User talk:Geoff Plourde

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: 1

Please review activity of User:JWSchmidt[edit source]

JWS isn't behaving consistently with the spirit of the unblock discussions leading to your unblock. He may need your intervention or mediation to restrain him from beating those old dead horses. Special:Contributions/JWSchmidt.

Almost every edit since his unblock has been to Wikiversity:Requests for deletion or Openness and collaboration. On the O&C resource, he reverted (original edit [1], revert [2]) instead of discussing issues in Talk, and he's still discussing inappropriately there, in the resource page itself.[3] In this last question, the motives of an individual are probed, because only one individual saw the page as needing deletion, so far, the one who tried to make the resource neutral, and who was probably frustrated, leading to the nomination.

At the Requests for deletion page, in spite of that page requesting people to discuss deletion or reasons to keep, civilly, for JWS, the issue becomes, again, "abusive sysops," not whether or not the page should be kept,[4][5] even though sysop tools have not been used with the article, and it's extremely unlikely that they will, given the current !vote to Keep. However, his irrelevant arguments incite others to respond, leading to more disruption, and he might sufficiently irritate the community that he gets blocked again. I'm hoping you can prevent this. Thanks. --Abd 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ironically, this is but another attempt to beat a dead horse. Whatever method of "restraining" JWS, be it a block or a leash or some other, there's not a sufficient nor necessary reason to; he's not being moderately disruptive to the entire community, and we wouldn't want to waste our time monitoring his every contribution every step of the way, whether it be to this page or that — that'd just be considered stalking. If it's his resource, fine, but it's bad enough to discuss a dispute, a single revert, and then afterwards go forum shopping for custodians to look into the situation. WAS has provided such commentary on the matter already. TeleComNasSprVen 05:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TCNSV, Geoff Plourde unblocked, reversing an indef block, imposed with multiple custodians consenting, and the implication was that he'd monitor the situation, to head off problems before they become major. If he's not willing to do that, fine, but, then, I or someone else might go to RCA or CR if the problem continues, or a custodian might directly block without further comment. I'm not "forum shopping," I'm going directly to the place that would be simplest and most appropriate, the Talk page of the custodian whose unblock allows the situation to arise, and I'm doing so openly, not with IRC or email. I'll disagree with "not being moderately disruptive," JWS is being exactly that, and I know that there are users who won't work on Wikiversity while this continues. JWS made certain promises to Geoff. Is Geoff satisfied about those? Whom do you think I should ask about this?
I did not merely discuss a "single revert." I wasn't watching his contributions, as such, rather the dispute became obvious at RfD, and JWS' behavior at the resource resulted in that RfD. It's up to Geoff to respond to this, or not, not you, TCNSV. It's his call, he can remove this entire discussion if he wants, or reprimand me, or whatever. --Abd 19:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An indefinite block is the most serious sanction we can hand out and requires substantial support from the community. I did not see a specific case made to justify the indefinite block. If you are willing to start the process to block JWS for a long term or indefinitely, please do so. I am more than happy to moderate such a discussion in the interest of coming to a final solution on these issues. We need to move on and stop dragging up the past. "Can't we all just get along?" Geoff 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sad that you didn't understand what I was asking you for. Your response shows that you thought I was asking you to block JWS. If you had written this to JWS, instead of to me, asking him to stop "dragging up the past," he might not be blocked now, you'd have shown that, in unblocking, you were willing to actually help. For whatever reason, you didn't help, you allowed JWS to think that what he was doing was just fine. So another acted, as was predictable.
The block, for better or for worse, has substantial support from the community. No. I was not willing to "start the process to block JWS." Blocking JWS was not my goal, that's not a satisfactory outcome. Setting up conditions for JWS to "get off it," to do exactly what you claim you want everyone to do, stop "dragging the past," was my goal, as it has been for a year. What actually happened, Geoff, was that you interrupted the process of negotiating unblock with JWS, unblocking him unconditionally (were you claiming that there was no reason for extending the block?) without investigating and discovering or negotiating assurances that there would be no more disruption, and, then being unwilling to intervene to protect him and the community. Not good. You are a new sysop, you get to make mistakes. But this was ... a mistake. --Abd 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See, this nonsense is exactly the kind of canvassing that I just abhor. Several custodians, including Geoff Plourde himself, has been watching JWSchmidt's talkpage for some time now, and have frequently even commented on the status of his block. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that they are well-apprised of the situation. Do you question whether or not they are actively monitoring his contributions, or unable to appropriately handle the situation where necessary? Don’t you find it odd that, rather than merely blocking JWS directly, a bureaucrat and a custodian chose to discuss the page on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion instead? In short, neither they nor I feel that JWS has done anything blockable. Geoff Plourde himself has recently read through the RFD page, and in doing so has closed two deletion requests as well, so I’m sure he is well aware of what’s going in. What I don’t like is you running to the nearest custodian you find on JWSchmidt’s talkpage to confront the unblocking sysop of his decision, dredging up the old issue of having to “restrain” JWS, going to WV:RCA if you don’t like the result and eventually going to Meta-Wiki, like you did with Moulton, to ask the stewards to handle it in order to circumvent local consensus. This behavior is consistent with your frequent forum shopping Abd, and (as to your last issue) it is the right and duty of any member of the community to place another under scrutiny if he might be found disruptive, like you did with JWS. Whether or not someone has “admin powerz” does not matter in the least. TeleComNasSprVen 22:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TCNSV, Geoff unblocked with some assurances. If he wants to take the position that the block was improper, that's fine, he can do that. But this was not canvassing, this is consultation with the last custodian to act in a matter. If a custodian had closed a deletion discussion, as an example, and one disagrees with the close, or especially there is new evidence to consider, discussing it with the closing custodian is the first and least disruptive place to discuss it. In the case of blocks, generally consultation is required to reverse a decision by another custodian, at least it should be. (I'm not asserting that Geoff did anything wrong, and he's free to drop the matter, but, then, it would mean that another custodian might make a different decision and isn't required to consult with Geoff.)
Geoff, "can't we all just get along?" The person to ask that question is JWS, in fact. Nobody has been pursuing him or hounding him. Nobody is preventing him from working on ordinary "educational resources," but he seems to want only to work on highly disruptive "resources" that attract offended editors, mostly from Wikipedia, and that bring down steward intervention, and the like. I'm not -- at all -- trying to get JWS blocked or banned. However, I'll note that two of our three active 'crats were considering him banned just a few days ago, and it was hard to find anyone else to review his block. Michael Billington looked and was negotiating, but declined to act. I did not cause the block of JWS, but I'm trying to encourage someone who might be his friend to encourage John to restrain himself. "Can't we all just get along?" How about it, Geoff?
I can tell you what will happen if his friends don't help him out this way. He'll be history. That isn't what I want, that's what I predict. --Abd 23:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-blocked[edit source]

