Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Diego Grez

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Diego Grez (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)[edit source]

I would like to nominate Diego Grez for probationary custodianship. Diego already has good experience with MediaWiki and sister projects (particularly Wikinews) and is an admin/bureaucrat on translation wiki. He is keen to improve his sysop knowledge and skills on WMF projects. He is steadily building an impressive editing profile on WV, including content contribution e.g., in languages, as well as cleaning up vandalism. Diego has also recently become a participant in How to be a Wikimedia sysop and is keen to learn, among other things, more about the soft skills (people-side) of sysop-ing. It has been my suggestion that given his profile, motivations and interests in WV, that we consider him for probationary custodianship. I am willing to mentor, but I think you also know my preference also for community mentoring, so I daresay Diego would benefit also from the input of others. What do you think? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the Candidate[edit source]

Diego, I'm not an administrator, but would you agree to the promise and request I set for myself above with regard to my probationary adminship request? If so, it becomes quite unnecessary to review and predict admin behavior, and only in the presence of active objection should we turn down a request accompanied by that agreement (which seems to me to be only a small extension of what "probationary adminship" with mentorship means). We need more administrators, and this is a quick way to get them with little risk. What do you think?--Abd 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely agree with your promise, and I'll do the same. --Diego Grez 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custodians willing to mentor[edit source]

checkY Done The probationary period has started. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentor's recommendation for extended probationary custodian status[edit source]

It is 5 weeks since Diego Grez (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) started his probationary custodianship. Since then he has made approximately 130 edits. He has tried out and made active use of blocking, deleting, page protection, editing of logs, and has been actively engaged in discussing and acting on community issues about previously blocked users. Diego's wish was to learn more about being a WMF project sysop and I think he is learning a lot through his involvement here at Wikiversity. Diego consults with others, is bold and acts of feedback - all desirable qualities of a custodian. Overall, I think Diego has made an impressive and valued contribution. However, I think its prudent at this point to suggest extending the custodian probationary period because Diego is still relatively new to Wikiversity and because I think the community would probably appreciate getting to know more about Diego over another, say, 6-8 weeks. The main area for development which I've suggested to Digeo is greater engagement in developing or improving main space content - or at least perhaps Wikiversity: namespace content.

It would be helpful if other editors could share feedback or questions here about Diego's probationary custodianship to date, that way we could try to address these during the rest of the probationary period. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree with the above and the rationale, and will add my own - there is currently some dustup/controversy, so it would be an added bonus to see how Diego deals with it (and also to keep any politics from entering into a vote). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentors' recommendation for full custodian status[edit source]

I recommend Diego Grez for full custodianship. There has been a further 4 weeks of probationary custodianship during which Diego made another ~90 edits (~340 WV edits to date), and I feel that the community now has good evidence about what they can expect of Diego as a custodian. For consideration:

  • Special:Contributions/Diego Grez: Diego has been involved in a wide variety of Wikiversity activities including welcoming new users, categorising, moving and participating in community discussions, etc.
  • Custodial actions: Diego has reverted, deleted and blocked vandalism. He also been active in discussing and trying to find ways for the Wikiversity community to move forward by working with blocked users who may wish to contribute. I've appreciated that Diego has been bold in this respect. Diego's talk page gives indication of the kinds of discussion that have arisen from his actions. I think this is important information because it shows, among other things, that Diego gives and accepts feedback and makes appropriate changes to his behaviour. I don't necessarily agree 100% with every one of his custodial actions, but Diego accepted feedback about issues I and others raised and (to the best of my knowledge) did not revert-war if an action was changed If there's one key recommendation from me it's probably that Diego could more often discuss potentially controversial custodians ahead of time before taking them - this is something that I think all custodians, myself included, need to remember.
  • I recommend for Diego to continue to become more involved in main space content development, because I think this is what WV is really about. Diego has been helping out with languages, which is excellent - it is one popular reason people come to Wikiversity and Diego's language skills are impressive. It should be noted, that main space development isn't a requirement of custodians (although it helps them to become trusted community members).

