I'm not obligated to scour every piece of text posted to this site for possible copyright violations, nor is the WMF responsible for editor errors -- including mine. If anyone knows of copyright violations, please point them out!

I did not accuse S Larcia of "sock puppetry," as he has claimed, though SB_Johnny may have some opinion about this, see Mu301 talk. I don't. Nor did I accuse him of "disruptive editing." Rather, I asked him, "Please do not bring disruption to Wikiversity." I.e., complaints about what a user has done elsewhere.

Rather, S Larctia is obviously a highly experienced Wikipedian who has "returned" anonymously, showing up here with what could easily become harassment of our user. If our users follow our policies, they should not be subject to harassment based on what happened elsewhere, and we have been clear about that. S Larctia is welcome to point out possible problems with Marshallsumter's pages, for example, but the original arguments about original research don't apply on Wikiversity. If anyone disagrees, there is ample recourse with speedy deletion templates or WV:RFD. --Abd 22:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary remarks on comments by SB Johnny --Abd 02:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank SB Johnny for his frank expression of his views. I'm creating a subpage to explore it, a working document, to consider his objections.

However, Nothing that he wrote has anything to do with my usage of tools.

It's about my relationship with Wikiversity and my representations of Wikiversity to the rest of the WMF (and to the world, really), about my entire participation here, and this I expect will continue, as a custodian or only as a Wikiversity enthusiast. I know how to get custodian action when it's needed, whether or not local custodians are present. It's merely more efficient when can do it myself. (If I were being commonly reversed, it would be less efficient, not more, but, AFAIK, there is not one single reversal of a tool usage in the last month, unless I reversed it myself.)

When I was not a custodian, I clerked WV:Requests for deletion, so effectively that the page was emptied, with almost all requests closed. (There was a one-year backlog when I started, as I recall). This had nothing to do with being a custodian, and it was successful because I was able to sense, anticipate, and implement community consensus. There were some objections, and we'll get into that, but the result was clear: in every case, my non-custodial closes were sustained, none were reversed, in spite of ample opportunity. I even closed an RfD with Delete, and placed a speedy deletion template to implement it. It was quickly honored.

I am under a Standard stop agreement, but, with only two exceptions, no objections to my plentiful custodian actions were even raised, much less sustained.

The exceptions: Ottava Rima, in his only edits in many months, objected here and at meta to my block of Popo Le Chien, based on his assumption that I'd erred. The real Popo le Chien was protected, that was my goal. Had I erred, it would have been easily fixed with about zero loss. In the second case, I made a mass page move, not noticing certain problems, and it's a MediaWiki bug that mass moves can't be undone, I was not aware of that. I fixed it, and the ultimate result was highly satisfactory to the affected teacher, 1sfoerster.

In a non-custodial action, there was a problem with some page names created by Kaldari, where I moved a page to his user space, he reversed that, and then reversed himself and moved it back. Kaldari made some statements reflecting his upset, and referring to my Wikipedia 'adventures.' However, in the end, Kaldari and I easily came to complete agreement.

I'm working for a higher level of Wikiversity organization, and I don't need custodial tools to do it, and I invite others to participate. Please!

It's claimed that I do not seek consensus. The reality is quite different. I anticipate informed consensus, I can accomplish little or nothing without consensus, and I listen to the community, for I could not anticipate consensus or implement it without this. I do have ideas that can seem odd or out-of-the-box at first, but I can't force these upon anyone. However, I'm not afraid to pioneer them, to try them out, to demonstrate them, and to take risks, which is disconcerting to some.

His arguments are only relevant to custodianship in one way, if we believe that the buttons are a "big deal." However, custodians should have no special right to "represent" Wikiversity to the world, and no special right to set policy. Inviting people to bring good content to Wikiversity, when it's been rejected elsewhere. Often that's because it was inappropriate there, and occasionally there are darker reasons. However, it's not my business what the community does, say, on es.wikipedia. I just try to rescue battered users when possible. Among other things, it reduces their tendency to sock. What I've often been able to do, establishing rapport with these users, is explain what mistakes they had made in ways that they can understand.

I'll address SBJ's specific concerns on the subpage, Response to comments of SB Johnny. Comments may be made on the Talk page attached.

Questions

[edit source]
  • Responded in situ, [5]. IP editing increases the time needed to review edits. An edit from KYPark is *always* a good-faith edit. An edit from KYPark's IP? That increases the time needed to review the edit, in Recent Changes, from well under one second to as much as a minute, and not just for me, for all RCP users, including global sysops. That is a serious impact. I wasn't claiming that it's against policy to edit IP, it's not. --Abd 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a present concern? I do not routinely edit archives. It is possible there is some unresolved issue there, or it's possible that the discussion is moot, and I don't have time at the moment to try to disentangle this without a hint as to why it would be important. Your last comment there was a "wall of text." I've generally acknowledged that users may ignore walls of text (because they cannot be presumed to have read them), but, to be sure, to be polite, and as good practice, I should have asked you, back then, to summarize, saying that I didn't have time to review it as it was. I think I intended to study it and respond later, and became busy with other things. If you do want to summarize, please place this on my User talk page and cite the prior discussion in the archive. Thanks. --Abd 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During your probat. custodianship, we have encountered twice as above. Both ended with your silence. I greatly regret my words sounds like a harangue or "wall of texts". Such was not the case, however, as quite clearly I'm neither as talkative at all as you nor as fluent as a native English talker. But I just used words enough to silence your unexpected opposition, as you were nicer and we were on much better terms before that.  KYPark [T] 13:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit source]
  • An explanation regarding: "based on his assumption that I'd erred". I mentioned Popo only because no one bothered to ask before the blocking if the name was not his. It was only a matter of protocol. There have been people on Wikipedia that were blocked after they created an alternate name like that and it caused a lot of unnecessary stress. Popo was a user that I recognized and respected. I wanted to preempt any stress/problems that could be caused by a bad block by verifying that there was an impostor first. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But I had investigated enough to be almost certain this was an imposter. So I balanced the damage from a "bad block" of a highly experienced user -- which is practically none, he'd put up an unblock template, etc., would confirm his identity, simple, and the unblock would note it was an error -- with the damage from attribution of a racist comment to that user, which might be undoable. I.e., people will read it and not necessarily read any later explanation or correction. Waiting for a response from the real Popo le Chien posed an unacceptable risk. This was a situation, overall, like spread gasoline (given what's happened elsewhere over the underlying issue, with charges of racism flying), and immediate action was called for. That's the kind of judgment custodians will hopefully exercise.
Ottava has stated, "lacks understanding of how to appropriately block," but has shown no examples. Let's suppose that I did lack that understanding at one time -- which remains to be shown. Any recent examples? --Abd 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for full custodianship

