I received the following uninvited e-mail from you. The comment did not say anything, as far as I noticed, that had not already been said on-wiki by you. Since it may have been sent through the Beta interface, I'm responding here. The user has no activity on en.wikiversity.
[text of email redacted]
This relates to a request for comment on the meta wiki.
This is essentially a proposal to close a project, but does not meet the standards for such proposals, so it's going nowhere, it's a waste of time. It is conceivable that out of the discussion, a proposal that did meet standards would be formed, but that's unlikely.
Beta has problems. However, they are solvable.
AtUkr, you think my opposition is "aggressively advocating BetaWV." Yet your behavior on that RfC is far more "aggressive" than anything I did there. You went back and replied to every person who had commented in the previous RfC. Some of these people are long gone. You made a list of every user on Beta, for a period, showing absolutely nothing. You are now arguing with me by sending me an email.
You are placing yourself center stage, instead of letting the community handle the matter.
The original title was m:Requests for comment/Move betawikiversity and oldwikisource to Incubator. Then, having many comments in place, you moved it to m:Requests for comment/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator. That means that early supports and opposes may have been relating to a different issue. Meta, unfortunately, does not have clear standards for RfCs, so you were not warned not to do this.
The steward who moved it probably thought he was doing you a favor. However, he was doing the community a disservice. I have made this point on meta, it still stands as a point: RfCs are disruptive, there had better be good cause, because they can waste the time of many users. RfC should not be the first place to start to discuss an issue. But that often happens on meta; eventually, it will be different.
AtUkr, I'm quite aware that the proposal became only to close Beta. I'm quite aware that it does not propose to close en.wikiversity. Some users may not be, but that's not my affair. The confusion may exist on both sides. There are lots of users who have long wanted to close all the wikiversity projects. These usually come from en.wiki and they hate the disorder of the wikiversities, and the allowance of original research and tolerance for enwiki banned users, etc.
AtUkr, you have wasted the time of many users. You don't know what you are doing. You have very little experience with a wikiversity project. You have 100 edits on Beta. Most of your edits are on meta, the coordinating wiki, and after that, on Incubator.
You did not discuss a proposal to close Beta on Beta. You did not discuss it on Incubator, either. You are meddling in other people's business.
You requested sysop status here on Beta with Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/AtUkr. You did not, then, respond to a question, and the candidacy was ultimately closed, as would be expected. The candidacy shows that you don't understand the function of sysops in WMF wikis.
I have been a sysop on en.wikiversity, but I am not now one. I have no problem getting any page deleted, if the deletion is obviously not going to be controversial. It takes a moment to place a deletion template on a page. What takes time is finding the pages that can be deleted.
You wrote, "I do not like to turn to other administrators for help."
I "like" turning to others for help, because this means that the deletion, if it happens, is not only my own opinion. Administrators who delete pages based only on their own opinion cause disruption and damage, too often. If the deletion of a page could be controversial, I use a proposed deletion template instead, or if one has already been used and removed, and I still think the page should be deleted, I go (on en.wv) to en:Wikiversity:Requests for deletion. And that's what I did as a sysop as well.
But you have no experience as a sysop, as far as I can see.
In fact, Wikiversities generally don't need much deletion. What is needed is organization, and we are working on that on en.wikiversity, and it is not controversial. Any user may help, once the user understands the overall organization scheme for the project. I suspect that some of what we work out there on enwv will apply to Beta, so these procedures may be brought here.
Incubator is generally for incubating encyclopedias. It's been pointed out that en.wik has an Exemption Doctrine Policy en:WV:EDP, and thus can allow Fair Use content. Beta does not presently allow such content, and it can be a nightmare to maintain it, if the procedures are not clear. When we have this worked out, and fully documented, on en.wikiversity, we may propose it for here. Basically, it need not be complicated.
Content policies for a wikiversity and those for an encyclopedia are very, very different. We allow, on en.wikiversity, many pages that would be totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It takes custodians who understand the difference to be effective in maintaining a wikiversity incubator.
If you want to help, AtUkr, I suggest developing educational resources here. The encyclopedia projects generally discourage discussion of the topic. Discussing topics is educational, and wikiversities can and do support discussion of topics. Sister wiki links can be placed on encyclopedia pages to point to educational content on a wikiversity, and links can be placed on encyclopedia talk pages to point to places where the topic may be discussed, within the Wikimedia family. How to do this is something to learn, if you really want to help. --Abd (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see no sense in your arguing with me. I see only maliceful comments about me and my request for comments. There're NO real arguments against closure of Beta. All these words.. there are too many words. Please write your arguments AGAINST CLOSURE SHORTLY. It's time to end all this. AtUkr (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just end it, then. Withdraw that RfC. (You may formally close it as withdrawn.) It will likely be closed without action soon anyway. The basic argument, AtUkr, is that the RfC was filed in the wrong place, and there is a WMF-established policy on closing projects, and it was not followed. Further, if you read the policy, you will see that a project, as active as Beta is, would not be closed unless there were very strong arguments. So it's a disruptive proposal. That is not a personal attack, it is an interpretation of fact.
- A personal comment (not an "attack") would be this: you don't have a clue what you are doing, and I don't think you have understood what has been written. I'm not wasting more time arguing against closure, and your demand that I do so is, itself, disruptive.
- Your accusation of malice is a personal attack, clearly and literally. Stop it! --Abd (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)