Wikiversity talk:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 4

Critique
User:Dave Braunschweig wrote a critique of my behavior on the attached candidacy page.. It is shown below in italics and set off. For me, it is an example of how "succinct" can mean "highly misleading." It is succinct because summary judgments are pronounced, then supported by links, which, if examined superficially, may seem to support the claims. Often users will not look at the links, will "assume good faith," in a spectacular misapplication of the principle. I assume good faith. Dave believes he is protecting the wiki, is the stand I take. However, he has also become personally involved, and is defensive and reactive, and those are conditions where we lose our balance. This, then, shows up in how we interpret evidence. There are some striking examples of that here.


 * Below on May 10, Abd wrote "I invite all custodians and Wikiversitans to support and guide me through this process." Since then, he has ...

Notice that this does not involve use of tools or proposed use of tools. It is a claim that I have been disruptive as an ordinary user. I've been reviewing the history of my candidacies and probationary periods. That claim arose and persisted. "Disruptive" is a claim always made about those who stand for transformation. "corrupting the youth." It goes very far back. I will look at each claim.

Insulted bureaucrats

 * insulted both bureaucrats ...

User:SB_Johnny
The entire edit should be read, not just Dave's summary and then a quick glance at it. Dave does not specify what was "insult," to distinguish it from a description of an issue, perhaps criticism.

Wikiversity is stuck. It is not always obvious, because most activity is not affected.

We have two bureaucrats. One is usually inactive, but then drops in to make some dramatic move, often with little clue as to background, and often with no regard for recusal policy. He grossly insulted JWSchmidt, one of the founders of Wikiversity, with obscene language. JWSchmidt did not take it well, and was, I believe, outraged that this was tolerated from a 'crat. And then I've been documenting a series of actions where SB Johnny created massive disruption, when there were simple and non-disruptive options, up to and including the totally unexpected indef block of myself and Ottava Rima. I had filed an RCA request, which I still think was a proper request, about Ottava's behavior. Indeed, if it was not proper, why was Ottava blocked? This was a 'crat who did not want to do the work to actually resolve disputes, who preferred to press the block button, or to go to meta screaming "emergency desysop," when there was no threat of abuse of tools, and certainly no demonstration of it, and when he was personally highly involved.

The fallout from that may have led to the Collingwood affair, i.e, massive disruption. I was attempting to avoid that, and I believe it would have worked.

Poetlister1 was a disclosed sock of Poetlister, who was the subject of a global ban discussion. A major allegation was extensive socking, and Poetlister had been a bureaucrat and checkuser. He was no lightweight! When the global ban passed, I asked the closing steward if local communities could bypass the ban. Yes, was his answer. The Poetlister account was globally locked, but Poetlister1 was not, at that point. SB_Johnny blocked based on the global ban. We had a tradition of not blocking users except for local violations. Poetlister1 had not been -- at all -- disruptive. So ... I raised a discussion. Low participation, as I recall, no consensus. So, after a substantial period for comment, and based on a principle that SB_Johnny had so clearly enunciated with the globally banned Thekohser, I unblocked. Because of that discussion, this was not wheel-warring. My unblock was reversed on a claim that it was wheel-warring, and I was "emergency desysopped" at the request of SB Johnny, supported by the custodian who wheel-warred with me. Reverting my unblock without discussion was wheel-warring.

So ... suppose Poetlister1 had been allowed to edit. It was known that he was Poetlister, it's obvious! If he was active here, this would create a constant flow of checkuser data, accessible to stewards, making it quite difficult for him to sock elsewhere, or here. I argued that at meta, about the ban. It was ignored. Some, it seems, prefer punitive action to actual protection! Poetlister may or may not have gone on to request admin tools, but his history would have been open and known. If he was Collingwood (he's denied it, but acknowledged what I'd call a relationship.), then, his ability to do what Collingwood did was totally predictable, and it could easily happen again. The WMF does not have "magic pixie dust." A skilled user with resources can easily avoid detection. However, if there is a flow of edits from the user, known to be the user, any slip can result in detection, I've seen it happen. There are also more sophisticated detection methods, I have never documented, for obvious reasons. "Obey my authority" is a bankrupt method of maintaining order in communities.

When legitimate roads are blocked, humans will make their own roads. To stop that takes brutal suppression, which is not available as an option.