[edit source]
  • Support as nominator. --Draicone (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found working with Abd great. I was terribly confused in the beginning on how to structure project pages ... and could not find good examples. Abd helped a lot. 1sfoerster 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm very new here so hopefully this is the correct place to comment positively on Abd. Abd's gone all out to make me feel welcome while getting me up to speed on how things work here and how to contribute, what to do etc., in addition to helping with cleanup that I'm still learning about. This is a big positive endorsement for full Custodianship! Marshallsumter 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - lacks understanding of how to appropriately block, encourages disruption of other WMF projects via Wikiversity, combative, ignores consensus, subjectively determines when rules applies or establishes new rules based on personal fiat, etc., etc., etc. See [6], [7] and [8] for more background on the utter unsuitability of this candidate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add, Marshallsumter's support of Abd is further evidence why Abd should not be an admin. This shows that not only is Wikiversity hosting very problematic pages of Marshallsumter's that were shown to have copyvio and other problems, but that he was encouraged to use Wikiversity in a manner that was seen as disrupting Wikipedia. Abd's ban on Wikipedia by both ArbCom and the community over disruption to articles is compounded by his encouraging of others with similar problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add this action. Abd closed a thread requesting admin attention in a matter that he was heavily involved in. He encouraged the user, worked with him, and was supported by the user here. This can easily be seen as favoritism and Custodians are supposed to avoid all appearances of that. I do not like the idea or appearance of an admin helping to cover up investigations into problems of users that support their adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikiversity is far too small to contain a disruptive actor like Abd. Empowering him further is the fastest way to kill the project - perhaps then it can be taken over by a group of people dedicated to providing educational resources as opposed to playing with a nomic. Salmon of Doubt 18:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Abd is absolutely not to be trusted with any position of responsibility. He was banned on Wikipedia for tendentious editing and sock-puppetry. Furthermore, his response to my alert about Marshallsumter's editing was to accuse me of editing disruptively and being a sock-puppet. That's not very sysop-like. I agree with Salmon of Doubt that his custodianship might result in the deletion of Wikiversity, which could be a good thing. However, reluctantly, I see the probability that he will simply continue disrupting Wikimedia projects more seriously from here if given tools permanently. --S Larctia 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: see S Larctia's further comment below. For the avoidance of doubt, this line was struck out by S Larctia. --Draicone (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Abd's response seems to fully address S Larctia's comment, although I'm not sure I understand why S Larctia is interested in a Wikiversity CC nomination. With regard to User_talk:Mu301#User:Marshallsumter, I am quite happy to review the issue if S Larctia wishes to raise it at WV:RCA, which is Wikiversity's equivalent of AN/I - perhaps we should advertise this more prominently so that we can deal with cross-wiki issues more efficiently.
S Larctia - in brief, we welcome original research but don't tolerate copyright infringement, just like any other Foundation project. Please note any copyright infringement on RCA so that we can deal with it promptly. I hope that you will familiarise yourself with Abd's actual work on WIkiversity if you wish to comment on this nomination. --Draicone (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes far beyond "copyright infringement" as you can see here. The user outright perpetrated hoaxes on Wikipedia and is importing the activity here with Abd's blessing. That isn't what a Custodian is supposed to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making RCA more visible wouldn't be a terrible idea. The claim from the Wikipedia discussion is that most of the pages Marshall transcluded here after they were deleted there, may be copyvios -- composed of long sequences of full-sentence quotations from the cited sources, which can be problematic when making up the entirety of an article. Ottava - I'm not sure 'hoax' is the right term for that kind of cookie-cutter article writing. –SJ+> 03:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax in the sense that it isn't an editor writing a page. A believe in what Carcaroth seems to state, it looks like it was done by a script and without care of putting forth something legitimate. It is misleading and wrong in terms of accuracy. I have no confidence in the user's ability to write things educational as the work suggests that they would do more harm than good. Bad education can harm someone far more than ignorance. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my previous concerns about cross-wiki disturbance, Salmon of Doubt's comment above, and the recent interaction with Marshallsumter. (Which was very friendly and welcoming, but did not indicate particular care about the larger issues raised or awareness of their impact on Wikiversity as a whole.) –SJ+> 03:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been waiting to see how Abd performed. He seems to have successfully finished his probationary period and per policy should be given full custodian status. →StaniStani  04:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Abd is a very well-intentioned, creative, and dedicated contributor, with plenty of time to devote and many ideas for improving Wikiversity. However, each of these qualities are double-edged, and I feel that the negatives definitely outweigh the positives when it comes to putting him in a position of trust. He has over time put forward a number of innovative ideas, but then applies them without building a consensus to do so, and has said on a few occasions that he feels the people who don't agree with his approaches simply don't understand them (and hence, apparently, the objections can be ignored because they lack a force of argument).

Similar behavior led to an eventual community ban on Wikipedia earlier this year. The opening comment of the ban discussion included "This disruption is characterized by attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes (e.g. delegable-proxy, self-reversion whilst blocked/banned, placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes which "you don't have to read" but will be referred to nevertheless as being accepted if not read". Abd has himself documented much of this in his userspace, for example here (the main page), here (documenting his "self-reversion"), and here (where he tries to outsmart the bots... the bots were employed because the time of actual people was deemed to be wasted following him around).

