Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Thenub314 (full custodian)

Thenub314 (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Nomination for full custodianship

Having had a long time to evaluate his style, I'm happy to recommend Thenub314 for full custodianship. Thenub has a long history of activity in the Wikimedia projects as a contributor, and is both a 'crat and a checkuser on Wikibooks. His contributions here have shown a level of neutrality, skill, and thoughtfulness that has and will greatly benefit the community as a whole.

While this may set a record for the longest probation period yet due to 2 very long wikibreaks, having a good number of responsible and cool-headed "part time" custodians is in many ways better for the project than a few very active "full timers", since it gives us a better balance of voices. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Thenub, what is your view on Wikiversity:Blocking policy? Is there some part of this that you would change to reflect our actual operating consensus? --Abd 13:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As we have discussed elsewhere, I do view the blocking policy as ratified policy. It has been edited heavily in the past year and has not been reviewed by the community, brought to a !vote, etc. After a quick reading I would say it is a fairly straight forward document that makes an excellent guideline for custodians. I am sure I would change a few things if I gave a careful reading, but probably nothing drastic. Given the fact the WMF is looking to change the Terms of Service to make clear global bans are a possibility, it might be nice if we had a section that gave some explicit guidance in this direction. Thenub314 16:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

about the position of the WMF, which hasn't change the TOS

Thanks. There is no clear evidence that "the WMF [per se] is looking to change the TOS to make clear global bans are a possibility," in a way that would affect our own policy. Global bans are already a reality, not merely a possibility. That's not the issue. The ban discussion on meta is largely about an improvement to the decision method, but the issue of local independence has also come up. What I've seen in the last day is that people are starting to show up to protect local independence. The issue is whether or not our own custodians will follow our own policy. The WMF may override, but the consensus among 'crats I talk to is that this is very, very unlikely, it would be cooking the goose that lays the golden egg. Yes, a section in our policy could and probably should make this explicit. But as the policy stands, it does not give any authority to custodians to block a local account based on a "global ban," which is, status quo, implemented through a global lock and affects only SUL accounts. I.e., global bans only affect global accounts. Makes sense to me! --Abd 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC) For the record there is some clear evidence this is initiated by the WMF. Consider the following quote from the announcement about the new terms of service: "Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members." --Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation Which makes me suspect that Steve Walling has been officially tasked with making some policies before the new terms of use come into effect. So all chaos doesn't break loose. But your right, global bans are already a reality, even if not mentioned in TOS. Thenub314 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line question here is Would you block locally to reflect a meta consensus, not accompanied by local policy violations by a local user? You have supported such blocks in the past, hence the question. WMF intervention and control is a red herring. It hasn't happened. The WMF has not taken a position. --Abd 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with a whole lot of but's and if's. It is perhaps easier to judge me on actual actions then statements of general philosophy so let me mention a very specific case. Several months ago a WP admin outed Poetlister as editing at WB. The following points are relatively academic because this account has not edited since that time, and I suspect it never will. But, I am aware of the account as being an account belonging to Poetlister, I have the ability to block that account, I have read the meta discussion. I hwill not block that account as a result of the discussion at meta. The WB community was overlooked in being invited to this discussion. As far as I am aware no members of the WB community spoke in the discussion at meta, so that communities opinion was never represented. Here at WV, I would have done the same as SBJ. Thenub314 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Most WMF wikis were not represented in that discussion, nor was there any need for that, in fact, for a global ban decision. Global bans are based on global behavior. So your decision as to whether or not to violate local policy/tradition is based on your personal judgment of the meta discussion? Above, you say that you will follow consensus, but what consensus? Meta? Wikiversity? Wikiversity community consensus on the principle (local blocks only for local problems) became quite clear last year, as to practice, it was already clear from the proposed WV:Blocking policy. Are you just following your own opinion as to which consensus to follow? You are correct that there is no consensus yet on Poetlister personally. However, in the absence of a present problem here we would not ordinarily judge this, unless someone starts a discussion. The only grounds for blocking Poetlister given here have been that he's globally banned, and no local disruption has been alleged. Your position reduces to "I can block Poetlister, in spite of no local consensus to block, in spite of no local disruption, if I judge that a meta discussion was appropriate. Not if I judge it inappropriate." Is this so? --Abd 15:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would describe my point of view this way, on any issue whatsoever, on WV I follow the WV consensus. In absence of an established consensus on a specific issue I use my best judgment about how to use custodial tools, and if at some point later consensus established that the tools should have been used differently I will correct my actions. About the specific issue, far as I was aware, we had not established a consensus about this sort of global bans (on this point you and I disagree). Given that is the case, the actions of SBJ coincide with what my best judgment. Does this answer your questions? Thenub314 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• In particular, what would you suggest about Wikiversity custodians enforcing a ban declared on another wiki, against a local user who has only positive contributions here and no policy violations? Should Wikiversity custodians follow our own policy, or follow a policy or conclusions developed elsewhere, and based on behavior elsewhere? --Abd 13:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the specifics of than your hypothetical situation gives. For example, if a global ban was declared at wikispecies, without letting the wikiversity community know about the discussion, the custodian should clearly not block. In the current setting, which is what I am assuming your really asking about, I have made clear we should block and ask the community how to handle the unblock request. The current case is not a case of local rights vs. global rights. It was a caase of meta attempting to do its job. The conversation was one of vested interest across several communities, they informed our community, several prominent members of our community took part in the discussion. The consensus was to globally ban. That doesn't mean that wikiversity must forever ban, but it does seem sensible to block and seek the local community consensus. So to summarize, to my mind this is not a case of our wiki vs. another wiki. It is a case where we worked with meta in deciding a difficult global question. Thenub314 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making your response clear. You would block, based on a meta consensus, rooted in behavior elsewhere, and no evidence of harm here. It "seems sensible" to you. Is it correct that you would intend to heed a meta consensus, right or wrong, to establish a controlling decision here, disregarding our own policy?

