Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian)

Abd (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs

Nomination for full custodianship

Having reviewed his edits, use of the tools and engagement with the community, I can confirm that Abd has satisfactorily completed his probationary period, with significant contributions to Wikiversity, good judgment regarding custodian intervention, and a commendable desire for transparency. I have been particularly happy with Abd's handling of routine vandalism and spam, the Popo Le Chien incident and the Howard Community College pages (including recognising the problems his mass move created and working with Scott Foerster to find a solution). Abd has demonstrated that he can wield the tools with care, recognise and learn from his mistakes, and accept and improve from feedback. Abd possesses a strong commitment and desire for Wikiversity to succeed, and I have no hesitation in recommending Abd for full custodianship. --Draicone ^(talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Response of Abd

For transparency:

• Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd, active as probationary custodian, 9 June 2010 - 29 July 2010.[1]
• Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 2, active as probationary custodian, 11 January 2011 - 1 February 2011.[2]
• Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 3, established current probationary period, 8 August 2011 -
• I thank Draicone for diligent supervision and many emails with suggestions, and for patience with my responses. --Abd 16:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If any user has concerns about questions raised in the !votes, please ask in the Questions section, and I will respond there. Unless and until that happens, I'm limiting and collapsing my responses.--Abd 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) revised --Abd 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Detailed response to Ottava Rima --Abd 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See Ottava's contributions here since his sabbatical on 23 February 2011, a total of 14 edits. Aside from four welcomes yesterday, his entire record consists of Opposing the block of Popo Le Chien, based on a total misunderstanding of the issues. He removed that, probably when he realized how silly his views were. See the meta discussion. Any other alleged violations of block policy? Expressing opposition to the Wikiversity Assembly proposal, designed to address long-term problems. (That proposal does not involve my use of custodian tools.) Opposing my edit to Custodianship policy, a change designed to avoid the kind of mess seen before (around my previous custodianship periods), and properly proposed on Talk. Lack of response allowed that change, it doesn't ratify it. It will be ratified if the edit stands for a substantial period, that's standard wiki process. I can be reverted, and we can go through CR, site message, etc., but is this really necessary? What's wrong with that change? And now this, here. In the same period, I have well over 3000 edits to Wikiversity. In my probationary period, and in spite of intense activity, there has been no controversy that was not quickly resolved with apparent consensus. My block log shows 45 blocks in this period. My deletion log shows about 180 deletions. I began using Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist to prevent certain kinds of spam, as I had extensive experience with this elsewhere. I'm working closely with global recent changes patrollers (some of whom I have strongly disagreed with at meta, on global issues, but I am still able to work well with them -- and they with me!). I have been responsive to every complaint, but there have been very few. With Marshallsumter, I'm following what has become well-established, and I'm proud of our traditions, I consider them crucial, making Wikiversity the saving grace of the WMF family. We allow original research, and welcome editors who may have been banned elsewhere, as long as they follow our policies. If anyone becomes aware of standing copyright violations anywhere, please raise the issue by discussion on a resource talk page, by discussion with the editor who allegedly created the violation, at WV:RCA, by request to me on my Talk page, by placing a speedy deletion tag, or, if that doesn't produce satisfaction, then with WV:RFD. Otherwise, I have no intention of allowing any user to be harassed here, which had started to happen.[3]. And see my response at [4]. In the Popo Le Chien case, there was harassment on both sides. I dealt with both sides, firmly but with respect for our traditions, and the result was quiet improvement of Boubaker Polynomials and no more disruption from either side. Compare the deletion request at frwikiversity. Still open as a train wreck, even though the conclusion is obvious. --Abd 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC) If Ottava has specific concerns, he's welcome to raise them. However, note: Ottava is long banned from en.wikipedia, but, more recently, is also indef blocked on meta, due to the kind of highly personalized and tendentious flame wars he frequently foments. In spite of being a productive contributor, in the past, given what happened since his desysopping here, last year, it seems his mission has become disruptive, revenge (not just here, but elsewhere as well). Just saying. I fully intend to follow recusal policy. --Abd 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments by S Larctia --Abd 22:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that our relationship got off to a bad start. However, see this train wreck on Wikipedia, the results, and my comments at User talk:Mu301 and on S Larcia talk. My goal was to nip this in the bud, while not disregarding the ongoing legitimate concern, which is about possible copyright violation. And see User talk:Marshallsumter, where I caution and advise the user on copyright (as to my opinions). (WMF practice is different from common academic practice.) It's being claimed on Wikipedia that there is Tremendous Danger to the WikiMedia Foundation if Wikiversity Allows This! That's preposterous, to anyone who knows copyright law. As a custodian, I'm not obligated to scour every piece of text posted to this site for possible copyright violations, nor is the WMF responsible for editor errors -- including mine. If anyone knows of copyright violations, please point them out! I did not accuse S Larcia of "sock puppetry," as he has claimed, though SB_Johnny may have some opinion about this, see Mu301 talk. I don't. Nor did I accuse him of "disruptive editing." Rather, I asked him, "Please do not bring disruption to Wikiversity." I.e., complaints about what a user has done elsewhere. Rather, S Larctia is obviously a highly experienced Wikipedian who has "returned" anonymously, showing up here with what could easily become harassment of our user. If our users follow our policies, they should not be subject to harassment based on what happened elsewhere, and we have been clear about that. S Larctia is welcome to point out possible problems with Marshallsumter's pages, for example, but the original arguments about original research don't apply on Wikiversity. If anyone disagrees, there is ample recourse with speedy deletion templates or WV:RFD. --Abd 22:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary remarks on comments by SB Johnny --Abd 02:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I thank SB Johnny for his frank expression of his views. I'm creating a subpage to explore it, a working document, to consider his objections. However, Nothing that he wrote has anything to do with my usage of tools. It's about my relationship with Wikiversity and my representations of Wikiversity to the rest of the WMF (and to the world, really), about my entire participation here, and this I expect will continue, as a custodian or only as a Wikiversity enthusiast. I know how to get custodian action when it's needed, whether or not local custodians are present. It's merely more efficient when can do it myself. (If I were being commonly reversed, it would be less efficient, not more, but, AFAIK, there is not one single reversal of a tool usage in the last month, unless I reversed it myself.) When I was not a custodian, I clerked WV:Requests for deletion, so effectively that the page was emptied, with almost all requests closed. (There was a one-year backlog when I started, as I recall). This had nothing to do with being a custodian, and it was successful because I was able to sense, anticipate, and implement community consensus. There were some objections, and we'll get into that, but the result was clear: in every case, my non-custodial closes were sustained, none were reversed, in spite of ample opportunity. I even closed an RfD with Delete, and placed a speedy deletion template to implement it. It was quickly honored. I am under a Standard stop agreement, but, with only two exceptions, no objections to my plentiful custodian actions were even raised, much less sustained. The exceptions: Ottava Rima, in his only edits in many months, objected here and at meta to my block of Popo Le Chien, based on his assumption that I'd erred. The real Popo le Chien was protected, that was my goal. Had I erred, it would have been easily fixed with about zero loss. In the second case, I made a mass page move, not noticing certain problems, and it's a MediaWiki bug that mass moves can't be undone, I was not aware of that. I fixed it, and the ultimate result was highly satisfactory to the affected teacher, 1sfoerster. In a non-custodial action, there was a problem with some page names created by Kaldari, where I moved a page to his user space, he reversed that, and then reversed himself and moved it back. Kaldari made some statements reflecting his upset, and referring to my Wikipedia 'adventures.' However, in the end, Kaldari and I easily came to complete agreement. I'm working for a higher level of Wikiversity organization, and I don't need custodial tools to do it, and I invite others to participate. Please! It's claimed that I do not seek consensus. The reality is quite different. I anticipate informed consensus, I can accomplish little or nothing without consensus, and I listen to the community, for I could not anticipate consensus or implement it without this. I do have ideas that can seem odd or out-of-the-box at first, but I can't force these upon anyone. However, I'm not afraid to pioneer them, to try them out, to demonstrate them, and to take risks, which is disconcerting to some. His arguments are only relevant to custodianship in one way, if we believe that the buttons are a "big deal." However, custodians should have no special right to "represent" Wikiversity to the world, and no special right to set policy. Inviting people to bring good content to Wikiversity, when it's been rejected elsewhere. Often that's because it was inappropriate there, and occasionally there are darker reasons. However, it's not my business what the community does, say, on es.wikipedia. I just try to rescue battered users when possible. Among other things, it reduces their tendency to sock. What I've often been able to do, establishing rapport with these users, is explain what mistakes they had made in ways that they can understand. I'll address SBJ's specific concerns on the subpage, Response to comments of SB Johnny. Comments may be made on the Talk page attached.

Questions

• Regarding User talk:KYPark #Please log in, if the IP edits to your categories are you: Abd, I still miss your advice I asked for at last: "Please advise me how my log-out and IP use seriously degrade antivandalism. -- KYPark [T] 01:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)" -- KYPark [T] 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Responded in situ, [5]. IP editing increases the time needed to review edits. An edit from KYPark is *always* a good-faith edit. An edit from KYPark's IP? That increases the time needed to review the edit, in Recent Changes, from well under one second to as much as a minute, and not just for me, for all RCP users, including global sysops. That is a serious impact. I wasn't claiming that it's against policy to edit IP, it's not. --Abd 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding User_talk:Abd/Archive4#Category:Authors_K_etc: Abd, you may also like to make some closing comment. -- KYPark [T] 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do you have a present concern? I do not routinely edit archives. It is possible there is some unresolved issue there, or it's possible that the discussion is moot, and I don't have time at the moment to try to disentangle this without a hint as to why it would be important. Your last comment there was a "wall of text." I've generally acknowledged that users may ignore walls of text (because they cannot be presumed to have read them), but, to be sure, to be polite, and as good practice, I should have asked you, back then, to summarize, saying that I didn't have time to review it as it was. I think I intended to study it and respond later, and became busy with other things. If you do want to summarize, please place this on my User talk page and cite the prior discussion in the archive. Thanks. --Abd 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• An explanation regarding: "based on his assumption that I'd erred". I mentioned Popo only because no one bothered to ask before the blocking if the name was not his. It was only a matter of protocol. There have been people on Wikipedia that were blocked after they created an alternate name like that and it caused a lot of unnecessary stress. Popo was a user that I recognized and respected. I wanted to preempt any stress/problems that could be caused by a bad block by verifying that there was an impostor first. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But I had investigated enough to be almost certain this was an imposter. So I balanced the damage from a "bad block" of a highly experienced user -- which is practically none, he'd put up an unblock template, etc., would confirm his identity, simple, and the unblock would note it was an error -- with the damage from attribution of a racist comment to that user, which might be undoable. I.e., people will read it and not necessarily read any later explanation or correction. Waiting for a response from the real Popo le Chien posed an unacceptable risk. This was a situation, overall, like spread gasoline (given what's happened elsewhere over the underlying issue, with charges of racism flying), and immediate action was called for. That's the kind of judgment custodians will hopefully exercise.

Ottava has stated, "lacks understanding of how to appropriately block," but has shown no examples. Let's suppose that I did lack that understanding at one time -- which remains to be shown. Any recent examples? --Abd 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Voting for full custodianship

• Support as nominator. --Draicone ^(talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• I found working with Abd great. I was terribly confused in the beginning on how to structure project pages ... and could not find good examples. Abd helped a lot. 1sfoerster 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm very new here so hopefully this is the correct place to comment positively on Abd. Abd's gone all out to make me feel welcome while getting me up to speed on how things work here and how to contribute, what to do etc., in addition to helping with cleanup that I'm still learning about. This is a big positive endorsement for full Custodianship! Marshallsumter 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - lacks understanding of how to appropriately block, encourages disruption of other WMF projects via Wikiversity, combative, ignores consensus, subjectively determines when rules applies or establishes new rules based on personal fiat, etc., etc., etc. See [6], [7] and [8] for more background on the utter unsuitability of this candidate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Add, Marshallsumter's support of Abd is further evidence why Abd should not be an admin. This shows that not only is Wikiversity hosting very problematic pages of Marshallsumter's that were shown to have copyvio and other problems, but that he was encouraged to use Wikiversity in a manner that was seen as disrupting Wikipedia. Abd's ban on Wikipedia by both ArbCom and the community over disruption to articles is compounded by his encouraging of others with similar problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Add this action. Abd closed a thread requesting admin attention in a matter that he was heavily involved in. He encouraged the user, worked with him, and was supported by the user here. This can easily be seen as favoritism and Custodians are supposed to avoid all appearances of that. I do not like the idea or appearance of an admin helping to cover up investigations into problems of users that support their adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Wikiversity is far too small to contain a disruptive actor like Abd. Empowering him further is the fastest way to kill the project - perhaps then it can be taken over by a group of people dedicated to providing educational resources as opposed to playing with a nomic. Salmon of Doubt 18:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Abd is absolutely not to be trusted with any position of responsibility. He was banned on Wikipedia for tendentious editing and sock-puppetry. Furthermore, his response to my alert about Marshallsumter's editing was to accuse me of editing disruptively and being a sock-puppet. That's not very sysop-like. I agree with Salmon of Doubt that his custodianship might result in the deletion of Wikiversity, which could be a good thing. However, reluctantly, I see the probability that he will simply continue disrupting Wikimedia projects more seriously from here if given tools permanently. --S Larctia 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that Abd's response seems to fully address S Larctia's comment, although I'm not sure I understand why S Larctia is interested in a Wikiversity CC nomination. With regard to User_talk:Mu301#User:Marshallsumter, I am quite happy to review the issue if S Larctia wishes to raise it at WV:RCA, which is Wikiversity's equivalent of AN/I - perhaps we should advertise this more prominently so that we can deal with cross-wiki issues more efficiently.

S Larctia - in brief, we welcome original research but don't tolerate copyright infringement, just like any other Foundation project. Please note any copyright infringement on RCA so that we can deal with it promptly. I hope that you will familiarise yourself with Abd's actual work on WIkiversity if you wish to comment on this nomination. --Draicone ^(talk) 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It goes far beyond "copyright infringement" as you can see here. The user outright perpetrated hoaxes on Wikipedia and is importing the activity here with Abd's blessing. That isn't what a Custodian is supposed to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Making RCA more visible wouldn't be a terrible idea. The claim from the Wikipedia discussion is that most of the pages Marshall transcluded here after they were deleted there, may be copyvios -- composed of long sequences of full-sentence quotations from the cited sources, which can be problematic when making up the entirety of an article. Ottava - I'm not sure 'hoax' is the right term for that kind of cookie-cutter article writing. –SJ+ 03:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoax in the sense that it isn't an editor writing a page. A believe in what Carcaroth seems to state, it looks like it was done by a script and without care of putting forth something legitimate. It is misleading and wrong in terms of accuracy. I have no confidence in the user's ability to write things educational as the work suggests that they would do more harm than good. Bad education can harm someone far more than ignorance. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my previous concerns about cross-wiki disturbance, Salmon of Doubt's comment above, and the recent interaction with Marshallsumter. (Which was very friendly and welcoming, but did not indicate particular care about the larger issues raised or awareness of their impact on Wikiversity as a whole.) –SJ+ 03:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've been waiting to see how Abd performed. He seems to have successfully finished his probationary period and per policy should be given full custodian status. →StaniStani  04:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Abd helped me understand allot, when I first started editing and Creating Pages, He is very smart, insightfull and gave much attention to the Topics I was working on. It is encouraging to have that support among scholars and teachers at WV.--Gaon Abhinava 04:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I hope Abd will be a good custodian.--Fedosin 10:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Easiest vote ever. Guido den Broeder 19:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Abd is a very well-intentioned, creative, and dedicated contributor, with plenty of time to devote and many ideas for improving Wikiversity. However, each of these qualities are double-edged, and I feel that the negatives definitely outweigh the positives when it comes to putting him in a position of trust. He has over time put forward a number of innovative ideas, but then applies them without building a consensus to do so, and has said on a few occasions that he feels the people who don't agree with his approaches simply don't understand them (and hence, apparently, the objections can be ignored because they lack a force of argument).

  Similar behavior led to an eventual community ban on Wikipedia earlier this year. The opening comment of the ban discussion included "This disruption is characterized by attempts to influence project governance in ways orthogonal to accepted modes (e.g. delegable-proxy, self-reversion whilst blocked/banned, placing huge walls of text inside collapse boxes which "you don't have to read" but will be referred to nevertheless as being accepted if not read". Abd has himself documented much of this in his userspace, for example here (the main page), here (documenting his "self-reversion"), and here (where he tries to outsmart the bots... the bots were employed because the time of actual people was deemed to be wasted following him around).

  Abd has subjected the Wikiversity community to similar treatment:

  • For one example, he at one point decided that WV:RCA would be better handled in his own userspace (there's an archive too!). He has made his belief clear that putting things in one's userspace gives one absolute authority.
  • He also tried (with more or less the opposite of community support) to employ his theories on self reversion and block evasions when Moulton was blocked here. Later when he himself was blocked, he continued along that path.
  • Around the same time, he started pushing with no community support whatsoever) the notion of a "playspace". Again, he kept these in his userspace.
  • Most recently, he has been widely and relentlessly canvassing for "delegable proxies", which are to be used in the "Wikiversity Assembly" (the "rules" for the assembly are to be found in his userspace, so presumably are not intended as a collaborative thing at this time).
  • Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, Abd has been very active on meta putting himself forward as a "representative" of Wikiversity. We've seen that issue before (with Ottava Rima), and I don't think we should go there again. (The person he was advocating for in this effort is someone in need of a psychiatrist, and I seriously doubt that any amount of "assuming good faith" on a wiki will help him, though that's been tried.)

Again, I think Abd means well. Most if not all of his ideas are interesting and worth considering. The problem with his approach is that he seems to become so sure of the validity and righteousness of his ideas that he just runs with them without taking an interest in getting others to come along, support, and improve them. Awarding a "badge of trust" to a person with this particular blind spot would both shed a bad light on the community that gave it to him, as well as bolster a sort of confidence that we should not be bolstering. To those new users who have found him helpful, I'm sure he can continue to be helpful without this status.

I think it's also important for the community to take very seriously the comments of "Salmon of Doubt" and "S Larctica" (scare quotes intended), because giving this person trusted status really will reflect badly upon the community here. It pains me to say it, but if Abd is confirmed, I would be prone to voting on closure as well, because this would (to me) make it crystal-clear that this community is both irresponsible and unsustainable. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an additional thought after looking at WV:RCA: we do have friends in the foundation who are trying to support us (such as SJ, a board trustee who voted above, and User:Kaldari, a foundation employee who has made his opinion clear elsewhere after a rather strange encounter with Abd). His custodianship will not likely be helpful in getting additional support. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Those voting in support should look over Abd's contributions over the past 2 days. This is not a person we should trust. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support I met Abd accidentally at Meta. I had a problem, cause wikipedia was denning a vital information; I was a new user and i was abused by the administrators and users that were associated with them, for simply stop new information.(real information with international consensus, but not consensus of editors). I asked for help. None answered me but Abd. And he helped me to handle the problem, to relax, to take the things with patience. He cared of what I said, the one who did. And finally, after a lot of talking, he said I should not feel down, and that there are other alternatives to wikipedia. He never said he was a representative of wikiversity, he merely let me know its existence, if he would have not told me, I for sure would have not known until much later. Now that I see what wikiversity is , I think I acted correctly when I trusted in his advice. It is a user that truly believes in educational articles, and is willing to enrich wikiversity. He does not talk to me like a representative, but like someone ( always very polite and nice, and he does spend time answering all my doubts and questions,and he does not have to ) who loves to share knowledge with a relaxed, humble and kind attitude, not the " forced" and oppressive attitude I have seen in Wikipedia. I felt this user was done for protecting wikiversity. I just can speak good. My vote for him, and thanks again Abd, for your time and care, thanks to you I don feel down anymore and I see I can contribute to the fields I know about in this wonderful wiki.--Edward Hyde 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm 67 years old, I have seven children and six grandchildren, and I cried when I read this. --Abd 01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support I don't care about what he has done wrong in his past; I've seen Abd being a mature, level-headed user for the past while now (both here and on meta), and I'd say that there are no problems with granting him full custodianship. I hope I can vote on this... Ajraddatz 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Given the concerns that some of us "experienced folks" have, would it be acceptable to keep Abd on as a probationary custodian under the mentorship of the 4 'crats, retaining the "right to immediately desyssop" clause? I think Abd is a great custodian in some sense, but definitely not in others. I'd feel much more comfortable if we could keep the "off switch" enabled. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I am afraid that my first impressions of Abd were quite mistaken. Having seen the amount of productive anti-vandal work ect. done by him, I will fully endorse for him to be given another chance at probationary custodianship if not full custodianship. S Larctia 21:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)