User:Jtneill
As to Jtneill, he was my mentor at one point, but I've documented how his sustained inattention led to massive disruption, most recently with Sidelight12. He knows he's been remiss, he's acknowledged it with respect to use of bureaucrat tools, though he's never acknowledged it with respect to his inactivity as a mentor. If, in fact, I was disruptive as a custodian, as claimed, then I suggest that Jtneill might have a responsibility for that. However, I wasn't. At the time, in 2011, I assumed Jtneill did not intervene because he supported what I was doing. Sidelight12 explicitly considered the lack of response as support. Maybe. Maybe not.

Calling necessary criticism "insult" is one of the devices used by an entrenched faction to attack criticism. It often leads to more disruption and blocking.

User:Dave Braunschweig

 * insulted a custodian ...

Dave is referring to himself, he is the "insulted custodian." He considered as an insult, an expression of concern regarding a shift in Dave's behavior that has been of rising concern for me, and which resembles Wiki studies/Wiki disease. Wiki disease is well-known in the Wikipedia critical community, administrators burn out, become impatient, and lose balance, gravitas, and impartiality. There is a saying that power corrupts. It does, and it takes constant vigilance to avoid that. I'm talking about vigilance that one exercises oneself to avoid corruption.

Here is what happens when criticism is taken that way: if the user offering the view has no special motivation, they blow it off and go away. If the user has a critical interest, however, they escalate. It's like clockwork, unless someone intervenes, and if the intervention is just to decide that one side is "right," disruption deepens. Intervention design to facilitate consensus can work. I had high success with this on en.wiki, and I've done it here.

Dave has been an excellent custodian, but something else started to appear in his behavior not long ago. He's not open to hearing about it, obviously! So ... I go away or I escalate. Escalation on en.wikipedia led to two ArbCom cases. In the first of them, the administrator whose behavior I confronted was reprimanded. In the second, the administrator -- extremely popular, and notable -- was desysopped. Here, I began the process of escalation with Ottava Rima. However, the draft Community Review that I created was copied and used by SB_Johnny to successfully desysop Ottava. I have not filed any other Community Reviews. I make many attempts to resolve issues short of that. However, a series of issues have accumulated, have demonstrated that they are not going away. Hence I expect to file one or more Community Reviews. CRs are not necessarily about individuals. I have not yet determined what is priority. As to the actions of individual custodians or bureaucrats, if I file anything, it would start with WV:Custodian feedback.

There are a series of policy issues coming to a head. The Colloquium has been used, but is not designed for the kind of process needed. Community Review is.

User:Leutha

 *  badgered a probationary custodian 

At the time that discussion began, I did not know that Leutha was a probationary custodian, because that had been buried by an accidental archiving. Since I'd seen Leutha on Staff as a custodian, I assumed he was full. Not. The behavior I ran into that is linked was surprising for a permanent custodian. That was a discussion started by me to handle his requests to not move certain pages to complete consolidation of a set of resources created by a single user, and obviously intended as a single project. I stopped, and this left the consolidation half done. His request disrupted what was an operating consensus of three users. And then he refused to explain it, giving only generalities, no specifics, claiming disruption of learning activity but not explaining how the moves would do that. So far, still no explanation, but a lot of complaint! This was itself brought to the Colloquium by him.

It was not "badgering." Dave is using inflammatory language, based on his perception of emotional content and intention. It is similar to his charge of canvassing on my user talk page and on the Colloquium, which required an imputation of action in bad faith. It was frank and clear.

If no explanation is forthcoming, one of my options is to go ahead and make the moves. I could easily have done that, it would not violate any policy. However, in fact, I always seek consensus. So his "No' is being respected, in the sense that I, first of all, put in the work to explain the background, and, second, then invited his response and addressed it. So far, what he has said about reasons has been vague. He took that personally and responded superciliously. He did not clarify or explain himself. I put hours of research into that set of resources, and hours setting up that discussion. He objects to anything detailed. And he is a probationary custodian, a piece of business showing another neglect of completion on the part of Jtneill.

(I have seen no problematic actions by Leutha; the problem I might raise is lack of understanding of wiki process and Wikiversity organization, combined with a thin skin. To my knowledge, this has never been tested before. I never had any idea at all of Leutha as disruptive. So this was out of the blue.)

User:Timboliu

 * and overwhelmed and confused users to the point where they expressed concern ...

This is brilliant. That's Timboliu asking (not actually confused or overwhelmed) about the canvassing issue, a confusion created by .... Dave. Dave did respond to that, clear as mud. Canvassing has afflicted many actual votes. What Dave calls canvassing, though, does not answer the question I raised on the Colloquium, which is about the difference between canvassing (which may be considered disapproved and which is often a cause for blocking on en.wiki) and gathering informed comment (which may indeed be biased in some way, and so what? We allow bias on Wikiversity. Canvassing is defined on Wikipedia, I've pointed to that in discussion. I did not "canvass."