Abd has subjected the Wikiversity community to similar treatment:

    • For one example, he at one point decided that WV:RCA would be better handled in his own userspace (there's an archive too!). He has made his belief clear that putting things in one's userspace gives one absolute authority.
    • He also tried (with more or less the opposite of community support) to employ his theories on self reversion and block evasions when Moulton was blocked here. Later when he himself was blocked, he continued along that path.
    • Around the same time, he started pushing with no community support whatsoever) the notion of a "playspace". Again, he kept these in his userspace.
    • Most recently, he has been widely and relentlessly canvassing for "delegable proxies", which are to be used in the "Wikiversity Assembly" (the "rules" for the assembly are to be found in his userspace, so presumably are not intended as a collaborative thing at this time).
    • Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, Abd has been very active on meta putting himself forward as a "representative" of Wikiversity. We've seen that issue before (with Ottava Rima), and I don't think we should go there again. (The person he was advocating for in this effort is someone in need of a psychiatrist, and I seriously doubt that any amount of "assuming good faith" on a wiki will help him, though that's been tried.)
Again, I think Abd means well. Most if not all of his ideas are interesting and worth considering. The problem with his approach is that he seems to become so sure of the validity and righteousness of his ideas that he just runs with them without taking an interest in getting others to come along, support, and improve them. Awarding a "badge of trust" to a person with this particular blind spot would both shed a bad light on the community that gave it to him, as well as bolster a sort of confidence that we should not be bolstering. To those new users who have found him helpful, I'm sure he can continue to be helpful without this status.
I think it's also important for the community to take very seriously the comments of "Salmon of Doubt" and "S Larctica" (scare quotes intended), because giving this person trusted status really will reflect badly upon the community here. It pains me to say it, but if Abd is confirmed, I would be prone to voting on closure as well, because this would (to me) make it crystal-clear that this community is both irresponsible and unsustainable. --SB_Johnny talk 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just an additional thought after looking at WV:RCA: we do have friends in the foundation who are trying to support us (such as SJ, a board trustee who voted above, and User:Kaldari, a foundation employee who has made his opinion clear elsewhere after a rather strange encounter with Abd). His custodianship will not likely be helpful in getting additional support. --SB_Johnny talk 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those voting in support should look over Abd's contributions over the past 2 days. This is not a person we should trust. --SB_Johnny talk 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm becoming even more concerned about this because of the escalating back-and-forth going on between Abd and Ottava Rima. While Abd certainly is not solely responsible for this, it is reminiscent of the situation that led up to the "declarations of emergency" and subsequent blocks by Abd. --SB_Johnny talk 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I met Abd accidentally at Meta. I had a problem, cause wikipedia was denning a vital information; I was a new user and i was abused by the administrators and users that were associated with them, for simply stop new information.(real information with international consensus, but not consensus of editors). I asked for help. None answered me but Abd. And he helped me to handle the problem, to relax, to take the things with patience. He cared of what I said, the one who did. And finally, after a lot of talking, he said I should not feel down, and that there are other alternatives to wikipedia. He never said he was a representative of wikiversity, he merely let me know its existence, if he would have not told me, I for sure would have not known until much later. Now that I see what wikiversity is , I think I acted correctly when I trusted in his advice. It is a user that truly believes in educational articles, and is willing to enrich wikiversity. He does not talk to me like a representative, but like someone ( always very polite and nice, and he does spend time answering all my doubts and questions,and he does not have to ) who loves to share knowledge with a relaxed, humble and kind attitude, not the " forced" and oppressive attitude I have seen in Wikipedia. I felt this user was done for protecting wikiversity. I just can speak good. My vote for him, and thanks again Abd, for your time and care, thanks to you I don feel down anymore and I see I can contribute to the fields I know about in this wonderful wiki.--Edward Hyde 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 67 years old, I have seven children and six grandchildren, and I cried when I read this. --Abd 01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care about what he has done wrong in his past; I've seen Abd being a mature, level-headed user for the past while now (both here and on meta), and I'd say that there are no problems with granting him full custodianship. I hope I can vote on this... Ajraddatz 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck vote per some concerns on meta. Obviously didn't do enough research into this. Ajraddatz 22:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Given the concerns that some of us "experienced folks" have, would it be acceptable to keep Abd on as a probationary custodian under the mentorship of the 4 'crats, retaining the "right to immediately desyssop" clause? I think Abd is a great custodian in some sense, but definitely not in others. I'd feel much more comfortable if we could keep the "off switch" enabled. --SB_Johnny talk 22:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (SB Johnny's compromise) I am afraid that my first impressions of Abd were quite mistaken. Having seen the amount of productive anti-vandal work ect. done by him, I will fully endorse for him to be given another chance at probationary custodianship but not full custodianship. S Larctia 21:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per my very constructive and positive experience with Abd, I fully endorse granting him full custodianship --White Fennec 11:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People who are blocked on one project should not be custodians/admins on any other project. The WMF projects are a collective whole and custodians/admins should be significant people across several projects. We should even be wary about welcoming such people here. It is isolating wikiversity from other projects. --Bduke 22:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all adminship rights - This user has demonstrated that they support known disruptors of other Wikis, fails to warn people before blocking, believes that you can block people without warning or notification, and is disrupting the WMF community as a whole. TL:DR: He's a idiot. --Anonymous Uploader 02:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been reviewing this page for a bit and originally had no intention of presenting arguments one way or the other, but actions like the Wikiversity Assembly are case for concern. I'm not opposed to the idea necessarily, but setting up a quasi governmental body without sanction or test case labels is not wise and does not reflect well upon the character of the one proposing it. When combined with the level of angst that has resulted from this nomination, it seems that now is not the right time. Geoff 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Let World Brain (WB) anyway be the ideal or benchmark of WMF. Then we wonder how close WMF would be to WB. Neutrality or NPV as a measure or in a way may be vital here. But is such really possible in spite of too much bias in age, gender, race, etc.? Who on earth could convince me for which the English WV and WP are to serve at last, the world citizens at large or the English speakers at most? Just in case of the former, please advise me further of the racial and linguistic composition or distribution of custodians around here. Perhaps too biased to be a WB, isn't it? This is roughly the reason I support Abd in spite of some doubts, wishing he could become a rare WB-ist of justice.  KYPark [T] 15:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Now is the right time. Qualified and talented people who are wrongfully blocked on one WMF project should be showcased and supported on the other projects, as living demonstrations of the errors of the blocking project. -- Thekohser 17:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I thank Thekohser for his support, Bduke is also partly correct. I was blocked many times on Wikipedia. Some were procedurally correct, some were not; however, I never considered it that important that I have the right to edit Wikipedia, so I did not appeal blocks, often.
The policy that I was finally indef blocked for violating was editing (by IP, self-identified and self-reverted) while blocked. That indef block was technically correct. The original block wasn't proper, I'd claim, but that was never tested. What actually happened was that, in conjunction with RL activities, and having been increasingly harassed and constricted, and having exhausted due process with ArbComm, I abandoned outward cooperation, voiding the implied contract of participation, with notice. I then did whatever I personally thought best. My goal remained w:WP:IAR. That activity is documented at [[9]]. There are some explanations of this that were provided at [10]. Eventually, I hope, this will become a study of certain issues raised by the sequence of events. However, even if that never happens, Wikipedia was improved by this, that could be documented. After that period, I turned my attention entirely to Wikiversity, having accomplished my goals at Wikipedia. My work here, it may not be obvious, remains dedicated to what will improve all WMF projects, including Wikipedia. It's designed to break a certain logjam. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm doing will cause no harm. It's designed that way. --Abd 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Personally, I don't have a problem with Abd being a custodian and appreciate his efforts to help Wikiversity. I also think we need to nurture a diversity of approaches and views and that WV is stilling learning about accommodating and nurtutring the best of everyone's ideas. Abd has worked hard, arguably harder than any probationary custodian has every done, he knows the ropes, participates energetically, and much/most of his effort has been very helpful. However, I remain concerned by the degree of community reaction that seems to manifest in response to some of Abd's WV contributions and, it seems, on other Wikiversity is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other multilingual and free-content projects:

. I'm not much bothered by what goes on Wikipedia, but it seems that we do need to consider the broader ecology of the sister projects in this case and understand the nature of the broader concerns. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On closure
[edit source]

I'm starting a "/crat chat" page on this one, because this discussion is already in overtime, and it's a hard one for the active 'crats to close because of our various histories and opinions with regard to this process. --SB_Johnny talk 17:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest, as a variant on SBJ's proposal above, that Abd remain permanently under my mentorship and subject to standard stop? The decision is Abd's, of course. I hope this will allay outstanding concerns. --Draicone (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it will increase community consensus and allay fears, and because it's been my intention to support what Draicone calls "standard stop," -- see Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement -- I will accept indefinite continued mentorship with Draicone. Also in the interest of closure, I will not object to SBJ closing in the manner he suggested, even though he is "involved," and I thank him for the suggestion. I consider it in the best interests of Wikiversity. --Abd 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit source]

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to "promote" Abd currently, but he seems to be doing far more good than harm with the tools for the time being. Since he is willing to accept an indefinite probationary period, I'm closing this for now to allow that to progress.

I think it's important for the community as a whole to be aware of the fact that Abd was banned from meta today, and bans from meta are not imposed lightly or arbitrarily. Retaining Abd as an admin will do nothing to make us more popular and accepted among our friends at the sister projects, so it behooves us to handle this situation with professionalism, kindness, and with as little drama as possible. With that in mind:

Then I, for one, will remain retired indefinitely, and support a proposal to close Wikiversity. Best, Guido den Broeder 00:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity does not care more of some specific personal opinions. Precisely defends the right to express them without forcing a macroscopic resolution. Hence, any behavior derived from a imposing criteria, or any intend to break the framework cause of a " situation not in tune with a personal opinion" denotes a behavior far away from Wikiversity philosophy, and seems closer to a political one. Again I say, Wikiversity has its own rules and probational periods, that is what its rules were created for. Thats what we, as users have to focus on. Any consideration aside does not count, and shows more a prejudgement than any caution. I support the decision. Abd is a worthy and kind collaborator for Wikiversity, and his positive aspects are growing exponentially . I certainly think he will provide us all day by day even more proofs of his talent as custodian guided by the humble attitude I have observed to date.--Edward Hyde 13:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone kindly advise me what's going on here at all?  KYPark [T] 09:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the 'crats felt comfortable closing, but leaving it open was simply inviting trouble (particularly with the current events on Meta vis-a-vis Abd. Draicone can nominate or recommend rejection whenever he feels the air is cleared for discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 15:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with SBJ's action. It is in the best interests of Wikiversity. --Abd 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the WV voting system explicitly bicameral like this? Anyway I wonder if it is quite clear on this page, via their votes and reasons for unease, that "None of the 'crats felt comfortable closing". Excuse me for my perhaps overdone or stupid curiosity.  KYPark [T] 04:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a consensus building discussion and not a vote. Bureaucrats are basically expected to not make rash decisions, be excellent judges of consensus, and are responsible for interpreting consensus when it comes to group changes. -- darklama  11:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by the opening "This"? #Voting for full custodianship or #Closure of that voting? To me, either is either explicit or implicit part of that, and vote is vote. Is there something extralinguistic you mean by "not a vote"?  KYPark [T] 12:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that WV does not have a voting system, does not cast votes, and does not count votes. "Voting for full custodianship" is an unfortunate name that is a potential source of much confusion. Wikiversity:Custodianship refers to the period after the probationary period as an evaluation and refers to the discussion to take place as a Request for Comments. Instead of voting, WV uses a system of discussion and building consensus. -- darklama  14:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting to note that the more advised the more confused I get. But you seem to suggest that "voting" is not simply an unfortunately abused term but also such a basic democratic system is not available here. Is my understanding all right?  KYPark [T] 14:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are correct in your understanding. You might be surprised to learn Wikipedia is also not a democracy. Consensus differs from a democratic vote in that people should attempt to resolve or mitigate minority objections by compromising. -- darklama  15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were the first two sentences of the above, to which I responded "I like your honesty. But this may be confirmed by SBJ. Thanks." which ended with an edit conflict. What was added then sounds too philosophical for me to answer easily. But I take this part of your answer as a practical affirmation to my question regarding my "bicameralism" or your "consensus" anyway considering "minority objections" and "reasonable compromise". You may have just agreed with me that WV's decision is practically bicameral by way of 'crats's additional resolution you mentioned.  KYPark [T] 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to answer your question regarding bicameralism, but the question included an assumption on your part about WV having a voting system, which I thought needed clarifying too. I think you might understand enough now for me to attempt to answer the other question you asked, "what is going on here?" The discussion of whether Abd should keep the tools passed his probationary period included mixed opinions, and a compromise was suggested to keep him probationary indefinitely. The responses to the compromise could be seen as indication that the compromise is less objectionable than the objections raised in letting Abd have access to the tools unsupervised. -- darklama  16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question "what's going on here" fully gave way to a new one "bicameralism" as I was newly curious. Voting or whatever is for consensus building and decision making. Do you agree at all that WV's "consensus" is bicameral anyway?  KYPark [T] 16:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess consensus at WV can be seen as being bicameral. Even though the whole community can participate in consensus building, only a fraction of the community chooses to do so. -- darklama  17:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your talk and agreement. Over 2 o'clock here enough to go to bed.  KYPark [T] 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A parody of Magritte (1929) The Treachery of Images
This is not a pipe. (But a mere photo thereof.)
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.    

