As someone wrote on my talk page: They used to say that you're either part of the solution of part of the problem. I guess I want to be part of the solution.
The main area where I expect to use the tools is to support the work I intend to do on the structure of Wikiversity, where I will want to delete or move with some regularity.
What I would like to help happen is that Wikiversity becomes more like a true university, where:
staff, administration and maintenance are separate bodies;
we have organized teachers, students and classes, instead of random chunks of knowledge that don't get used for anything;
eventually, people will be proud to put on their resume: "I am a professor at Wikiversity", or "I graduated from these classes at Wikiversity".
With the tools comes the ability to block. I only believe in two kinds of blocks: a short block of no more than 2 days, with zero consequences, to allow a valued user to cool off, or the rare indefinite block for users that are or have become inherently destructive, which will run until they convince the community that they can do better. Anything in between, especially the systematic increase of block durations that is so popular on certain sister projects, I consider punitive and purposeless. So far, I have not seen anyone come close to be considered for an indefinite block.
Being a custodian is not new to me, so you won't see me drool over my shiny buttons. I am and have been administrator, moderator, bureaucrat, supervisor etc. on many wiki's, including Wikisage, as well as forums, and have even had somewhat comparable functions in the corporeal world (such as tournament director).
While I haven't yet contributed to Wikiversity's content, I do plan to do so. One topic that I am interested in is game design. Guido den Broeder 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
1. How likely do you think you would use the block button and would you use it against an active, registered user without community discussion? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Very modestly. In all my years as an administrator, I have indef blocked a grand total of four active users. I would not have made any of the blocks that I have seen at Wikiversity so far. In general, a custodian should only block when the community asks for it, i.e. a custodian is not judge and jury. Blocks to cool off are primarily to protect the user from harming their own reputation and can be decided on by a custodian. Such blocks should preferably not be made if they would interfere with an ongoing review or similar discussion. Guido den Broeder 12:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
2. If you could make one policy in an area we currently lack a policy, what policy would you pick and why? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It may sound a bit boring, but I would like to add a policy on categories. It is what I am working on elsewhere as well. Guido den Broeder 12:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm also willing to help with the drafting of the social contract that has been suggested by Moulton. Guido den Broeder 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
3. When you say "game design", do you mean how to create games, analysis of existing games, or what exactly? What role do you think you would serve in such an area? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I plan to write an introduction course which would familiarize the student with concepts like balance and replayability. This will be done in the light of a variety of existing games, but there will be exercises where the student has to design their own game or version of a game. Regards, Guido den Broeder 12:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
4. "I want to be part of the solution." Guido, would you like to be part of this proposed solution? If so, please feel free to carve out a role for yourself. —Moulton 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong Objection Guido den Broeder has demonstrated a lack of understanding of Wikiversity traditions and policies, and a lack of concern for cooperation. He's been disruptive elsewhere, failing to seek consensus and simply pushing his own point of view, and I saw this when I was in agreement with what he supposedly wanted. He inflamed disputes. From his practice at Wikiversity:Requests for deletion, see , he was unresponsive to suggestions. He appears to have been attracted by conflict here, and dove into it. He should first demonstrate an interest in Wikiversity qua Wikiversity.
Notice: that he's blocked elsewhere is not a disqualification; it is the combination of that and his disruptive participation here that concerns me. The most concerning block is on meta, which is where I'd worked with him a bit. Looking at his meta block log, I'm concerned with most of the blocks being from a single administrator, one I've known to be abusive or excessive, but, at the time, I also saw, having noticed this before, that Guido was provocative and unnecessarily combative. However, the latest block came from a different admin, based on some serious charges Guido made without substantiation. The key is not the block itself, which looks a bit iffy to me, but that appeal did not succeed. That indicates a deeper problem. See Guido talk; the question from the blocking admin, and Guido's answer. --Abd 02:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Strange. I cannot remember having worked with you on Meta. There has not been an appeal discussion regarding my current block. However, there are things moving behind the scenes which you are not aware of, because of which I do not want this block, which doesn't hinder me in any way, lifted, even though a trusted steward has evaluated it as unjustified.
Abd, during the last few days, I have seen you lash out at pretty much all other users, often more elaborately than above (which makes my rep sheet look quite innocent in comparison). Is there any Wikiversity user that you would trust? Guido den Broeder 12:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm pissed. However I've not "lashed out" at "all other users," by any means. I have expressed frustration with the community, which is more about what it doesn't do than what it does, and this cannot normally be pinned on any individual. On the other hand, when sysops watch what what's happening and don't intervene, they do have some responsibility. "Intervention" would have meant asking me to stop, telling me that they were watching, actively consulting the community if unsure what to do, etc. I was left, instead, with no assistance and only "guidance" from SBJ, who clearly was not interested in dealing with the issues, nor did he consult the community -- CR/Abd never went in the site message, for example -- he simply implemented his own opinion, using the CR as cover. Was that proper? To find out, I'll need to consult the community, the real community, and, by my principles, the time isn't ripe. Let the smoke clear a bit.
Not necessary for any closer to read this part, it's personal. Absolutely fascinating of course, but YMMV. --Abd 14:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile I've learned, from the example of Ottava and JWS, that I can cheerfully tell you to stuff it, I can tell you to go jump in a lake, I can tell you that Come Da Revolution, You'll be Toast, Watch Out, You Will Be Blocked Any Minute Now, I can tell you that you are a total Nut Case, or whatever comes into my silly head.
I'm not going to pretend to be nice to people who are very much not nice, who have driven away the nice people.
Yes, I trust Jtneill. I used to trust SB_Johnny, more or less. I lost that trust at the very last moment in the recent affair. It wasn't about yanking the ops, that had, at least, some reasonable basis. It was the way he did it, and that I realized he'd been opposed from the beginning and was playing a very strange game. Mu301 (Mikeu) is generally okay, but shallow. I'm sorry, any 'crat who is allergic to reading six short paragraphs is probably not appropriate for the main job, closing discussions on cusotdianship and the like. But he's not a problem needing removal.
As to you and meta, the first encounter was . That led to , where I misread the diffs. However, the point about civility still stood. I saw you being blocked by Abigor, and, given how incredibly tolerant meta has been of Ottava's shenanigans there -- way beyond any reasonable level of tolerance -- your rapid blocks by him were probably inappropriate. WizardOfOz's block was excessive, but appropriate in itself. Meta can be slow. Basic rule of handling being blocked, Guido (I became a bit of an expert on it at Wikipedia!): assure the unblocking admin that you won't repeat the problem. If you think you were warned for proper behavior, still, if at all possible, promise not to repeat it pending review. That pulls the rug out from under any color of legitimacy to the block, unless it's based on a long series of violated promises. Attacking the whole administrative structure for "lack of administrative integrity" is a basic way to keep yourself blocked. Works almost every time. You were faced with having been blocked by two admins. Lack of integrity might apply to the first. To the second, perhaps a bit of overcontrol, but the admin was not actually incorrect. From what I've seen, skillfully handled, you'd have been quickly unblocked as soon as some attention was focused. That was the real problem with your unblock notice: nobody watching who was willing to intervene to help someone beginning to be seen as a troll. Hey, you were defending Thekohser! If you are going to do that, your own behavior better be close to spotless.
What's truly disgusting is that the core has not acted to establish safe process, the basic protections that democratic societies put in place to protect free speech, but also to channel it. Guido, here, you backed the wrong side. Ottava is very much against the kind of open process that I've been working on, he's very much against open education, he's worked to suppress it here. You misread what was going on. How many non-vandals did I blocked in about two months of adminship? Guido, there is only one, and what he'd been doing was worse than vandalism, causing far more damage. Vandalism is fixed in an instant, the kind of disruption Ottava was engaged in can mangle a community for a year. As it has. It can take time for it to become visible. If you look at my history, you will see that I've never tried to ban a user before who wasn't engaged in vandalism. (There was one sock puppeteer who I acted against; and among his activites had been IP vandalism, gross disruption, and, in fact, successful, as well, at getting other sincere users banned. He'd pop onto AN/I with an accusation that fit the preconceptions of a faction, they would pile in with Yeah! Off With His Head! and, boom. Banned in a flash, and nobody looked at who lit the match. IP editor?
Notice Moulton. I warned him for an outing edit (as many others had warned him, and he'd been blocked for it, and entire IP ranges had been blocked by others to prevent him from doing it.) He told me to go jump in a lake, in Yiddish. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn Yiddish, since I'm marrying a nice Jewish goil from New Yawk. Uh, did I block him? I certainly had cover for it. In fact, I don't believe in blocking as a solution, and no block is a ban. A block, however, may set a default condition that continues until reviewed, and that is part of the administrative function. Whenever there is a possible appearance of a personal conflict of interest, Wikiversity:Recusal requires consultation. The only difference between the position that others have supported and my own position is that consultation need not be a priori, and requiring a priori consultation is a formula for paralysis, on a wiki. Ottava was a genius at setting up the appearance of "involvement," and he played it beautifully here, with a classic example that I'll use in the future to explain this process and why administrators must be allowed to act freely if they consult. If you look at Ottava on meta and here, and I believe he's done it elsewhere, if he is warned by an admin, he immediately files a complaint, and has often been successful, the admin will often then recuse, often asking for community review. Ottava can argue until the cows come home, and most respondents simply give up, not wanting to continue to engage with someone so crazy, plus Ottava holds grudges a very long time. Maybe forever. He's still trotting out, at meta, alleged offenses from 2008. He trots them out in ways that are quite equivalent to lying, and when his arguments are bankrupted in one forum, he simply repeats them in another.
Ottava, some time ago, cross the boundary between legitimate criticism and unbridled attack and massive disruption. You opposed my efforts to stop this, my guess, without investigating the evidence. Hence I conclude that you aren't qualified to handle complex issues. Further, you have shown no familiarity with Wikiversity inclusion traditions, which are shifting, becoming even more inclusive, through finding ways to satisfy all legitimate concerns. For example, before I became a sysop again, I'd started working with some kids who, apparently, have been active here for a year, with all their work being deleted as "nonsense." Well, I'm a fan of Lewis Carroll, my daughter knows Jabberwocky by heart, since I read the two Alice books to her about five times. So I created Wikiversity:Playspace as a project, and created my own User:Abd/Playspace for IP editors, and pointed out that "nonsense" pages are not a problem in user space. There are difficulties and problems to work out, for sure, mostly involved with Wikiversity:Privacy. These kids may be using real names, sometimes. But see this, from Ottava. He was blocking these kids, when he was a sysop, and blocking the IP means blocking a public school. Wikiversity is not just for college-level education, there were attempts to create resources for kids. Are we going to welcome children? If so, we need to be truly welcoming, and patient and tolerant.
Notice, Ottava is suggesting to Mikeu that, "Now that Abd no longer has Custodian rights, can we clean up the "play area" and stop the kids from running amok?" I have small kids, I understand them. Running amok is part of being a healthy kid! The problem here, as I see it, is to establish communication with them so that they will respect the needs of the community, and "play" in "playspace," which can be their own user space, or a public playspace. We have a sandbox, but that doesn't allow them to work on a page long-term (actually, it does, but that takes some sophistication to know that you can restore a page from Sandbox history. I've even used a Sandbox to present evidence in an ArbComm case.... whatever works! I did that because it would take revision deletion to get rid of the page, and ordinary sysops at the time on Wikipedia didn't have revision deletion ability, I think.)
The objection from the community wasn't that playspaces were a problem, but that "play" was somehow insulting. That may reveal more about those objecting than about how kids will actually behave and think. My kids certainly aren't averse to "playgrounds." They are kids, they know they are kids, and they love being kids. Kids learn more quickly than those who are older, by far, and they learn the most by playing. I'm basically a big kid (ADHD being a developmental disorder), and that's why I've continued to learn rapidly even at my age.)
I would be nice if you'd apologize, Guido. Might change my position.
People don't like that I "write too much." Well, they can go jump in a lake. Don't like it, don't read it. Leave it for others who actually care. --Abd 14:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, so this is more about you, and your perceptions, interpretations and frustrations, than about me. What strikes me most is that you seem to think in terms of taking sides for or against other users. I, however, think in terms of problems and solutions, and would encourage other users to adopt a similar thought process. Guido den Broeder 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Guido, you supported, for me, a topic ban. The proposal. Can you explain how this is consistent with your alleged support of thinking in terms of "problems and solutions"? How would a ban be enforced? My WV space writing is almost entirely about the system, and only became focused on specific users, appearing to take sides, because of massive disruption here, and my being handed sysop tools, so that it became my responsibility to deal with it, since I saw it. Long-term, it's not about individuals, but about structure, and if you'd actually read the stuff that you were quite ready to ban, you'd know that. Sorry, you are utterly unqualified, and a hypocrite your analysis is inconsistent with your practice to boot. --Abd 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that is not difficult to explain. Your probationary custodianship presented Wikiversity with a problem. We solved it by removing the bit. That doesn't make me think any less of you as a person and you may well find me supporting you on entirely different issues. If my own probie days prove to be a problem, I expect the same treatment, for my own benefit as well as the community's. Guido den Broeder 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Guido, you avoided the issue. You supported a topic ban. That was the proposal you voted for, and you added "emergency desysop" to it. Emergency desysop was actually rejected, by the way, and would have been unnecessary. Desysop is not a ban, and has nothing to do with a ban, except a banned sysop would be ridiculous, which is why the proposal you supported was ridiculous. You have not answered about the obvious contradiction with your expressed philosophy. How would the ban you supported be enforced? But you've answered enough, as far as I'm concerned, I know my position now, and I'm not optimistic about you waking up. You want me to stop responding here, then stop responding to me, let my comments stand. --Abd 17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A topic ban is a potential solution to a topic or area getting flooded. There is no contradiction. Guido den Broeder 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A block is a potential solution to a wiki getting flooded. I'm not sure what "flooding" means, comments can be collapsed, archived to history, moved to talk, or just plain deleted. Or how about ignored? How is "flooding" worse than incivility, which frequently provokes others to flood? How is a topic ban enforced? --Abd 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we build a dam. It is in the works already. But if you prefer a block, I'm sure that can be arranged. Guido den Broeder 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't this one of User:Salmon of Doubt's ideas? I haven't had much chance to play with blocks, for years. I've watched with envy as other users got to play whack-a-mole; obviously, on a wiki, this is much more fun for the mole. Mmmm... Was that a threat? Please, Brer Fox, don't throw me in the briar patch! --Abd 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, JWSchmidt. I have a different opinion with regard to your first point. Custodianship is, IMHO, not a promotion, but a job. Creating or studying content extensively does not make someone a good custodian, it might instead make someone a good teacher. Custodianship is learned by participating in policy discussions, reviews etc., which I have done.
You are correct: my dream of Wikiversity resembles the original mission statement that was rejected by the WMF. The rejection dates from 2005 though, a lot has changed in the world of e-learning and in the WMF since. But if it comes down to it, I would be willing to leave the umbrella of the WMF. There is, however, a lot of room between Wikiversity's current state and the original vision, and we just might ease into the dream.
It is good to hear that there was never a need for other kinds of blocks here. But there have been such blocks nonetheless. You need not fear for anything of the sort with me as custodian. Regards, Guido den Broeder 15:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"Custodianship is learned by participating in policy discussions, reviews etc." <-- In my experience, people do not constructively participate in discussions of Wikiversity policy unless they have first participated in Wikiversity collaborative learning projects or created some Wikiversity learning resources. There have been very disruptive Custodians who impose on this community all sorts of inappropriate ideas and methods that they learned at other wiki projects. We don't need any more. "reviews" <-- If you are talking about "community reviews" then please explain why participation at community reviews can qualify anyone for custodianship. "there have been such blocks nonetheless" <-- And those blocks have vastly disrupted the Wikiversity project. Wikiversity does not need any more clueless and abusive sysops who don't understand this project and who think the way to create a learning community is to bash community members with the banhammer. --JWSchmidt 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Custodians do not ban anyone, the community does. I am not quite sure why you think of me as an abusive sysop, and would like to see an example of a sysop action by me on, for instance, Wikisage, that qualifies in your eyes. Apart from your lack of faith in me, I actually agree with most of what you say. As for your question: by participating in reviews and related processes, you get to know the strengths and weaknesses of existing policies, as well as the (more outspoken) users and their expectations. And that is what custodianship is all about. Writing a content page in some remote corner, on the other hand, teaches you exactly nothing in that area. Be aware though that, while I may be new here, I have experience in many similar collaborative projects (and no, by that I do not mean Wikipedia, which is vastly different). Hoping to find you more objective, Guido den Broeder 03:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Custodians do not ban anyone, the community does" <-- Is that wishful thinking? Propaganda? For two years Wikiversity was a peaceful community of collaborating learners. Then a gang of policy violators from Wikipedia came and targeted a Wikiversity community member to be banned. A few abusive sysops, in particular, SB Johnny collaborated with Jimbo and the gang of thugs from Wikipedia to impose a ban on Moulton. Other abusive sysops have supported that bogus ban as recently as last Summer, disrupting an attempt to even let the community review the bogus ban. Wikiversity community members who objected to the disruptive practice of imposing unjustified blocks and bans on Wikiversity community members has been harassed and driven away from the project. SB Johnny told me to fuck off and leave the project, he imposed a policy-violating block on me, performed an emergency desysop when there was no emergency, banned me from participation in the community chat channel with no warning, reason or discussion. SB Johnny is ready to mentor you, so apparently you are his kind of guy. Your candidacy statement on this page says nothing about an interest in the mission of this project, instead you advocate an idea that was, for very good reasons, explicitly ruled-out by the Wikimedia Foundation. Rather than explaining your interests in learning and participating in this community, you went right into a statement of your interest in imposing blocks against Wikiversity community members. Since 2008 Wikiversity has been vastly disrupted by abusive sysops who think that they can impose their disruptive influence by censoring Wikiversity community discussions, imposing emergency desysops when there is no emergency, or by imposing a bad block. These abusive sysops have driven away most of the honest Wikiversity community members but they continue to recruit like-minded sysops who are willing to extend the sorry chain of abusive sysops who have been disrupting this project. "I am not quite sure why you think of me as an abusive sysop" <-- I never said that you are an abusive sysop. I have not examined your participation at other wiki websites. However, I've explained that Wikiversity community members gain the trust of the community through constructive editing and advancing the Wikiversity mission. That approach is not good enough for you. What I have seen in the past is the "wink and a nudge" approach where yet another abusive sysop is forced upon this community ofter someone with no demonstrated interest in this community shows up and expresses an interest in abusing their Custodial tools. "that is what custodianship is all about" <-- Custodians block repeat vandals. Custodians delete pages that are doing harm to the Wikiversity mission and that the community provides good reason to delete. Custodians do other boring work like page imports. That is it. You have expressed no desire to perform the work of a Custodian, instead you informed us that you claim the right to impose blocks on the collaborative learners of the community. Under these conditions I don't trust that you have any interest in the mission of this community and I certainly can't trust you to use sysop tools wisely. "Hoping to find you more objective" <-- How can I be more "objective" than to quote your own words and explain why they are not appropriate for a Custodian candidate? You should stop wasting our time and devote your efforts to creating Wikiversity learning resources and participating in Wikiversity learning projects. If you demonstrate, through good editing, that you have an interest in this community and support the Wikiversity mission then you might reasonably seek Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you seem to hold so many grudges. That has, however, nothing to do with me. I have asked you for evidence to back up your bad faith in me. You have chosen not to provide any, and to cherish your dark phantasies instead and to project them onto me. Forgive me if I do not attach much weight to that. I want to help build something here, not dive into your personal agony. Guido den Broeder 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
In other words, Guido, JWS, our resident curmudgeon, is opposed to any use of the block tool except for vandalism, and apparently filling Wikiversity with vast Community Reviews over ancient history isn't considered vandalism, and attacking the good faith and credibility of users is harmless, even though it does far more damage in terms of wasted time. Short blocks have aroused JWS's ire just as much as indef blocks. Even warning JWS for disruption and revert warring has aroused his long-term enmity. Welcome to Wikiversity, where sanity is optional. --Abd 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To translate JWS's statement, the very fact that Guido mentioned blocks caused such a reaction that he then projected onto you all the abuse that he had seen or imagined, from the last two years, and he will, if you apply a year from now, refer back to this as how you were block-happy, just itching to block people, if history is any guide. Rather, in my view, you are naive, you don't have enough experience with WMF wikis and the problems of scale and what can happen when users who are abnormally disruptive arrive, or, even more difficult, when a long-time contributor flips out and stays flipped out. The "graduated system" of blocks on other wikis that you mention are a protective part of the system, not the reason or cause of abuse. (What was my "crime" most mentioned in my last block of Ottava? Blocking for a year, rather than, say, a week. A week block might have been sustained. Read "weak.")
Abuse arises, rather, from lack of review, from admins circling the wagons, supporting each other in a knee-jerk way against ordinary users, etc. Wikiversity's problems are almost opposite, and we can see the problem in edits to Wikiversity:Recusal, which had been written by me in one way, edited consistently with that by Adambro, but then massively revised by Darklama, and I hadn't noticed that, so I believed I was following the draft policy. As it had been changed, I certainly wasn't. But the policy as edited was utterly unrealistic, and is routinely violated. Some Wikiversitans seem to think that writing idealistic policies that real people will violate because they know what they are doing is for the welfare of the wiki, will somehow magically change behavior. It will, but not as a draft, not as a guideline, but as a true policy enjoying the true consensus of the community, and, even then, if the community does not pay attention, it won't do any good. Policies must have "teeth." Violation of policy must bring consequences. Not necessarily rigid consequences, but consequences that any reasonable user or custodian will readily anticipate. If our civility policy had real teeth, I'd have been blocked at least, or firmly warned by a sysop ready to block, once in the last two days or so. I was not even warned. I was "advised," but the advice had no teeth. I'll refactor what I was advised about, specifically, but the lack of attention remains. --Abd 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is not a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a degree-granting institution without serious structure, which includes handling disruption efficiently. Guido supported a topic ban based on no evidence at all, and a topic ban is a partial block, in effect, and is enforced with blocks, if needed, or it's meaningless. He's a hypocrite. His analysis is inconsistent with his practice.
As to what I'd fear, it's not blocks, it's deletion of what he disagrees with or doesn't think is in scope, and this is where experience with Wikiversity is important. Guido arrived here to take part in a dust-up, not with any apparent educational intention, and appears to have done some content work, just to be treated as a member of the community.
I'd also fear that he'd unblock, when a block was necessary for the community welfare. That might actually be more dangerous than a block! Guido immediately suggested emergency desysop for a block that simply repeated, with more substance, what had been done by other custodians before, that was based on clear reasoning, and with consultation of the community both before and after. Surely if he had tools, he'd have unblocked as well. Just Say No! --Abd 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Abd, I am not you. As a custodian, I do not place my personal opinion above that of others. The community's wish is my command. Guido den Broeder 16:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Too bad, Guido. I thought you might possibly recognize and address the concerns, instead of turning it into a contest over who is the deeper servant of the community. You do place your personal opinion over that of others, and that's what I've seen, here and elsewhere. If it were true that custodians were to be pure servants, with no discretion, then we'd only need a few, and we'd simply arrange for them to have duty periods. Not a bad idea, actually.... in part. I'll stand on what I wrote. You supported a topic ban, converted it, by your comment, into an emergency desysop proposal, and your vote counted very much. Yet the process did not actually consult the community, it wasn't in the site message, etc. You area hypocrite an inconsistent and biased analyst, arguing for what seems convenient at the time, judging others for what you yourself would do, or support or propose doing. --Abd 16:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed the concerns. Please note that there is more work for custodians than blocking and unblocking, or we might indeed need only one present at any time. Meanwhile, your low opinion of me is duly noted, now please leave some room on this page for others. Guido den Broeder 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You've made your inconsistency clear, the gratuitous hostility is noted, and thanks for that, so I will, indeed, stand aside for others, though, in fact, there is plenty of room on this page. --Abd 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent disruption has raised issues over the routine approval of a probationary custodian as if it were automatic upon the acceptance of a mentor. While the policy currently reads as if it is, that is a misunderstanding. Two points should be addressed in the policy, and I suggest they be respected now. An approving 'crat should not simply note that the mentor is a custodian and push the button, the 'crat should, indeed, consider community concerns, as well as his or her own, and insure that there will be adequate supervision, if risk is considered real, or providing supervision will increase community trust and sense of safety, and the possibility of avoiding serious damage, should there be a problem. A truly inactive custodian probably should not mentor, alone.