Dave's position would seem to require that there be no "coordination." Well, I've invited many to come to Wikiversity and build resources. They sometimes show up. Some of these are "like-minded." How is there a problem with that?

In this case, there was discussion of a guideline. The first step in considering a change would be to collect evidence and points of view. This process is ad hoc. It cannot be expected to be neutral. Everyone is allowed to participate, but the realities of wiki structure are such that participation bias is routine. If consensus is found, nevertheless, it stands until opposition arises. If there is opposition, those opposed are, at this point, welcome to invite informed users to comment. This is not decision-making process unless genuine consensus is formed among those involved. Canvassing becomes an issue on a wiki under three conditions:

1. Ad hoc editing did not find consensus. 2. A vote or poll is set up in an effort to measure rough consensus, or to validate an apparent local consensus. Invitation to that process should be broad. The Colloquium may be used to call attention to such. Community Review may be used and will usually be site-noticed. In some cases, a list of users may be notified. An example would be notifying a list of all those who edited a page that there is a Request for deletion of that page in process. Is that "canvassing"? It is not considered such on Wikipedia, usually. I've seen the claim be made, though. 3. Inviting, on or off-wiki, biased participation, through selectively informing a faction, is "canvassing." Routinely certain factions canvass off-wiki. It's very difficult to identify. 4. The actual decision is going to depend on numbers of votes, not on strength of arguments, or the numbers may play a significant role.

My own position is that anti-canvassing rules inhibit normal deliberative process, and that the danger of canvassing is a product of poor process, mostly of a total lack of quorum rules, and a participating body that is miniscule compared to the community. Under those conditions, canvassing can create a damaging impression, and this has, in fact, afflicted Wikiversity on at least a few occasions. The standard solution to the problem of scale in democracy, and that is what this is, is representative democracy, which creates a defined set of voters that is small and that can be expected to participate. There is a then a small body of people entrusted with decision-making power by the community. That can be done poorly, or it can be done well. But until the issue, the problem, is distinguished, it cannot be done at all.

What we get with existing process is quick decisions that are often shallow. Wiki decision-making has often been likened to mob rule. I have no doubt that it can be like that, I've certainly seen it. Long-term experienced users consider all this totally obvious, very often. And then there are those who are called "Kool-Aid drinkers," who believe that wikis are magic. That they must always improve. And that the community is always right.

If there were true consensus, the community would still not always be right, but true consensus is the most reliable guide available to humans. False consensus, created by poor or abusive structure, is highly unreliable.

Famously, true consensus may require massive discussion. Full-consensus organizations are famous for long and tedious meetings. However, that is not intrinsic to consensus process; those long and tedious meetings are a result of lack of structure that adds efficiency. I've had experience with adding techniques creating efficiency to a consensus organization. The results were dramatic.

User:Dx

 * .

This is, again, remarkable. This user was given a somewhat hostile reception by Dave. That comment did not reveal that Dave had deleted at least one page that was part of the project, maybe more. This is outside of what I'd have expected from Dave, who used to be careful about these things. At one point, as soon as there was another active custodian, I thought Dave stopped speedy deleting pages, but would tag them for deletion, so deletion always involved two users agreeing. That seems to have been dropped. Normal exceptions would be obvious garbage, i.e., vandalism, or spam. The pages so deleted were not that.

Dave speedy-deleted Metagraphy and did not explain this to the user. (He undeleted on my request.) This was research notes. Because this was deleted, and because we were supporting the user in setting up sobpages, the user created a new Metagraphy page as Art practices/Metagraphy. I am waiting for a merge so that all the content is preserved and not forked. That deletion was an error. I will be reviewing deletion policy to set up structure to avoid this. It is not difficult. "Not in English" is a speedy deletion reason, however, this does not mean that material not in English cannot be used for research. Imagine, say, an fr.wikiversity resources that is deleted because it is created as a pile of links to papers in English. Many examples I have seen should not be deleted. The educational process is neglected.

Guy vandegrift engaged with the user, supportively. August 20, I added a welcome template, which puts the Talk page on my watchlist.

In any case, both Guy and I began assisting the user. The pages deleted were deleted because they were not obviously part of a learning project. (In fact, by "what links here," one would have discovered the connections, but this can be overlooked). The diff that Dave gives is taken out of context. The user expresses "OK yes thanks - just a bit confused by the different suggestions from admins"

If a user is not "just a bit confused" by Wikiversity structure, the user is sound asleep. Our structure is not coherently and clearly expressed because we have never generated formal consensus about it. However, certain practices have become routine. The user fully accepted the suggestions. This user is the one, support of whom was interrupted by Leutha. Who gave no advice, who did not communicate with the user.

Abd has not learned

 * Abd's recent actions have indicated that he has not learned from his previous experiences, and is not prepared to be a custodian or assistant at this time.

I've learned, and I'm constantly learning, I'm an expert on learning, and I was prepared years ago. At this point, The Wikiversity community, or, more accurately, the administrative core, is not prepared to accept me. Dave noticed the candidacy and issues on WV:Notices for custodians. That would be guaranteed to generate a biased discussion! The custodians often come to think of themselves as the community, and that is an aspect of Wiki studies/Wiki disease. They do in some senses represent the community, but not when they are involved. And custodians are highly involved in custodial policy and activity.

As Dave should know, those actions were routine for me. They are not custodial actions. In the process, I've needed certain custodial things done. For example, the user, accepting the suggestion about having his specific topic pages as subpages of a more general resource, began copying the pages, creating forks, and some of these pages had other users. So I asked him to stop, moved the remaining pages into resource subspace, and requested deletion of the pages he'd copied, so that I could then move the remaining pages. These are the pages that Leutha objected to moving, still with no explanation. The user who created them clearly wanted them, now, as subpages. Leutha alluded to some alternate form of organization -- he wants to use categories -- as if that were precluded by subspace organization, which it is not.

So this is the list demonstrating that I "have not learned." Learning depends on learning objectives. If my behavior was a problem, it can and should be addressed. I will claim that I have no history of substantial error in using tools. That the removal of my tools in the past was based on actions I took to support the Wikiversity community, to support and enforce accepted policy, and that this was opposed by those who violated policy, sometimes being sanctioned for it. That the concept that I was somehow wrong in my probationary periods, and therefore have "something to learn" to avoid "problems," is a myth.

I have certainly erred, but so has every custodian. A very active custodian will have created a vast body of actions to scrutinize for "something wrong." In studying how to confront issues like this on en.wikipedia, I considered that the issue would not be errors, as such, but errors that are repeated and defended, because these will repeat.

So ... what were my errors? In reviewing my block log, at User:Abd/Block log, there was one block (by Dave) where I clearly erred. That was not, however, as a custodian.

The first custodial action considered an error was my short-block of Ottava Rima when he was my mentor. If my goal had been to maintain my tool access, that would be a real blooper, eh? However, that was not my goal. My goal is always consensus, and consensus requires civility (which does not mean the avoidance of criticism), and my mentor had been blatantly uncivil, and I warned him. He blew off the warning. So I short-blocked to emphasize it and immediately took it to the community. Now, what happened out of that? Was it an error? Jtneill subsequently reviewed the action, and confirmed it as "within discretion," as I recall. The response of the mentor demonstrated radical disqualification for the position of Wikiversity custodian. Now, one might argue that my "provocation" threw him off-balance. Perhaps. However, problems with his behavior were ubiquitous, cross-wiki. I never did a thorough review of his actions, but it became obvious that he was driving users away, blocking them unnecessarily, and generally helping create a hostile environment.

Was I supported by the community? No. Not much. Blocking one's mentor readily seems bat-shit crazy. Yet -- that was an efficient action, it accomplished far more than I anticipated. I did not want to desysop the fellow. I just wanted him to stop being grossly -- and unnecessarily -- uncivil, on Wikiversity. And then, later, as I saw it, to stop blocking users based on his own highly reactive opinions and not on policy.

Outcome

 * I urge User:Marshallsumter to withdraw his support as mentor and give Abd an opportunity to reconsider his approach to be more in line with his own words of seeking support and accepting guidance. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point I expect to "suspend" the candidacy "without prejudice" which would allow re-opening it ... or closing it and reopening a new one. It will take this page off the list of active candidacies. If someone wants to establish that Abd cannot apply for probationary custodianship, that will take a Community Review. In any such process, I will point to my last period as a probationary custodian, to the voting that was so close as to consider problematic to close, to the compromise that was made to increase consensus, and how the probationary custodianship was ended out of process, by a completely unnecessary "emergency desysop."

Marshall has not actually withdrawn support. Rather he seems to think that the strong opposition of one 'crat and the weak comment by the other ends the issue. Because those are not final decisions, for example, a 'crat could change their mind. But for now, this is moot. I'm suspending it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)