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion and questions[edit source]

  • I'd support Diego as a custodian, but ask him to remember that often when you feel you have to use the tools, you're doing it wrong :-) Privatemusings 08:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Questions from Ottava Rima: 1. Do you want to be a custodian here and why? 2. Do you think you would be a good custodian and why? 3. Do you think you will pass your custodianship vote and why? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) Yes, because Wikiversity's work focus attracts me, and it is a good place to work. 2) Yes, because I feel capable to use the tools well and to respect other's feedback whenever I'm doing some idiocy with them :-) 3) (Probably) yes, because I think I have done my best working around here. Diego Grez 18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questions from Geoff Plourde: I noticed that on the 26th of July you unblocked Beetlebaum with the statement "Reasons suck". Could you explain your reasoning for the unblock and that comment? Is it acceptable in your opinion for custodians to unilaterally unblock a user? What deference do you feel should be given to the actions of other custodians and users? Geoff Plourde 22:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) I unblocked Beetlebaum in the hope of helping the project. I used "reasons suck" because I somewhat did not agree with the previous block. 2) Well, I should have explained it further, but it was unnecessary to me at that time. To "unilaterally" unblock an user, there should be a really good reason, something I didn't do. 3) If someone is doing good, it has to be awarded by the community. People must assume good faith, that is essential in a community such as Wikiversity, where Custodians and normal users have to interact with each other, for the good of the project. Diego Grez 23:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questions from Geoff Plourde (2): Abigor has asserted that your actions on Commons demonstrate that you are not capable of being trusted to wield the tools. Bearing in mind that your actions elsewhere should not be considered in this process, how have you grown and developed over the past few months and over your probationary period? Where do you need to improve? What errors have you made and how would you have acted differently? Geoff Plourde 06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Abigor has demostrated to be biased against my actions elsewhere. I think my actions through this year have been wise, having in mind that I got myself unblocked on en.wikipedia, commons.wikimedia with the help of respectable individuals who believe in second chances, chances I promised to not waste. I think I have done my best around here for the time I've been here. I need to improve also assuming good intentions, sincerely. The error I mostly care about and I'm completely ashamed of it, is to have created vanity pages about myself on Spanish Wikipedia, and English Wikipedia. Then after being blocked created a new account (MisterWiki), that I have used until April, when I renamed definitely to this name (mainly because of my involvement on Wikinews). I just wanted to be clear and honest. Regarding Spanish Wikipedia, I've contacted by e-mail several administrators there (including the one who eventually blocked me), I had a discussion on December 2009, and a small one on May/June, but none of them had any positive feedback, even when I have tried to build articles by myself on a separate wiki for an eventual comeback to ( - look at sitenotice, encourages to edit on Wikipedia and not there). I just hope these problems are solved within the near future. Diego Grez 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate the clarification of your relationship with Abigor. Don't worry, I'm not considering his opinions in the decision that I'm coming to. I'm simply going off the facts. Thank you for your honesty. Is es.wp the only project you are blocked on at this time and when did it happen? Also, is there anything that you would like to bring to my/our attention that would strengthen your application? (I've noticed that people have brought up some fairly negative stuff, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to bring up stuff that we might not know :) ) On another note, would you be willing to make a binding recall pledge if successful? If so, what terms would be acceptable to you? Geoff Plourde 22:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) Yes, es.wp is the only place where I am blocked for creating some pages about myself, that were eventually deleted. I created another account (MisterWiki) and I just did not know that that would enworse the possibility of a come back to es.Wikipedia. As I already commented somewhere else on this discussion, I created a wiki (on my Intranet) last year, creating new articles and translating from en.wikipedia for the es.wikipedia, but even that did not help any discussion that were about me on that wiki. 2) And, something I am really proud of is my involvement at Wikinews, and my long-term work at w:Pichilemu and related articles. 3) Why not, if that could help me earn your trust :-)Diego Grez 20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And respecting to Diegusjaimes (the one I called son of bitch, and that sincerely had nothing to do with my block):

  • <MisterWiki> Estas aqui diegus?
  • <MisterWiki> Te pido disculpas por lo que escribi ayer en Wikipedia
  • <MisterWiki> :(
  • <MisterWiki> Perdón.
  • <Diegusjaimes24-7> :)
  • <MisterWiki> Me disculpas?
  • <MisterWiki> Por favor :)
  • <Diegusjaimes24-7> Si