Thenub, I'm aware that there are some users who would support this position. I'm concerned, though, about any custodian on Wikiversity who is responsible to meta, instead of to the Wikiversity community, as we have expressed ourselves in policies and precedents. Your position allows you to be following "consensus," as you have stated you will, but it's not our consensus that you would follow, it's a consensus of whoever shows up at meta, as decided by a closer at meta. Right? I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you. --Abd 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In short No. In cases where consensus has not yet been established, I would follow the meta consensus that involved the local community until such a time that the local community made up its mind. Thenub314 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This effectively disables the general consensus here on blocking policy, because every new case is one in which "consensus has not been established," and judgment is then based on something that did not happen here. Thanks for being clear. No further questions on this point from me. --Abd 20:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• You opposed the unblock/unlock of Thekohser previously, which was a position not supported by consensus, neither here nor on Wikibooks, where you have advanced privileges. On what principles did you base this? --Abd 13:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a rather unusual member of the WMF, and I tend to contribute to as many of the projects as I qualified to. Currently I consider myself active on b:Wikibooks, Wikiversity, q:Wikiquote, s:Wikisource and w:Wikipedia. As such I do see these projects as a family with a global community. If there is a user who is seriously disruptive to multiple projects, then I support the concept of a global ban. The specifics of Thekohser's case disturbed me, such as buying or otherwise obtaining advance privileges after being blocked, not to mention his unwillingness to give any clear account of that incident.

More generally I frequently hold a position outisde of the usual consensus. But I always enforce consensus despite my personal feelings. Thenub314 16:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

why "enforcing consensus" -- as distinct from determining consensus and acting on it, with agreement -- is a Bad Idea. --Abd 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is important, but it's dicta, perhaps, hence it's in collapse. I'm troubled with "enforcing consensus," because apparent consensus can be false, i.e., not real consensus. One of the protections in a wiki structure is that nobody is obligated to do anything. Think the majority is wrong? Don't enforce the majority view? But don't defy it, either. Let someone enforce it who understands and accepts it, they will do a better job. Rather, sound wiki structure has the actors (editors and administrators) always being responsible for their own actions. "They made me do it" is never an excuse. Remember, decisions on wikis are theoretically made by strength of arguments, not !votes. So if an admin is not convinced by the arguments, what is the admin doing by enforcing the decision? It's obviously, then, about numbers! The question is refraining from acting contrary to apparent consensus, especially as reflected in policy, absent very clear reasons. The issue has certainly been raised with me -- and I agree with the objections, i.e., the problem is real. I may take certain actions in anticipation of consensus that is not expressed, that's standard w:WP:BOLD, and I might even err in these -- and I have. But if I act contrary to policy, as anything other than a trial balloon, my adminship is at stake. It better be good! This misunderstanding then leads to the idea that we are enforcing consensus found at meta. If you personally believe that a user is causing damage here, that allows you to block, under policy. --Abd 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yesterday, you expressed your discomfort at what you thought was stalking or harassment.[1] There was no stalking, as explained, there was additional support added by me to help a user comply with license requirements, communication with teachers about problems with work of their students, and custodians must, in any case, expect and welcome that their contributions will be reviewed -- which is not what was being done. What can you say about this sensitivity of yours? --Abd 13:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I never used categorized your edits as stalking or harassment, and if I gave that impression, you have my apologies. But you definitely did hope in the middle of one conversation I was having, and I felt you derailed it. And I felt there was signs that there might be more of this in the future. An important part of the context was on the tail of an email from you which I saw as explicit coercion to get me to modify my stance on the blocking policy. I suppose I do tend to have habit of getting annoyed with people who believe that I can be bribe/coerce/etc. The situation was not about people reviewing my actions and let me emphasize that I don't mind anyone examining my edits and criticize or discuss them with me or to simply revert anything that they don't agree with. Thenub314 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Thenub. That email was letting you know what arguments might appear here, to give you the opportunity to think about them. I'm grateful that you are being open about your positions, that speaks well of you, in itself. I'd say that the response to a possible "derailing" would be to follow up, yourself, with more helpful comments with the user. The more the merrier. There is no harm in two custodians being supportive. --Abd 18:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thenub314, please advise how useful Wikiversity would be to the native English speakers and to the rest of the world.  KYPark [T] 09:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the question of utility an interesting one to answer. I see the WMF's various projects as filling in the various aspects of the educational process. Wikipedia gives an overview, as well as connects related subjects, but encyclopedias are not ment for deep understanding. Wikibooks provides books that do aid in coming to a deep understanding of a subject, but it is rare that people can do this on their own. Wikiversity provides the key aspect of a community where people can discuss, correct, conjecture, etc. and thereby really learn. I would hope that are community will at some point be a model for the rest of the world to look at, and our resources of such high quality they are translated and distributed amoungs all the different language wikiversities. The truth is to reach the goal of making knowledge freely available (which would have a wide impact on the world), we would really need wikiversity's in many local languages. And thankfully we can also learn from their communities and their resources as much as I hope they can learn from ours. I hope I hit upon the nerve of your question, please let me know if I did not. Thenub314 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent answer, Thenub. I would only add one thing: for that function to fully be implemented, academic freedom is necessary. That freedom is largely impossible on Wikipedia, because of the single-page, encyclopedic structure. Can you understand why I then consider the independence of Wikiversity, as a haven where users are judged only by their contributions here, not what has happened or what happens elsewhere, to be of crucial importance? --Abd 20:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with your first statement about academic freedom, and I would go further about Wikipedia. It is not only that Wikipedia's structure isn't conducive to academic freedom, Wikipedia should not encourage academic freedom. It is, if you will, outside the scope of the project. Academic freedom necessarily allows for some POV, allows for and original research/thought. But no, I do not see it necessary to turn blinders on to a users behavior at our sister projects to allow them academic freedom. I believe that users who harass, intimidate, threaten, etc. members of the WMF projects should be globally banned, and for that position to really make sense you must allow for some consideration of a user's behavior at other projects. For the most part a users actions elsewhere are not an issue, but in extreme cases I think they can and should be considered. I do not see this as contradicting the principles of academic freedom. Thenub314 21:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Right about Wikipedia. Nobody is suggesting "blinders," and, in fact, if users have been disruptive elsewhere, we should watch them. You are saying that "in extreme cases" policy can be disregarded? That's w:WP:IAR, and it's correct. However, "extreme cases," by definition, involve serious damage or immediate risk. I'm not seeing any "serious damage or immediate risk" even alleged, other than the risk that a user in question will make good contributions and thus become accepted. We benefit from assuming that risk, and the risk is real for every user. The old problem of an undisclosed sock gaining advanced privileges doesn't apply to an open account. (Allowing such an account to edit reduces risk, for many reasons.) So what's the risk that could justify disregarding blocking policy and precedent? --Abd 22:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say "even alleged", I have a feeling we have silently changed topics somehow. I am guessing your talking about the specific case of Poetlister? Or is this still about KYPark's questions of utility of WV and the subsequent topics of academic freedom and users being judged by only their actions here? Thenub314 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Thenub. My edit summary pointed out that this was connecting the two topics, it's not actually "changed," but now being examined integratively. You mentioned the use of global bans, thus making relevant the present ban example. That's just an example, though, the issues raised are general. --Abd 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The only two comments I have to say are that I believe this is the correct forum to go into the specifics of Poetlister's case. Secondly, Poetlister and I have been in contact for many months, beginning with some emails related to WQ. Much of what he communicated with me was, to my understanding, confidential. So I find it difficult to discuss the allegations against him, trying to keep straight which details are private and which are public. I brought him up only to highlight the difference in my own behavior/judgment for the community to consider, but did not mean to suggest we analyze his situation in detail here. Thenub314 23:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, my concern is based on my conclusion that we should not touch these issues at all on Wikiversity. Allegations against users should not be repeated here, with one obvious exception: allegations about behavior here. (And users may inform us, neutrally, as to a ban decision elsewhere, pointing to it, at least generally.) Can you agree?

No. As I said above, my opinion is that at times we should consider behavior other places. But the specifics of Poetlister's case have little with my custodianship (I hope). Perhaps you'll find it useful to read my responses to Darklama's original set of questions. Feel free to comment on my talk page. Thenub314 00:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is so nice of you, Thenub, here to take primarily education and the global, utilitarian "goal of making knowledge freely available (which would have a wide impact on the world)." Yet, we often come to what does good to some, say, your people may do much harm or injustice to others. To me at least, education is not only learning knowledge but perhaps more vitally wisdom and justice to be done to others by reducing vested self-interests and powers as far as wise, at which the so-called 99% worldwide are now so angry in a way. Frankly I fear the hawks and their abuse of custodianship or the like (as sort of vested interests) far more than the general editorship. The weakness of WP in particular, if any, may mainly lie in difficulty in NPOV and w: satyagraha rather than "deep understanding." NPOV in disguise may be unreal and unjust. Wikipedia and academia of ivory towers at large may not be an exception of greedy vested interests, conservatism, and even evil obscurantism against enlightenment. In this regard, those 99% worldwide may like to know how honest and brave you in that capacity would respond to self-interests and self-sacrifices of native English speakers. No English project may be their monopoly but our global lingua franca, in spite of our local ones. Thanks. -- KYPark [T] 05:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting for full custodianship

• Support as recommending mentor. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussions with the candidate regarding our policies, candidate does not understand Wikiversity traditions. I would support continued probationary custodianship, if he agrees to Standard stop agreement. He has not done actual damage, and does useful work, though he's particularly touchy. I will ask relevant questions above. --Abd 12:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. thenub314's candidacy is unusual also in having had more than one mentor. I think what thenub314 agreed to in his candidacy is more thorough than the agreement Abd wishes thenub314 to agree to now. thenub314 helps Wikiversity participants to understand how to do things, focuses on how things are in the now, works towards consensus, and encourages other people to work towards consensus, which may be more important than what one person's interpretation of how things are and how we got there is. I think thenub314 attempts to understand people's perspectives and what they want though, even perspectives he doesn't necessarily agree with. -- darklama  13:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - he should have been made a full sysop a long time ago. Anything else is silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've been impressed by Thenub314's recent work, and in particular to how Thenub314 has been responding to questions (both here and elsewhere) and handling some of the recent problems. - Bilby 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I have been reading the candidates statements both regarding what is going on at meta with 'Global bans' and answers to Abd's questions. I believe another period of probation would be beneficial for the candidate. As a volunteer, and with respect to volunteerism, there is the great opportunity to be objective regarding all aspects of WMF, especially from the WV point of view. Volunteers do not 'work for meta'. I believe the candidate needs to reflect on this a bit more to shore up the volunteer within the custodian. Thenub314 is correct that force should never even be implied should a global ban come down that is disagreed with. My only other two reasons for suggesting an additional probationary period is the handling of user/instructor Dmoreno1899. A previous custodian had already begun interacting with the instructor regarding copyright status of uploaded images for course use by students, but the first custodian did not delete any images. Thenub314 stopped by, presumably to help, put more images up for deletion, then deleted them after the customary month. Yes, the candidate was probably following policy, but whether admitted to or not by the uploader there is I believe an implied copyright transfer to free use whenever anyone uploads to resource space rather than user space. If the uploader were to claim later that they did not mean free use I do not think it would stand up anywhere. I mention this because course materials that may be in use, have been in use, or will be used are now gone. The instructor has to upload again, or upload anew. In this specific instance I disagree with Abd that the candidate has done no harm. Lastly, I encourage our custodians to enjoy working together. Please feel free to drop by to possibly assist any other custodian. I hope that the candidate communicated with the first custodian in the image copyright matter with instructor Dmoreno1899. I agree with Abd's dropping by to assist, I encourage all custodians to do so, I heartily endorse them doing so and communicating with each other about what's happening. I believe the candidate has the potential to be an outstanding custodian. Marshallsumter 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support A WMF universalist, and trusted not to abuse the tools. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support does a great job around here. Plus, Abd opposing is never a bad thing. --Simone 23:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I know that this !vote will be dismissed as "sour grapes" or "trolling" or some such dismissive term, but I felt that I should speak about past errors made by the candidate. When I successfully sought a Wikibooks override of an out-of-process global lock on my account, imposed by one rogue bureaucrat on Meta (who shortly thereafter retired in a huff), Thenub314 appeared from nowhere to contend that not enough time (two weeks?) had been allocated to a review of my request, and he variously warned that all manner of problems might arise from my being unblocked on Wikibooks. Well, it was considered by the community that plenty of time had been allowed, and in hindsight we can see that literally no piece of the sky has fallen on the basis of my return to either Wikibooks or Wikiversity. In fact, the net result since August 2010 has been the addition of good content like this and this, and little problem of any kind at all. In short, I am gravely concerned that Thenub314's fealty to bullying tactics exerted on Meta will be a net detriment to Wikiversity and other Wikimedia projects. Until we have a clearer picture of where Thenub314 stands on how blindly we must follow decrees issued on Meta, I cannot in good conscience recommend in his favor. -- Thekohser 17:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Right now I don't feel that Wikiversity is an environment that I feel comfortable working in. But, on occasion I check in to browse and run into some actions/edits done by Thenub314 that make me really want to come back and contribute more regularly. --HappyCamper 23:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Closure

It is just over 5 days now since the nomination of thenub314 for full custodianship. There has been active discussion and voice from the community, expressing some disagreement about whether thenub314 should be a full custodian.

My general impression of the discussion and voting is support due to useful performing of custodial administrative duties, with some reservations expressed in particular about how thenub314 would be likely respond as a WV custodian to possible un/blocking of user accounts subject to global bans. thenub313's responses suggest a careful and thoughtful approach, primarily following local consenus. Exactly how Wikiversity should respond in such situations is unclear and undergoing further discussion, separately.

There are seven users voting support. This includes a mixture of regular and not-so-regular editors. There seems to be appreciation of thenub314's cross-wiki experience, working towards consensus, and level-headedness.

There are three users voting oppose. This includes one vote for extended probation, one oppose mainly on the basis of response to global ban questions, and one oppose based on past editing mostly on WB and global ban response concerns.

Y Done thenub314 is now a full custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)