Wikiversity talk:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian)

Monitoring non-user votes
"Non-users" means users who come here just to vote on this CC, users who are not participating in Wikiversity. Since nobody is required to participate here, to consider someone a "non-user" isn't an accusation of anything, but this CC has been noticed, apparently, on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia Review, so users who are not paying attention to Wikiversity, but who have opinions from the past, may decide to come here to vote. Those votes will likely be based on "ancient history," not on my actual record as a probationary custodian. I'm seeing certain Oppose votes, but, strange thing, no actual opposition to any custodian action of mine appeared during the period, and, still, there is a deficiency of specific complaints. In some cases the origin and nature of those votes is quite easy to determine.

Users who are actually participating in Wikiversity have a different kind of interest. Non-users include users who believe that Wikiversity is hopeless, that it's useless to work here, and they have shown that through their non-participation. I urge them to reconsider, and to look more carefully at what has actually been happening on Wikiversity.

I need to look at this for my own information, because how I respond, personally, to this CC, will depend on whether or not I consider that it reflects the real Wikiversity community, or just those who are carrying grudges from the past. If there are errors here, please point them out. --Abd 02:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Active users
(Considered by Abd to have an active interest in Wikiversity, demonstrated by recent contributions.)
 * Special:Contributions/Draicone Support
 * Special:Contributions/Marshallsumter Support
 * Special:Contributions/1sfoerster Support
 * Special:Contributions/Gaon_Yincang_Abhinava Support
 * Special:Contributions/Fedosin Support
 * Special:Contributions/Edward Hyde Support (new user, but here to create resources)
 * Special:Contributions/White Fennec Support


 * Special:Contributions/Sj Oppose WMF Board member, but is not representing the WMF in this. Right, Sj?
 * Special:Contributions/SB Johnny (marginal, mostly inactive) Oppose

Users inactive as of 1st comment
(Considered by Abd to be inactive as of the time of first comment.)
 * Special:Contributions/Ajraddatz. Support. Low contribs, global sysop and rollbacker.
 * Special:Contributions/Salmon of Doubt Support (sarcastic) First edit since 2008!
 * Special:Contributions/S Larctia Conditional Support (changed from opposition)
 * Special:Contributions/Stanistani Support


 * Special:Contributions/Ottava Rima Oppose (now active) (now blocked for a week by SBJ)
 * Special:Contributions/Guido den Broeder Oppose ("retired.")
 * Special:Contributions/Bduke Oppose
 * Special:Contributions/Anonymous Uploader Oppose

Criterion for success at CC
I'd been thinking, based on a previous CC I had in mind, that I'd need to get some specific percentage of votes. That's not policy, the policy is different. Custodianship: Five days after the request has been listed, a bureaucrat will make the final decision based on the arguments provided in the discussion.

So if users are concerned about my possible permanent custodianship, they should provide arguments as to why this would be harmful. Evidence would help.

Aside from evidence, I would agree that there would be a harm from a distrusted custodian, but if the distrust is only coming from users who don't participate anyway, it would be of less significance. "I don't trust the user" coming from a user who is active building the project, who needs access to custodial support or fears custodial interference, would mean something. Coming from someone with non-project concerns, on the level of "I don't like him," or "He criticized me a year ago," it means something else. I've only been a probationary custodian for a bit over a month now, and so my use of custodial tools could not have been the reason why certain users were staying away. It's true that I've been active, very active, long term, even without being a custodian, but if that's a problem, it will not be resolved by my not being a custodian. I don't personally need the tools. It is merely a chance to serve.

I submit that I should be judged based on how I used the tools. I was not restrained, there were no actions that occurred to me that I did not take because I'd be facing an approval process. WYSIWYG. --Abd 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of these so-called 'non-users' are currently not contributing for one reason only: your presence. Your habitual disqualification of other users is one of the main reasons why you should never be granted any kind of authority. You are a community destroyer. Guido den Broeder 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Summary: "Some" is one, Guido den Broeder. He's telling the truth about himself. --Abd 14:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How many is "some"? This could not be said about S Larctia and SalmonofDoubt. With respect to Ottava, "disqualification" of users would be completely unrelated to his decision to stop participating; at the time he went on sabbatical, he ascribed this to completing his dissertation. So that leaves Guido. He "retired" here, 15 August 2011. He withdrew his "offer" to be a custodian, the same day. He has 324 total edits here, most involved with contention in WV process, often contention with what he called my "silliness." (What I had stated was effectively policy, users are blocked for incivility. Look at my own block log! Right or wrong, I was blocked for incivility and I filed no complaint about the custodian who blocked. He erred as to specifics. So? Easily fixed. I have no trouble working with that custodian. No conflicts. Cooperation.)


 * Guido had only one edit after March 5, until placing that retirement notice. He likewise "retired" on meta, after casting a !vote to keep a user blocked. None of my activity here, nor the activity of anyone else, was preventing Guido from creating educational resources. Nothing on meta was preventing him from using meta for its purpose, to coordinate the projects. Reviewing his contributions globally, his position is clear. It's personal. He's likely telling the truth about himself. This issue of Wikiversity participation and how it relates to polls has been raised before. To understand the political situation read this discussion. Guido had the last word there, and the result was ... nothing. After seeing this happen a few times, after his custodianship bid went nowhere, he took his marbles home. That's his choice. He wasn't harassed, and he wasn't blocked or threatened with a block, he wasn't even close to something that would result in a block. On meta, it was different, but he still wasn't close to anything blockable this time.


 * As to "community destroyer," Wikiversity was seriously damaged in 2008, and again at the beginning of 2010, due to "meta intervention," in both cases by Jimbo (and that didn't work out well for Jimbo, either, he ended up resigning his most intrusive Founder tools after an RfC on meta started by a WV sysop over the 2010 incident.) What I've seen on WV, since I began working and helping here, and especially recently, reviewing Recent Changes, which I do daily, is a resurgence of educational resource activity. This is now obviously being considered a safe place to develop educational resources. The idea of closing Wikiversity has again been raised on my candidacy page. It's preposterous. I follow site closure decisions on meta. Wikiversity isn't close. We have been called the "Island of Banned Users." That's a good thing, not a bad one. Some of these users simply wanted to do things that could not legitimately be done on, say, Wikipedia, but which are actually useful here. Some encountered abuse elsewhere, but that's simply not our business. Some, it's true, will be disruptive anywhere, but this is a small minority. I'm a community builder, and it's the larger WMF community I'm building, by making and improving a place for educational activity here, which can help prevent disruption elsewhere. What JWSchmidt has called "Wikipedia disease" (which, translated into a more cogent criticism, just means the mentality involved in building an encyclopedia) sometimes leads Wikipedia users to think that what isn't proper on Wikipedia is "bad." And so they try to stop it from being expressed here. There were one or two sysops here who used their tools to support this exclusion. They are gone.


 * What continues to be enforced is the prevention of disruption by users attacking, here, users on other wikis. Or, often in the other direction, users from other wikis attacking users here based on behavior elsewhere. Often, these are personal grudges being brought and acted out here. It's not allowed, ultimately, and if local custodians don't handle it, stewards eventually will. So we do handle it. At least I do, and so do some other custodians, when they can. --Abd 14:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A vote of oppose is not a personal attack. Guido den Broeder 08:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct, opposition is not attack. However, some expressions of oppositions include personal attacks. No specific accusation is made or implied. --Abd 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Inactive or active
The classifying of users as inactive or active is improper for several reasons. First, one can have an interest and a stake in WV, but have to take off long periods when one is not participating a great deal. I, for example, am very busy with other issues but I also feel that real effort on WV might be wasting my time due to the way it is going. The presence of lots of editors who were banned on our prime site, wikipedia, does not encourage me. Second, no project run by the WMF should be seen in isolation. I have realized this by working hard for several years on my country's chapter, It is perfectly proper for people on other projects to come here. I did not come here just for this. I regularly check my watchlist here and comment if there seems a need. The attempt to divide the comments into those by "active" users which are OK and those by "inactive" users which are in a sense improper, is just one reason why Abd should not be a custodian. --Bduke 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a classic wiki issue. If it were true that I was arousing opposition from a significant percentage of the active users, I'd really want to know that. To know, I must classify those commenting into active or inactive. Above is a rather arbitrary classification, and it is primarily for my own use. It's easy to check, that's why the contributions were listed.


 * The kind of data analysis represented by the above is actually an academic approach. The research question here is "Does position on Abd's custodianship correlate with Wikiversity activity?" Many other similar questions could be asked, and would be if I had time. There is data above, and this could be done much more rigorously. (I.e, with a clear, set-in-advance standard, or the data could be analyzed with many different standards.)


 * Yes, it is perfectly proper for users from other projects, or other inactive users, to come here and comment. What's a bit distressing to me is that Bduke seems to be claiming that I was opposed to such comments, or was impeaching them. Notice that among those I classify as "inactive" are users who supported me. In any case, this is probably all moot. The Wikiversity community knows how to seek and find broad consensus, and I'm proud to be a part of that. --Abd 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the closure of the second vote

 * ❌ There is clearly not a consensus to promote Abd to full custodian. --SB_Johnny talk 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * There was clearly not a consensus to promote, which was the topic under discussion. If it were a close call, I would have hesitated to close it, but it wasn't a close call (no matter how you counted it). --SB_Johnny talk 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * May be true, but it's not your call to make, SBJ. You created the necessity for this vote by your out-of-process desysop, you're heavily involved, as review will show. As demonstrated before, "success" or "failure" are not the only possible closes. Sometimes extended voting time can be allowed, to get a broader sense of the community. My objection stands, and I request a neutral close, if any. --Abd 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true, and it was my call to make (that's part of my "job", as they say). Sometimes extended voting is good, but only when it's a close call (this was more like a "snowball").
 * The vote is closed. --SB_Johnny talk 20:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on comment of Xijky. You may vote here and it is up to a closer whether or not to deprecate the vote. I have been a stand for the right of users banned or sanctioned elsewhere to make positive contributions here. Such users have included Ottava Rima and S Larctia ("Simone"), who opposed my candidacy. It's not surprising that some such users support my candidacy, because I opposed attempts to harass them here, this would include Marshallsumter and Poetlister, both of whom have extensive positive contributions as a result of my intervention. Perhaps the same personal characteristics that led to bans elsewhere lead some to oppose my work here, but I'll avoid applying this to individuals. It would involve judging their work elsewhere, which is precisely what I've been saying we should not do. Xijky, given that the facts don't support the thesis you assumed, did you preferentially check those who had supported me and not those who opposed? In any case, being banned on Wikipedia is correlated with being an expert in a field, happens all the time. Experts, amazingly, tend to "push their Point of View," and Administrator Randy from Boise doesn't like it, nor do his friends, if the POV happens to be unpopular and the expert unskillful or excessively persistent in the arcane world of Wikipedia governance. --Abd 16:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there really any hard evidence to suggest such a correlation, anecdotally the vast majority of experts I have met editing wikimedia have not ever been blocked/banned. On the other hand the majority of people I have known to be blocked/banned I would not qualify as experts, this tends to make me doubt there is any real statistical correlation. Thenub314 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say (partly) the same thing this morning: there are "WP Banned" people on both sides of the issue. --SB_Johnny talk 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just find it odd how Abd claims to have taken a stand for me when he was the one who actively sought to have me desysopped here and canvassed WR for support. I was also an admin here long before I received a 1 year ban at Wikipedia for non-academic/content related issues. I am also the only banned "expert" from Wikipedia to use Wikiversity. I never pushed my point of view at Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a pity I did know about the voting. May be 6 days is too little period for closure? Fedosin 17:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've proposed that the minimum period be changed to 7 days, it's currently in policy as 5. Be that as it may, voting has lasted for much longer sometimes. See Candidates for Custodianship/AFriedman, which was opened Feb 5, 2010, until Mu301 closed with extended probationary status, commenting it is important that the community doesn't feel that the process is too rushed or that the candidates are not getting enough guidance in learning. My feeling is that it should be no big deal to extend a mentorship to give all wikiversity contributors an opportunity to get comfortable with the candidate and to allow plenty of time for the candidate to get a feel for when to use the tools in real world circumstances. The probationary period is extended for 4 weeks. Voting opened again March 28, and was not closed until June 9. The closure was by Jtneill, who was also the mentor.
 * What is largely invisible here is that at all times I've been subject to guidance from my mentor, who is that same Jtneill, a bureaucrat (originally my mentor was Draicone, but Draicone is on wikibreak), and also I've been subject to the Standard stop agreement, which allowed any custodian to order me to stop use of tools. I never violated that agreement, but was still "emergency" desysopped. There are a few users active and visible on this page who have interests in mind other than the welfare of Wikiversity, it is clear from their contributions, and there are others who don't take the time to research issues. Until and unless the community wakes up and addresses these issues, Wikiversity will continue to run on one cylinder.
 * Meanwhile, policy provides for continued probationary custodianship if a mentor consents. There is no consensus against this, which is what may allow Wikiversity to move beyond the dedicated opposition of what may be a minority faction, when it comes to those who are here to build the place. The 'crat SB Johnny refused to follow policy with my third probationary period, from the beginning, delaying it greatly, and he simply continued that opposition. --Abd 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean 7, and that is standard. Also, there were very few supports from those who are active in this community. One was added after the user was banned by Abd himself. Even with another 10 votes in support from regular contributors he would have barely passed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd
Anyone else confused by Abd saying that it was a problem for SB Johnny to close yet it wouldn't be for Jtneill to do so? Jtneill was the first support, the first vote, the one who wanted Abd to become an admin against the wishes of every other regular, and has consistently been the lone voice in support of Abd. I think it is statements like that which is why Abd was so heavily opposed by the regulars here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wouldn't be a problem for Jtneill to close. I only said that I wouldn't oppose it, whichever way he closed. Someone else might oppose, and depending on the close, legitimately so. Generally, one may close, even if one has expressed an opinion, contrary to one's opinion. Not in favor of it, not normally, anyway. (There can be exceptions, but an exception that creates lasting controversy or divides the community, no, Bad Idea). I do wish that words would not be put in my mouth.
 * "Lone voice"? perhaps Ottava should actually read the discussion, and the one that preceded it. --Abd 20:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava's comment assumes that some particular vote is required. From the custodianship policy:
 * Five days after the request has been listed, a bureaucrat will make the final decision based on the arguments provided in the discussion. If you are approved, you will be a permanent custodian. If you are not approved, you are free to request another mentorship or withdraw your request.
 * The decision is, by policy, made by arguments, which would presumably include evidence. However, I've seen discussions closed on votes, disregarding policy, and it's a problem. Example: Candidates for Custodianship/Diego Grez was closed as failure by SBJ based on votes (66% he reported). There was at least one canvassed vote, from Abigor, with arguments that should have been irrelevant here. Another of the negatives was from a user who has opposed everyone, for a long time. I could show more examples of involved closes, as I recall, also from SBJ. Anyone can assess raw votes, but it takes discretion to consider arguments, and that's precisely why an involved close should not be allowed, not with the level of support shown for me on the candidacy page, in the two polls, and many issues (in both directions) of users without substantial contributions voting. --Abd 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)