Translates to:

  • MW: Are you here Diegus?
  • MW: I want to apologize about what I wrote yesterday on Wikipedia
  • MW: :(
  • MW: Sorry
  • DJ24-7: :)
  • MW: Could you apologize me?
  • MW: Please :)
  • DJ24-7: Yes

Perhaps you might think my past actions won't let you trust me to have this tool, but I'm sure I would use them for good, for the project. Diego Grez 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment from Abd. The above exchange shows that Diego was, in January, capable of an angry outburst. I've seen current custodians make an angry outburst. It's not proper, for sure, but he's quite young and Diego acknowledged it and apologized for it, which is better than some of what I've seen pass without consequence. Of more concern, for me, are Adambro's charges below. They do not fully disclose Adambro's involvement. The "reasons suck" were reasons provided by Adambro, and, indeed, they sucked. That is, Adambro did not provide proper reasons for his action. Adambro then wheel-warred on this, Diego did not. See Request custodian action report. Should Diego have acted when he did? He should have discussed, but he was also correct. Adambro's action was an unnecessary provocation of a user, and the alternative account was not contrary to policy. The Moulton action was rash; I've elsewhere criticized it, but Adambro's comment that Diego did not "take responsibility for dealing with it," isn't accurate. This was Caprice. "Inviting Moulton to evade his block" is a highly distorted account of the affair; the account was created and promptly blocked by Diego, see the block log, so that Moulton could have access to a Talk page, otherwise prevented by the global lock. When Moulton/Caprice was, shall we say, provocative, on the Talk page, Caprice was blocked (by Adambro) and nobody protested this. Adambro has, however, been a one-person Moulton block enforcement machine, to the point of protecting user talk pages which have explicitly allowed Moulton comments, which is out of balance. I'm afraid that, in the period of Diego's probation, I've been more concerned about Adambro's actions. Diego's action here, while premature, opened up some possibilities that have yet to be realized. --Abd 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What is concerning here is that you seem to be more interested in using this as another opportunity to criticise me rather than discuss Diego which is supposed to be what this page is about. Why is it inaccurate for me to say that Diego was "apparently not monitoring what resulted and taking responsibility for dealing with it"? I see only two edits by Diego to User talk:Caprice. If Diego was taking responsibility for that I would have expected a few more to keep things on track. Why is it inaccurate for me to say that Diego was "Inviting Moulton to evade his block"? Diego has said he talked to Moulton on IRC, the suggestion being that Diego invited Moulton to create Caprice. On the issue of "reasons suck", regardless of the merits of the block, "reasons suck" in my opinion isn't an appropriate justification for unblocking. Diego should have explained why the "reasons suck". Adambro 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adambro, if you are going to bring up, as a reason for opposing, actions which Diego took which might be closer to consensus here than your own, but not disclose your own involvement and that there is controversy over it, then it is quite appropriate for me to bring it up. I'm balancing your outrageous comment and !vote: Did you need to repeat that indiscretion in capital letters, like a yellow journalist, with translation, after Diego had already acknowledged it? Your own block reasons have been laconic and ill-founded, you are not well-placed to fault Diego on this, and this was already discussed extensively with him, and not repeated. Now, back to the question here. Would promoting Diego provide greater expected value for this wiki than is risked in the cost of fixing errors? I have no doubt myself about it. It's a wiki. Errors can be fixed. Diego or any other custodian who is consistently acting contrary to consensus can and must be demoted. --Abd 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was nothing "outrageous" about my comment and since you queried why I felt Diego was inviting Moulton to evade his block and why I didn't feel Diego was taking responsibility for Caprice I have explained my reasons for saying that in my above comment. Did I need to repeat Diego's comment "DIEGUSJAIMES ES UN HIJO DE PUTA" and provide a tranlsation ("DIEGUSJAIMES IS A SON OF BITCH"), yes I did. I don't consider this to be some minor indiscretion nor does it simply demonstrate Diego is "capable of an angry outburst". This was an article in the main namespace of the Spanish Wikipedia. I've seen custodians (and admins elsewhere) do some foolish things when annoyed but I don't think I've yet seen one vandalise an article by replacing it with a personal attack. Anyway, as I've said in my comment, my impression is that more recently Diego has behaved more properly. It is unfortunate that your seem to be focussing on defending Diego by attacking me and suggesting, for example, that because in your opinion my block reasons aren't adequate that I can't suggest Diego's reasons aren't appropriate. It makes me wonder what your main aim here is, helping Diego become a custodian or just having a go at me again. If you wanted to help Diego become a custodian then you might be trying to show me why I'm wrong to feel it would be premature so that I might change my vote, rather than just trying to say I'm not entitled to comment on some of these issues. Perhaps you should suggest Diego votes for himself to "balance out" my vote. Adambro 10:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Recall Question: What terms would you be willing to set forth as a binding recall pledge? Geoff Plourde 23:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know, what do you suggest? :-) --Diego Grez 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My general comment on "binding recall pledges" is that the ones I've seen have been badly designed and aren't therefore, actually binding. Admins on Wikipedia have ignored them without consequence. I've been thinking about this for some time, so I just wrote a draft -- very rough draft -- of Wikiversity:Voluntary custodial restraint. The idea is that we don't really need, necessarily, actual desysop, but rather a means of temporarily restraining a custodian, a clear process to avoid disruption, without complicated and difficult process. Desysop would only happen if the custodian refuses to be restrained pending discussion and review. I caution: the draft is probably over-complicated, but comment is invited. It's quite possible it could be simplified. It is a permanent version of what both I and Diego agreed to in our custodianship candidacies, it creates a privileged class of "supporters." Obviously, if supporters come to rue their support, something could be wrong! The privileged class is not "opposers,' because, quite naturally, those might be prejudiced against the custodian. --Abd 02:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about "In the event that any three uninvolved users state that they have no confidence in Diego Grez as a custodian, a binding discussion shall be immediately initiated focusing on whether or not he should retain the tools. In the event that consensus is for removal, the tools shall be removed as soon as possible and Diego shall have to go through the Candidates for Custodianship process to regain them."? Geoff Plourde 04:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how is this different from now without any pledge? Couldn't "any three uninvolved editors" initiate a Community Review already with the same effect? The whole point of a "binding recall pledge" is to simplify the process, to allow it to happen without what can easily become a brawl. With no consensus! --Abd 06:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for full custodianship[edit source]