Wikiversity, in a way, is an "essence and existence" of logic and language, both rooted in logos. There, however, 'voting' is not a vote. Also, 'consensus' is not a consensus, and 'community' is not a community, as "Even though the whole community can participate in consensus building, only a fraction of the community chooses to do so." Logos may get lost here, I fear.  KYPark [T] 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this might be where the evil mind may be most allured or delighted to make the "word magic" to influence people to his or her own benefit, perhaps including myself!  KYPark [T] 10:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing mentorship
[edit source]

It is possible that my mentor, Draicone may be going on wikibreak. He's been an active mentor. The Standard Stop Agreement, I accepted as part of my candidacy, provides for effective mentorship by any custodian in the event of a problem; however, to avoid possible confusion and anticipate concerns, I'm asking here for an additional mentor to specifically be an available and trusted means of access to me, and restraint of me, if required. In practice, I'm experienced and don't necessarily require hand-holding and constant monitoring; but a mentor is, among other things, a Complaints Department, should I step on anyone's toes, so to speak. (Theoretically, if I do make a mistake -- and I make mistakes -- anyone should be able to bring it up with me, but a mentor is then available in case we don't work it out directly.) Any custodian willing to mentor me in the absence of Draicone, please sign here. Thanks. --Abd 16:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be available. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 19:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commencement

[edit source]

Ironically, the commencement or graduation ceremony is said to celebrate a commencement or new start. Simply, closing is opening! Then, what shall we celebrate is learned from this occasion, and what shall be opening, besides Abd's status? Serious debriefings may go on anywhere anytime, which may help reduce easily-forgotten follies, say, self-destructive self-interests. By the way, his nomination section above was once archived between my talks, I regret as far as hurriedly.  KYPark [T] 02:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing here ended the ordinary period of probationary custodianship, which is understood to be fixed in duration. Wikis are not rule-bound, rather, the standard is "consensus," which is understood to be "rough consensus," not absolute consensus. The problem with using true voting (as is largely done on Wikipedia) is that the voters are self-selected, and many who might be interested in voting may not become aware of the process during the voting period. Those who have axes to grind -- either way -- may preferentially vote, etc.
I proposed a change to Custodianship policy to extend the voting period to seven days, which would at least accommodate those on a weekly schedule. Policy provides that voting does not determine the outcome. However, it also provides that the decision is made by a bureaucrat based on preponderance of the arguments. A common standard is consideration of community consensus, with respect for minority positions. In this case, we have only two active bureaucrats. One clearly opposed my candidacy (and has long opposed it), the other was actually my mentor in my previous probationary period,but he has not been particularly active (indeed, no bureaucrat is highly active in dealing with bureaucrat issues, hence the backlog at Wikiversity:Changing username). He saw no problem with my custodianship other than the concerns obviously aroused in some who voted. I.e., he did not see offensive behavior, but, as a 'crat, is concerned about community sentiment, and assessing the origin of that sentiment can be difficult and sometimes disruptive.
So when a compromise was proposed, rather than insist on a closure based on the merits, and an analysis of the voting patterns (i.e., distinguishing between the positions of users actively involved with Wikiversity and those not) I accepted a closure that would increase consensus. If nothing else, it would enroll in the consensus the bureaucrat who suggested it! This compromise allows me to continue to serve Wikiversity with custodial tools. It should satisfy any legitimate concern. There were those opposed to my custodianship who were opposed for reasons that are, in some way or other, contrary to Wikiversity policy and practice, or based on highly personal reactions, as can be seen above. We had one user show up here, apparently only to oppose my candidacy, who had not edited Wikiversity for about three years, nor anywhere else, under that name.
Our procedures are not far from standard wiki procedures, but probationary custodianship is where we depart from what is common. It allows custodianship, in theory, without any community discussion, though the process is open. Probationary custodianship is commonly granted almost immediately based on two events: the acceptance by a mentor of the mentee custodian, and a 'crat decision (which is, by policy, routine). On most WMF wikis, I'd not have any opportunity to serve if I'm open about my identity, for reasons that have nothing to do with my local behavior. We can build better structure, but it will take time. --Abd 21:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening community discussion

[edit source]

