Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian)

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

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

Re-opening community discussionEdit

We are in somewhat unchartered territory here, with this being Abd's third probationary custodian period which is currently indefinite due to lack of consensus. In the last 12 or so hours, Abd took two actions (unblocking Poetlister1 (now reblocked by thenub314) and deleting a standard stop agreement page (now undeleted by Abd)) which prompted SB_Johnny's request on meta to remove Abd's sysop status (which has been done), pending further community discussion and consensus. So, it would be helpful if the community could indicate below why they do or don't want Abd to become a full custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not quite correct that it was indefinite due to lack of consensus. There was consensus on a close of the candidacy as "permanent probationary." That compromise was made because, to consider the voting, as it stood, would require considering the situation that users with no apparent desire to participate in Wikiversity "mysteriously appeared" to vote, making a close complicated. Continuing probationary status allowed me to continue to serve Wikiversity, but also maintained safeguards. What is ironic here is that the unblocking was pursuant to our "proposed policy," which represented long-standing actual practice, which prohibits blocking a user who is not being disruptive locally. Our custodianship policy also prohibits desysopping a custodian who has not violated policy. And the policy I violated was? --Abd 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk for an analysis of the previous voting, suggesting why the compromise may have been suggested. Policy also provides for continued probationary custodianship, requiring only mentor consent, as with all probationary custodianships. I would not have continued if the analysis on the Talk page had not shown that there is very substantial support for my work in the community of scholars. --Abd 14:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The wealthier custodian consensus, the unhealthier communal consensus proper, I fear as likely as with dictatorship and totalitarianism. Abd's unblocking and Thenub's reblocking appear a sign of custodianship as a whole being as healthy as w: yin and yang, though that disparity should have been duly, reasonably resolved after all. What a hurry instead, at which the community proper should never be surprised! Prior to such hurried votes as follows, it should have been far more thoroughly and convincingly discussed right here, if not elsewhere, how just or unjust Abd's unblocking and Thenub's reblocking in response were indeed. In general, unblocking (esp. like a dove) is likely more generous and less tense than blocking (esp. like a hawk), while welcoming another human round of trial and error. While voting for Thenub a week ago, I formally feared a "hawk" to emerge. Thenub ignored it but showed such a sign so soon, I regret. I wish my fear not self-fulfilling. For what should this ivory tower be mooded so hot and tense like this? Most basically, I continue (and perhaps we have) to wonder whether global or local Wikiversity for example is. (I've been waiting for anyone to answer this question, but in vain so far.) So I dare to assume that this be global, namely a global brain or "world brain", if you like, the Wellsian utopian initiative since 1938. So far I've found nothing too bad for the world to accept but for being oriented to English or Basic English as lingua franca, as either being generally the practical case now! The absolute mankind's need is a lingua franca to manage the abused mankind's deed! Whoever agree, I wonder indeed. Sorry to be talkative.  KYPark [T] 09:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting for full custodianship (2)Edit

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
  •  N Not done 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)
(Further discussion on this issue have been moved to the talk page. --SB_Johnny talk 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)