Adam Brookes, User:Adambro asserts his custodial rights and perogatives Options

[Moulton]

From the Wikiversity Colloquium...

The alleged discretionary "rights" of Wikiversity custodians

Adambro said here,

I absolutely retain the right to use my custodian rights in accordance with what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community.

Adambro certainly has mixed "rights" with "privileges". But that is not my main point. In essence he believes he can competently act as police, judge and jury at the same time, and at every instance that he interests himself in, just based on what he thinks Wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition.

I do not know if that has ever been the consensus or custom of Wikiversity. However, from what I know from the very early days Wikiversity custodians has never been explicitly endowed with any "rights" and they only act as functionaries who would act on behalf of the community, and hence the title "custodian", in clear distinction from Wikipedia "administrator". [So please don't say we are Wikimedia blablabla and it has always been like that blablabla.] The use of the custodial tools by custodians may have changed through practice, and I would like the Wikiversity community to establish consensus on what discretions, in particular blocking others from participations, we allow our functionaries to make.

—Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________

You might be better raising any concerns you have about the general use of blocks at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy where the development of a policy regarding this can be discussed. I'm not quite sure how you conclude that I believe I can act "based on what he thinks Wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition" when in the quote you highlight I specifically said that I would use my custodian rights in accordance with both "what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community". On the issue of my "custodian rights", I refer to the ability to block as a custodian right because that is what it is widely referred to as. You can find a list of the rights that members of the Custodians group have at Special:ListGroupRights.

—Adambro 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________

These problems are not here because of missing policies. Policies may help to solve actually problems, but on the other hands, they will build up barriers around custodians, who will no longer be possible to use their brains and fantasy, to fix problems.

—Juan de Vojníkov 12:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________

I agree that would be nice to know. I'd also like to know in general what discretion anyone has to make any independent decisions. Is the impact that a decision has part of what discretion people are willing to give anyone? I believe that is usually true on other wikimedia projects. A decision to rename a resource usually only impacts the people working on the resource and the people reading the resource for example. If most people do the things that Custodians block for that would have more of a direct impact on the Wikiversity community, than if only a few people do the things that Custodians block for. Is having a direct impact a consideration as well? I think where people stand on issues that have no direct impact on them seems to vary.

—darklama 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[pietkuip]

On Commons, Adambro has now capriciously blocked three contributors (me and two others) for reverting the addition of a category to a few images. Out of the blue, totally unpredictable, and completely unexpected.

The Foundation loses out on on three weeks of free volunteer labor, for what?

[thekohser]

On Commons, Adambro has now capriciously blocked three contributors (me and two others) for reverting the addition of a category to a few images. Out of the blue, totally unpredictable, and completely unexpected.

The Foundation loses out on on three weeks of free volunteer labor, for what?

For those wishing to have links and links.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Abd]

For a one week block, it's not worth the fuss, my opinion. However, if Adambro has improperly blocked, others may use this to nail his ass. I don't see that though. If it was truly improper, i.e., not within reasonable discretion, it wasn't obvious and I'd have had to take much more time than this seemed to be worth. Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.

The effective way to put up an unblock template is to promise not to repeat the behavior -- whatever it is -- unless that behavior has come to be approved by consensus. And you only add the latter qualification, if you think that you might need to repeat the behavior, because it was truly legitimate. But you still promise not to repeat it without getting support first.

"I didn't do anything wrong" almost never works unless you can really prove that you didn't do what the blocking admin blocked you for. And, then, this evidence should be presented with the utmost politeness to the blocking admin directly, i.e., before even putting up an unblock template and requesting review. ("I didn't vandalize that article, I think you may have misread a diff....." Or, "I was reverting vandalism (diff) and missed prior vandalism that this vandal had taken out. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Would you consider unblocking? Thanks.")

Promising not to repeat a behavior is not an admission of wrong-doing. It's a recognition of the value of avoiding unnecessary disruption.

[RMHED]

Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.

Maybe it's time you started using the internet for what it was really intended for, namely PORN.

[Abd]

Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.

Maybe it's time you started using the internet for what it was really intended for, namely PORN.

That might get me more than mildly excited.

On a good night.

I am, after all, 66.

I much prefer, however, a real woman. Thanks, God.

This post has been edited by Abd: