Wikiversity:Custodian feedback

Please leave comments/suggestions/complaints/questions below. If you have a question about the action(s) of a particular custodian or bureaucrat, the first place to go is that person's user talk page.

See the /Archive for older discussions.

Feedback

 * Name of custodian/bureaucrat:
 * Your comments:

Timeline

 * 04:32, 19 January 2020, Dave Braunschweig starts a discussion with User:Leonardo T. Cardillo regarding the issuance of 'informal certificates of completion'.
 * 13:59, 20 January 2020, Dave Braunschweig blocks Leonardo T. Cardillo for Blatant disregard of a Wikiversity founding principle.
 * 18:43, 21 January 2020, Leonardo T. Cardillo agrees to conform.
 * 23:43, 21 January 2020, Dave Braunschweig unblocks Leonardo T. Cardillo.
 * 23:50, 15 March 2020: After coming across this, I start my discussion with Dave Braunschweig.

Statement
I believe that Dave Braunschweig misused his administrative privileges in initially blocking Leonardo T. Cardillo.

Excerpts from wv:Bureaucratship (emphasis is mine):

[Bureaucrats] must demonstrate through their extensive contributions to Wikiversity that they are not rash in decision-making, nor uncivil to others, even those whom they are in disagreement with. They must also have the ability and willingness to thoroughly explain decisions that he or she makes, as well as to admit fault, where appropriate.

Bureaucrats do not have the right to use their status to appropriate any undue influence in community discussions - their participation in such activities is on a par with any other community member, insofar as is possible.

Discussions on talk pages are community discussions, and by blocking Leonardo T. Cardillo, Dave Braunschweig appropriated absolute influence in that discussion. Leonardo T. Cardillo could do nothing but agree. Dave Braunschweig openly admits that this was an act of coercion. I do not spy a policy dictating the use of force in closing community discussions, do you?

I ask for an unambiguous statement of wrongdoing from Dave Braunschweig. GUYWAN (t &middot; c) 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Participants who fail to follow the policies and practices expected on this site are informed that the behavior should stop through discussions. The discussion that you cite is not the only activity. Leonardo T. Cardillo made other comments that showed a lack of understanding about what Wikiversity is and is not. Here is a request that Wikiversity be included on LinkeIn as an educational institution that someone has attended in the same manner as degree granting institutions. A number of people including Dave and myself repeatedly tried to explain that these are not things that we are in a position to do. We have a very limited staff of volunteers and we can't keep explaining the same thing over and over to appease someone is wants something different than what this site is. Sometimes custodians need to take actions like a brief block to prevent extended arguments from disrupting the project. Leonardo has continued to contribute here after the unblock. I don't see a problem with Dave's block. --mikeu talk 00:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The timeline above is incomplete. As Mu301 points out, there were multiple interactions with this user, including, (which includes content removed by a global sysop), and . While we welcome positive contributions, over the past two years, the Wikiversity community has taken great strides to reduce the impact of disruptive and combative users who have a net negative effect on the community. There comes a point where the cumulative impact of an individual's efforts outweigh the benefits, and action must be taken on behalf of the community. In this case, the intervention was successful, and the user has made positive contributions to Wikiversity since then. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Participants who fail to follow the policies and practices expected on this site [...] Did Leonardo T. Cardillo fail to follow policies and practices expected of him? He may have been incompetent, but it remains to be demonstrated that he had any malintent. [...] informed that the behavior should stop through discussions. I do not see "Your behaviour is considered disruptive. If you cotinue in this manner, you will be blocked" anywhere, do you? Nevertheless, I respect your decision.
 * The interactions [5] and [6] are irrelevant. The only relevant interaction is the one which lead to the block, i.e. interaction [7]. Leonardo T. Cardillo was not blocked for asking about Wikiversity's LinkedIn, he was blocked for asking about 'certificates of completion.' Your account has been blocked for indicating blatant disregard of a founding principle of Wikiversity, as documented at [7]. This is not negotiable. This is the reason Dave Braunschweig gave on Leonardo T. Cardillo's talk page. He makes no mention of [5] and [6]. Can it be said from [7] alone that there was indeed a blatant disregard of a founding principle of Wikiversity? Dave Braunschweig quotes wv:Blocking policy. I remind readers that it is only a proposal. GUYWAN (t &middot; c) 17:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)