We are in somewhat unchartered territory here, with this being Abd's third probationary custodian period which is currently indefinite due to lack of consensus. In the last 12 or so hours, Abd took two actions (unblocking Poetlister1 (now reblocked by thenub314) and deleting a standard stop agreement page (now undeleted by Abd)) which prompted SB_Johnny's request on meta to remove Abd's sysop status (which has been done), pending further community discussion and consensus. So, it would be helpful if the community could indicate below why they do or don't want Abd to become a full custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not quite correct that it was indefinite due to lack of consensus. There was consensus on a close of the candidacy as "permanent probationary." That compromise was made because, to consider the voting, as it stood, would require considering the situation that users with no apparent desire to participate in Wikiversity "mysteriously appeared" to vote, making a close complicated. Continuing probationary status allowed me to continue to serve Wikiversity, but also maintained safeguards. What is ironic here is that the unblocking was pursuant to our "proposed policy," which represented long-standing actual practice, which prohibits blocking a user who is not being disruptive locally. Our custodianship policy also prohibits desysopping a custodian who has not violated policy. And the policy I violated was? --Abd 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk for an analysis of the previous voting, suggesting why the compromise may have been suggested. Policy also provides for continued probationary custodianship, requiring only mentor consent, as with all probationary custodianships. I would not have continued if the analysis on the Talk page had not shown that there is very substantial support for my work in the community of scholars. --Abd 14:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wealthier custodian consensus, the unhealthier communal consensus proper, I fear as likely as with dictatorship and totalitarianism. Abd's unblocking and Thenub's reblocking appear a sign of custodianship as a whole being as healthy as w: yin and yang, though that disparity should have been duly, reasonably resolved after all. What a hurry instead, at which the community proper should never be surprised! Prior to such hurried votes as follows, it should have been far more thoroughly and convincingly discussed right here, if not elsewhere, how just or unjust Abd's unblocking and Thenub's reblocking in response were indeed. In general, unblocking (esp. like a dove) is likely more generous and less tense than blocking (esp. like a hawk), while welcoming another human round of trial and error. While voting for Thenub a week ago, I formally feared a "hawk" to emerge. Thenub ignored it but showed such a sign so soon, I regret. I wish my fear not self-fulfilling. For what should this ivory tower be mooded so hot and tense like this? Most basically, I continue (and perhaps we have) to wonder whether global or local Wikiversity for example is. (I've been waiting for anyone to answer this question, but in vain so far.) So I dare to assume that this be global, namely a global brain or "world brain", if you like, the Wellsian utopian initiative since 1938. So far I've found nothing too bad for the world to accept but for being oriented to English or Basic English as lingua franca, as either being generally the practical case now! The absolute mankind's need is a lingua franca to manage the abused mankind's deed! Whoever agree, I wonder indeed. Sorry to be talkative.  KYPark [T] 09:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for full custodianship (2)