The insurance of safety is often handled through specific agreements proposed by the mentor -- or the 'crat, or the community -- and acceptance of these conditions should be explicit in the approval. In my case, my mentor was a 'crat who explicitly abstained from approving, leaving that to SBJ. While it wasn't explicit in the approval, I did voluntarily assign to SBJ the right to lift the bit without process. Unfortunately, he did not rely upon that. --Abd 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Abd, would you be satisfied if there were, say, multiple mentors each with the right to instantly remove Guido if necessary and that there is a more hands on approach? What if Guido promises that if, say, 7 people expressed discomfort about him having probationary custodianship that such would be enough to desysop him at Meta? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Having additional mentors, good. But any number of people "expressing discomfort" about a custodian isn't adequate, and you've demonstrated that a single disruptive user, if the user has sufficient support elsewhere, can muster that quickly. All it takes is a bit of IRC, eh? The question is not my satisfaction, in fact, the question is the satisfaction of the implementing 'crat that the arrangements are adequate. I'm not going to specify what that would be, it's really up to the 'crat and the mentor, with the probationary custodian explicitly agreeing to any set restrictions. That's very important, because a steward will want to see the agreement, if desysop is not based on a discussion. It seems you'd like to create a discussion, Ottava. Bad Idea. The whole point is to make protecting the community simple and quick.
One small additional point. It is possible for an additional mentor to not be a custodian, because the probationer could agree to accept advice and desysop from a non-custodian mentor as well as the custodian. Stewards would respect such an agreement, all it would take is a diff. --Abd 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It would seem your worry expressed above should be your strength. Since you feel it is easy to muster a group of people, then it should be easy for you to do so if Guido acts in a way you feel he needs to be removed, right? Also - "All it takes is a bit of IRC, eh?" - The channel has LauraHale, Darklama/Darkcode, Juandev, Erkan, and a few others that did not participate. Moulton is there but he is unique. SB Johnny participated, Mu301 kinda did, and JWSchmidt participated. Thenub and Geoff, who were supposed to chime in, were not around at IRC or elsewhere, presumably over school starting. IDangerMouse started using the IRC channel 2 days ago. Sj and Pharos are two who sit in the channel but are not active at Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I could do that. Ottava does that. I don't. Those who use IRC are a small subset of the community, and IRC fosters decisions through sound bites. Bad Idea, and we should probably prohibit it. IRC and other off-wiki mechanisms should never be used for actual decision-making, and a group of users deciding to support a thing is a decision. IRC makes sense for gaining neutral attention to some emergent issue. So would a mailing list. Given that IRC is not logged, and that personal logs cannot be revealed, it's an ideal opportunity for misinformation to be spread, without suffering consequences. --Abd 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the Right of Peaceable Assembly, which no would-be autocrat may abridge without risk of becoming the laughing stock of 21st Century scholars. In Congress, partisan political factions employ caucuses to decide on their political strategy. I prefer to do my thinking in the open, as is customary in scientific endeavors. But the Bill of Rights is there to guarantee that those who are not of a scientific bent may do their homework out of the glare of the public limelight. —Moulton 15:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I offered before, and am still willing to give it a shot, but I'd rather wait a couple weeks. Assuming I'm acceptable (and still a Custodian) in a couple weeks, of course :-). --SB_Johnnytalk 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem there, I am not in any kind of a hurry. Thanks for the offer, and you are definitely acceptable! Guido den Broeder 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Awesomely played, SBJ. --Abd 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It is now a couple of weeks later. Cheers, Guido den Broeder 23:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Since that will generate a lot of heat, I am not going to attempt that before I make custodian. Guido den Broeder 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
What's missing in general is a reliable method for achieve a meeting of the minds on policies, practices, and protocols for smooth and graceful governance of the community. —Caprice 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Before the Hostile Takeover of 2008 Wikiversity community members did what was best to create an environment suited for exploring how to use wiki technology to support online learning. The regime that came to power in 2008 drove away the honest Wikiversity community members and continues to give sysop tools to folks infected with Wikipedia Disease, endlessly inflicting upon Wikiversity misguided and abusive sysops who disrupt Wikiversity with their censorship, their preference for "delete" rather than "edit" and "block" rather than discussion. Wikiversity needs regime change, an end to banhammer culture and a return to its peaceful pre-2008 roots. --JWSchmidt 14:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's an undeniable fact that the events of 2008 drove some people away and attracted others. In particular it attracted a sizable faction of corrupt characters who took up arms against a lone ranger who engaged them with the tools of thought employed in scientific research. For every act of autocratic control undertaken by the corrupt political faction, the lone scientist responded with an act of scientific observation and hypothesis testing. Here is a typical example of scientific hypothesis testing. —Barsoom Tork, Anthropologist from Mars 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)