some evidence on the !vote by Abigor. --Abd 20:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed Abigor, the name is familiar from other wikis as taking, shall we say, a hard line on blocking certain "trolls," pr "problem users." The link he provided is to commons and to a page only accessible to administrators there, which Abigor is. Diego has some minor privileges on Commons, but he's an administrator on, and see this uncivil comment from Abigor there. Abigor doesn't seem like he's got the concept of polite requests to reconsider actions. The reference to a block is to this block log. I don't have time to research this in further detail, but I'll note this about Diego. I've criticized actions of his, here, and he immediately responded, graciously and receptively.
Diego was blocked for a time on Commons, and unblocked under an agreement. Abigor (aka Huib) is the one who removed Rollback, on Commons, see [1]. the deletion request "rollback" wasn't particularly egregious. I'd have thought that failure to provide edit summaries (the only reason to ding someone for using rollback, really, that's the only difference between rollback and ordinary reversion or reversion back to an earlier version) would have resulted in some warning and discussion.
Abigor's comment is essentially, "He's a problem on Commons because I said so and used my tools."
Diego is extremely active, recently, on Commons, and if he is "making a mess," I'd think he'd have been far more frequently warned, and/or blocked. I can see where the opposition of Abigor might be coming from, see [2], and [3]. I'm seeing familiar names here and this is starting to look very political. See User talk:Ottava Rima, and the linked [4]. Diego clearly dislikes seeing anyone blocked unless it's completely necessary. And some administrators are very much opposed to such "leniency."

Global user display for Diego Grez. Note that he has a total edit count of over 30,000, including almost 4000 on Commons, over 5000 contributions on en.Wikinews, and over 10,000 on en.wikipedia. He's blocked only on es.wikipedia, as being the same user as MisterWiki. See global user display for MisterWiki. The block on es.wikipedia is fairly old, and is not consistent with behavior seen over the last year from Diego Grez. He's quite young, and people change rapidly at his age.