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


  • Support - Abd is an active contributor to maintenance and policy on WV. Some of his actions are bold and can be controversial, but he doesn't wheel-war and does respond to feedback. He is always prepared to explain his views and actions. He is helpful towards newcomers and provides useful feedback to other custodians. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Abd's recent actions have showed a degree of disregard for for the opinion of editors comments, and presents an attitude that if it isn't his way, then it is the highway. I am particularly disturbed by the unblock of Poetlister1, when it was clear that several active community members disagreed this was the right course of action, and the discussion of global blocks was still ongoing. In the past has made similar controversial blocks/unblocks over the past few years which have been problematic. I see nothing to really indicate this problem will go anywhere. Even as a permanent probationary custodian or similar restrictions on his use of tools, I believe that matters would not be alleviated much. His controversial actions are frequently ones he views as emergency situations, been pretty clear that in emergency situations he will use tools despite restrictions. This seems like a fine idea to me in principle, but in practice I have not liked the outcome. Probably he and I have different senses of emergency. Thenub314 06:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in exact agreement with comments of Jtneill! Marshallsumter 10:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I sat out the last discussion, and I would prefer to sit this one out, but unfortunately Abd's recent actions show that there is an ongoing issue. There's no question that Abd wants to help and wants to see Wikiversity succeed, and that he does a lot of good work. The problem is that when his idea of how to manage Wikiversity conflicts with others, he seems inclined to take actions unilaterally. While most of those actions are not too serious, unblocking Poetlister was - not because it is completely unreasonable to unblock Poetlister, but because he did so against the consensus that had been formed at that point as to how to proceed; against the advice he had been given about the situation; in spite of being extremely involved through his actions on Meta; and without waiting for consensus to form in existing discussions which were ongoing and very relevant to the issue. I don't see this as a small error in judgement. Other actions also factor into this: in particular, his handling of Thenub314's request for custodianship in regard to Poetlister; and I continue to have concerns over some of his good faith actions in regard to image copyright, as they seemed to show ongoing errors with core policy. - Bilby 11:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Abd has had three opportunities to demonstrate what he will and won't do, and to earn the community's trust. If this were baseball, he's be out for three strikes. I think Abd likely wants to help and see Wikiversity succeed. I think Abd can help and see Wikiversity succeed by resigning himself to the roles of learner, teacher, and researcher. I think Abd has been afforded enough opportunities by now to show that Wikiversity is more likely to be helped and succeed if Abd doesn't have the custodian tools. I think Abd may have some understanding that success is determined and achieved by participants through their volunteer effort, but I think through his actions he has demonstrated he doesn't understand the role custodians have in that, or how success in general is achieved. I think Abd's unilateral unblock of Poetlister, when consensus on how to proceed provided a guide on how to move forward, attests to that. I also think suggesting reversal if there is a problem with an action immediately afterwards, and being critical of people when people do reverse it is not a good way to build trust and show respect for participants. -- darklama  12:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I do support permanent custodianship. I will respond briefly to comments here, in collapse. If anyone thinks that a comment is important, please pull it out of the collapse, placing it below the collapse. Thanks. --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
responses to those commenting --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jtneill. Thanks. I wish we had at least two of you. (Jtneill is our other active bureaucrat.) --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thenub314. The rigidity you describe is a projection, your inference from two actions, easily reversed, as they were. The important issue here is the default pending community review. Is blocked the default, or unblocked? Precedent is clear, and policy is clear. I did not treat this as an emergency, I waited days for discussion to show reason for block. It did not. I made one action, enforcing our policy, and this was treated as an emergency. I think you are looking at this upside-down. Try turning over. --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marshallsumter: thanks. --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bilby. All custodial actions are ultimately the responsibility of the custodian. I did make mistakes, and learned from them (the image issue was one, and there remain issues to be resolved, but long-term. Existing policy on "fair use" is clear, in certain areas, and I've joined in the enforcement of it.) There is no demonstrated consensus in this community on the Poetlister issue, and developing that can take time, as with similar situations before. The question is what state stands before consensus is formed, and that is properly governed by policy, which prohibits the block. If my action was "unilateral," so too was SBJ's. Both were taken in advance of a demonstrated consensus, but with some support expressed. Thenub314, re-blocking without discussion with me, called my unblock "wheel-warring." If my action was wheel-warring -- it was not as this is normally defined --, his definitely was, for he did not discuss with me and acted precipitately, as if there were an emergency. I'd discussed the matter with SBJ before acting. I knew I was risking my bit, because I knew SBJ. It's the community that is important to me, not my personal privileges. I enforced policy, and the policy has not been changed on this. There is also procedure for addressing custodial errors; it has not been followed. --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darklama. This isn't baseball. The role of learner/teacher is superior to the role of custodian, and members of the community are responsible to serve the community in cleanup -- that's what being a custodian is mostly about --, and, as well, to serve by taking a stand for the rights of all members of the community, all who are here to develop educational resources. That includes Poetlister, it includes anyone who will participate civilly and respect our policies. There are others who are here purely to serve in technical ways, and, unfortunately, that can shade into being here to control others. Our policy was clear, and, Darklama, I was disappointed that you did not unblock on that basis. You started editing the policy, which was good, but none of that addressed the immediate issue. I've never seen you make a bold move like that unblock would have been. See [11]. --Abd 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I make mistakes and learn from my mistakes. I think your actions demonstrate that you haven't learned from your mistakes and you are likely to continue to repeat the same mistakes. In baseball, if you only managed to hit 1 in 1000 balls no matter how hard you tried to improve, you probably wouldn't be recruited for a team that is expected to hit 1 in 10 balls. I think to expect more from you then what you can do/give is unfair to both you and the community. -- darklama  16:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great examples of something that doesn't exist. Edit count. 9063 edits. block log, 96 actions. deletion log 596 actions. And how many of those are alleged problems? Your examples talk about batting .001 as poor and 0.100 as expected. In this situation, looks like I'm batting more like, what, 0.990 or better? I'm disappointed in you, Darklama. You could do better. In maybe five years here, compared to my roughly year and a half of serious activity, you have 4626 live edits. In about 4 years, you've done 39 block actions, and I can remember one that was pretty bad! You've done 549 deletion actions in that time. That's a rate of one-fourth what I was doing. If I had two bad block actions out of 96 (if!), and you had one bad block out of 39, your rate is worse than mine, but you sit in judgment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. --Abd 01:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That edit count is the most damning. I had 2000 edits during a time that Wikiversity was more active than this while doing the majority of admin actions and welcoming everyone. Your edits are mostly from you waging war on just about everyone, filling this wiki with off topic matters, and causing a lot of problems. My log actions show 119 blocks and 922 deletions. You have far, far less actions and far, far more edits because you are disruptive and don't use the tools properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Takes the role of lecturer (or stronger word) … if we had 10c for every opinion, I think that we'd be rich. I don't believe that they exhibit the maturity to measure consensus, or they have a disregard for that process in preference for their opinion on what consensus should be, nor necessarily able to distinguish between bold and reckless. Just my opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No Custodianship, no full custodianship, no temporary custodianship, etc. I honestly think Abd needs to be globally banned. He has promoted some of the worse disruption of multiple Wikis, especially in encouraging highly disruptive and rightfully banned users to work on "projects" dedicated to attacking other Wikis or continuing disputes that they were banned over. Abd has also not done enough to cut down on copyright violations, has repeatedly completely re-imagined most of the WMF core traditions and policies, especially those relied on at Wikiversity, and done many other things that are absolutely baffling to me. I have not seen one positive contribution by Abd to anything WMF related since he was originally blocked/banned on Wikipedia a long time ago dealing with his Cold Fusion related matters, and that is incredibly shameful. 3 years ago, he was a decent person, but after the Cold Fusion matters on Wikipedia since 2010, there is no way to say his contributions anywhere are redeemable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think Darklama's comments above are right on the mark. --SB_Johnny talk 23:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Darlama's comments satisfy about him. Sorry --Mohamed Aden Ighe 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have done very little with Wikiversity, I could be described as new-comer, or perhaps more accurately as non-comer. Since I have so little experience with Wikiversity, one could argue that my opinion carries no weight. On the other hand, since most of the world has even less experience with Wikiversity than I do, there might be some value in seeing things from the point of view of someone just approaching Wikiversity for the first time. I first heard of Wikiversity when Abd called my attention to it. Initially, I found it somewhat confusing. I wrote to Abd with a number of "beginner's questions". He answered patiently. He responded to my follow up questions as long as I continued to ask them and to whatever depth I asked. My experience was that Abd created a welcoming environment where I felt that I could get involved and participate to whatever level was most comfortable to me. Based on this experience I strongly support Abd's promotion to full custodianship. — Rosenberg 00:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenberg. I try. This post to the Election Science Foundation mailing list explains my views on Wikiversity, and why I think Wikiversity is important. It explains his appearance on Wikiversity, and it did contain a link to the page he edited. When he named me as his proxy (which I had not suggested), I wrote to him to confirm his identity, hence our correspondence began. --Abd 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of possible sockpuppetry, lets put this on ice till meta gets back to us. Thenub314 16:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is most likely another account per his contribs. It is problematic that his only edit before hand was to edit an obscure and non-policy page. The account was used elsewhere a few years ago and is most likely a sleeper account of a sock, and a CU request on Meta should be made. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I said all I had to say on this subject, but the immediately above comment from Ottava Rima gives me an opportunity to make an important contrast. Fora such as Wikiversity can be threatening and hostile environments. A new-comer facing such hostility may well ask himself whether the privilege of contributing to Wikiversity is worth facing the hostility with which one is repaid for his contributions. When I first encountered Abd, he knew nothing about me. When I encountered Ottava Rima today, he knew nothing about me. I think that their different reactions are instructive. Ottava has reacted hostilely because I supported Adb's full custodianship and Ottava opposes it. With no motive other than an attempt to discredit me, he accuses me of being a sock (which I am not - this my only account and Rosenberg is my real name). (Incidentally, the contributions to the Polish wikipedia aren't mine. I did make some contributions to the English wikipedia a number of years ago (on the subject of postal ZIP codes, as I recall) but I may have made those contributions anonymously.) I can't help but notice the completely opposite "welcome" from Adb. Adb didn't know me any more than Ottava does. But Adb was supportive, offered (and gave) his assistance, and really did make me feel welcome. Perhaps this can serve as a test of how Wikiversity would like to present itself to new-comers who come wandering by. Should they be greeted with hostility, accusations, and the assumption that they are socks using sleeper accounts or should they be greeted with the assumption that they are people who are interested in contributing to Wikiversity (however sparse their initial contributions may be)? In my experience Adb follows the initial presumption of legitimacy and an effort to grow the community and help and support new members. Rosenberg 03:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this obvious sock still around? And the SUL is unified, so your claims that the contributions "aren't yours" is impossible. The ability to find obscure pages and the rest makes it obvious that the guy is being disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava erred. There is no SUL, see [12]. That page is not "obscure," it's been noticed by people interested in voting systems and particularly in delegable proxy, which is a whole field of study. --Abd 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to reply in some way (and, by making this comment, I have yielded to the temptation). But there is very little that I can add to what Ottava wrote - other than to note that perhaps it is unwise to try to defend a mistaken impression by saying it is "obvious". Reading the tone of his comment makes the argument much more clearly than my description of the effect of his tone ever could. Ottava, you appear to be using the word "disruptive" as though it's definition were "disagrees with Ottava". Is that what it means to you? If not, would you define what it does mean to you? Thanks. Rosenberg 04:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A true "new" person would not respond in the way you did. Your use of "disagrees with Ottava" is an old trope used by experience users, especially on their socks, to try and discredit someone that they know other people would know a background as it would not work against someone unknown by a community. A new person would not know if I was connected to the community, if other people knew me, etc., especially when my comments were not actually talking about anything but you editing only one time before and to an obscure page in a way that just doesn't happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is getting pretty far afield from the issue of promoting Abd to permanent custodianship. If Ottava Rima wants to continue talking about who I am and what experience I have, I'm willing to continue the discussion (at least for while), but I don't think this is the appropriate place for it. I guess I'm flattered by some of Ottava's comments. While I'm new to wikiversity, I've contributed to wikipedia a number of years ago (and only in a pretty minor way) and I have a lot of experience with computer fora, computer-mediated meetings and (unfortunately) flame wars. I never heard of Ottava Rima until today (it is my waking day, but by the clock, yesterday) and most of what I learned, I learned from reading this page. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable judge of character and Ottava Rima's character seems to come through pretty clearly in his comments. Ottava's immediately previous comment implies that he is feels that he is known to the community in a way such that my pointing out that he seemed to be using the word "disruptive" to mean "disagrees with Ottava" would resonate. I didn't know that, but as I said, some attributes of his character seem to come through his comments. I also note that he never told me what "disruptive" means to him so that I could see whether my comments were disruptive by his definition. Ottava, I'm not sure what I can do to convince you of who I am - and I don't think it matters much. I can simply tell you the truth: This my only account. Rosenberg is my real name. I have extensive experience in computing and computer-mediated discussions. I made some minor contributions to wikipedia a number of years ago. My only comments or edits to wikiversity are the ones I made as "Rosenberg", my only account. You are invited to E-Mail me privately if you think that there would be any use to continuing this discussion. Rosenberg 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Ottava allowed to attack a newcomer like this? Rosenberg came here and named me as his proxy. I didn't know who he was, so I emailed him before accepting. He revealed to me that he'd seen mention of Wikiversity in my post to a voting systems list, and where he lived, and I looked him up and called him. So I've had email and telephone communication with him. He called me last night (I'd invited him to a local event), and I explained to him how to sign a comment, he'd been manually entering the user link and time. This shows that, he was estimating the time, not using the tildes. Reminds me of my first edits on Wikipedia. I did the same thing. --Abd 14:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New people don't find obscure pages, happen upon comments, join obscure groups then conveniently appear, nor do they sign names in the way you suggest. It even says on the editing page how to sign names. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained what happened with Rosenberg, and a steward found evidence for it. Ottava filed checkuser. Rejected, even though Ottava misrepresented stuff. (If he wrote that here, I'd request a sanction.) (I don't mind checkuser for me, and I'm certain that Rosenberg would not be harmed if it's checked, but I haven't asked him.) I've described how I know conclusively that Rosenberg is not Poetlister (and also that this is his real name), and I testified as to the error I made when I first edited Wikipedia, and I've extensively dealt with newcomers who didn't understand what it says on the editing page. Ottava simply denies my personal testimony, and rejects the obvious timestamp evidence confirming Rosenberg's claim to me about signing.
  • How Rosenberg found the "obscure group" is obvious, if one were to do some searching instead of running off to checkuser. See [13]. The very page is linked there (and that mail was copied to the Election Methods list). Any questions? --Abd 17:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'll be absolutely frank about this. Abd is 1) an idiot, 2) uncooperative 3) banned on Wikipedia 4) supportive of globally blocked users 5) unwilling to enact community consensus when it goes against his POV. He shouldn't be trusted with admin tools, he should be banned. --Simone 19:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- As I supported previously and as I discussed above. And, I support him as he is closest to my age, and as there may be no other elderly one.  KYPark [T] 09:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Abd for Full Custodian. Gravitoweak 21:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't know if I'm allowed to vote while blocked. However, I would like to record my support for Abd. He has made a few mistakes, but who hasn't? However, he has shown exceptional devotion to the spirit of the rules and more importantly the principles of Wikiversity. Everything he has done seems to be motivated by what is best for this project. Not having him as a custodian will harm Wikiversity very much more than any damage that could ever be done by him. Restoring his bit would be an almost unmitigated plus.--Poetlister 08:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Transcribed from User talk:Poetlister1. --Abd 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ☒N Not done There is clearly not a consensus to promote Abd to full custodian. --SB_Johnny talk 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection to closure by clearly involved bureaucrat, he should know better. Consensus is not clear in either direction, and discussion may be continued in such cases. In the prior voting, there was, among active Wikiversitans, a consensus for promotion, but such a close would have required considering activity, see my analysis on the Talk page. I would not object to a closure (whatever it is) by an uninvolved 'crat, or by Jtneill. Note that policy does allow me to continue as a probationary custodian, if there is a mentor. The prior compromise remains available; it was a unilateral withdrawal by SB Johnny that disrupted that compromise, and his misrepresentation at meta of the situation here that resulted in immediate desysopping. There was no emergency. I will pursue routine process for that problem. --Abd 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Further discussion on this issue have been moved to the talk page. --SB_Johnny talk 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Abd_(full_custodian)&oldid=2197923"