In any case, Diego has not "made a mess" here, during his probationary custodianship, and given his manifest cooperativeness, I'm certainly not expecting it. This must be seen as an "outsider" !vote, as Abigor has so little participation here, and refers to no problems here, but is clearly attempting to bring in outside politics and conflict. --Abd 20:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you don't want information like Catrope gived Diego a last warning before a desysop for deleting and blocking people outsided policies, blocking people with no edits on I only want to point you out what kind of admin you are electing, if he gets his last warning before a de-sysop and you are electing him you should know that information. Abigor 20:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charges of bad behavior elsewhere should be based on clear necessity, and with evidence --Abd 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

original header: Charges of bad behavior elsewhere should be based on clear necessity, and with evidence, or it is just a cheap shot. I looked. Found nothing. --Abd 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)}}Reply[reply]

No, actually, I want actual information as distinct from what may be biased and cherry-picked information presented without diffs, dates, context. Sure. Why no diff? We know that Diego has enemies, who vandalized his pages here. But I'll look and see what I can find. --Abd 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diego has been a sysop at since June 7. The only time Abigor or Catrope have touched his User talk page today, when Abigor left a message "What the fuck" and reversed some sysop actions without prior discussion. Catrope undid a revision deletion there today, also; Abigor had actually confirmed the deletion. (log). Abigor is almost completely inactive at I looked and I saw no other contribution there from Catrope relating to Diego Grez. I'd say that the sysop I'd worry about, based on what I've seen, is Abigor, not Diego. I looked at the block log on and Diego has been very active with routine blocks, with two times that I could find that his actions were reversed. Once before and then Abigor, popping in today, with no discussion but a "what the fuck," reversing two blocks of Diego's the same user. Indeed, WTF? We've seen enough of others bringing grudges here. --Abd 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, it appears that the "last warning" was also the first. This wasn't a conclusion by Catrope that Diego Grez was some loose cannon. This was an IRC discussion (that worries me a bit, but it's their business, not mine.) Also in the IRC log was notice by Mike.lifeguard regarding this !vote, thus Abigor's showing up here can be seen as canvassed. Mike's comment, was at [18:18:10], Abigor's !vote here was at 18:30, 13 August 2010. I'm assuming the log I've seen is authentic, of course, but there were reliable people watching it, that could be checked with them. Hey, Abigor, what do you say about this? Did you see that comment from Mike and come here as a result? --Abd 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Later, Adambro did come up with a very negative incident on es.wikipedia, where Diego was (and is) blocked, IP vandalism as an angry outburst, which Diego has admitted and promptly apologized for, apparently. --Abd 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

  • Oppose I am grateful for Diego Grez's honesty in confirming that he replaced a page on eswikip with "DIEGUSJAIMES ES UN HIJO DE PUTA" (Google Translate: "DIEGUSJAIMES IS A SON OF BITCH") in January of this year. As far as I can tell, Diego has had a chequered history on WMF projects. Whilst it seems that more recently, Diego doesn't seem to have caused problems as previously, I think it might be a bit early to be granting custodianship. A few things have concerned me such as unblocking a user with the reason given as "reasons suck", in a couple of instances unblocking with no explanation, and inviting Moulton to evade his block and create an account then apparently not monitoring what resulted and taking responsibility for dealing with it. Diego Grez has shown great enthusiasm for contributing to the project but there are many ways he can do so without being a custodian and I think it would be useful to see a few more months of contributions to demonstrate he's put the problems of the past behind him. Adambro 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support (this was intended to be my support - dunno what I did wrong there! Good luck Diego! Privatemusings 02:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Diego has a good head on his shoulders. He has a remarkably keen sense of ethics and fair play — a trait sorely lacking in far too many sysops. Moulton 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Struck vote of a blocked user, 'crat please review.Reply[reply]

☒N Not done With only 66.6666...% support, I'll have to call this one as no "consensus" to promote, though there was a majority in support. As a point of order, this hasn't happened before, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to request removal of his tools on meta or give him 48 hours to find another mentor and start over. Let's discuss here. --SB_Johnny talk 21:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[5] --mikeu talk 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]