I assume that you're as frustrated by his "post block" activities as everyone else is. Please don't unblock a person who acts in this way unless you're willing to do some hands-on mentoring, because it really does have a negative effect on those who are trying to build a collaborative, constructive, and forward-looking community. --SB_Johnny talk 21:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to interfere. My concern was that there was no clear community discussion Geoff 04:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's actually been discussed to death over a very long time, and I'd guess that another round would end up at the same place, and cause more community stress than simply applying the rules we have. I completely understand and share the desire to give second chances, and I'm not particularly happy with blocks, but bending over backwards too much can break the back ;-). I really do hope that someone can get through to him someday, but until that happens the block seems to be the only effective way to prevent further disruption. --SB_Johnny talk 12:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, SBJ. Geoff has raised a procedural issue, and important one, but there is something he's overlooked. JWS is not "banned." To ban JWS would indeed require a community discussion. He is merely indef blocked. While that might look like a ban, it isn't, and the difference is right in front of us: Geoff did unblock, apprarently thinking it served the welfare of the community. Nobody threatened to take him to Custodian Feedback or CR. I think his unblock reason, as now given, which is consistent with what he wrote at the time, was inadequate, but custodians can make mistakes, and we all wanted to see if it might work. This was not something he could lose his bit over, as one could, indeed, if someone unblocks a banned editor without adequate discussion to show that a consensus to ban no longer stands.
An indef block is flexible, any custodian can freely negotiate with the editor, and Geoff may have lost an opportunity here, to do just that, to negotiate terms of unblock with JWS. Geoff suggested to me, when I requested he look at the post-block behavior, that I file a ban process. That's the opposite of what I want! JWS has, however, sufficiently irritated enough WV users that the result of such a process might well be a ban. CRs are not great at subtleties, at what is in between a ban and unrestricted editing. --Abd 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't think the unblock was a bad thing (worth a try), I just think it's important in such cases for the unblocking custodian to keep an eye on things and try to nudge the unblocked person in the right direction if the same issues come up again. I also think this "block vs. ban" thing isn't a particularly interesting approach: blocks are for preventing disruption, nothing more or less. --SB_Johnny talk 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for unhiding revisions on Ecolig[edit source]

If you think that a revision is really a problem as to copyright (I don't), then I believe that it is possible to hide the revision text while leaving the edit summary in place, so that authorship of what remains is clear. But I think that the author of this may give permission, that the original author is almost certainly our editor with the same name, and if the author claims permission to reproduce, that should be enough for us, my opinion, we don't actually have to get formal permission from the journal. That's a luxury available to nonprofits who take ordinary precautions, as we do. I've seen demands for formal permission taken to ridiculous lengths, but to each his own.... for Wikiversity, my opinion is that we do what we need to do to legally protect the wiki, that's enough. Nonprofits are only obligated, if there isn't willful copyvio, approved by them, to take copyrighted content down on demand. Alleged copyvio in history is even less of a problem, it's not searchable, etc. --Abd 20:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Openness and collaboration RFD[edit source]

Can you please clarify your closing comment? You wrote, "Nominator has made substantial changes." What do you mean by that? I haven't made any changes to the page since nominating it. -- darklama  12:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the question. When I made the nominator has made substantial changes comment, I was referencing comments in the RfD as to changes you made to the page after nominating it. Geoff 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found your closing comments surprising, because I hadn't noticed any comments like that nor had I made any changes after nominating it. What comments in the RfD were you referring to? -- darklama  20:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biblical RfD[edit source]

Hi Geoff, I reopened an RfD you closed earlier this year: Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#A_Translation_of_the_Bible. SJ+ 03:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to register for the Wikiversity Assembly[edit source]

  • The Wikiversity:Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
  • I invite you to register for the Wikiversity:Assembly by adding your user name to the Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table.
  • Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy[edit source]

  • When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."
  • I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.
  • If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.

Comments[edit source]

I'm inviting all relatively inactive custodians to register for the Assembly, and to name a proxy as described. This is because you who have been and remain custodians have yourselves been trusted by the community, and your proxy choice, if you name one, may carry some reasonable weight, due to your experience. You may, of course, participate directly, whether you do or do not name a proxy. Thanks for considering this. --Abd 01:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Agape.jpg & File:AWFschool.png[edit source]

Template:Bad Fairuse

These images or media files are missing or have incomplete fair use rationales and will be deleted on or after August 18, 2022, unless the inconsistencies in their Fair Use rationales are resolved. Once a Fair Use template is fully and correctly filled out, this template may be removed.

Please remember to notify the uploader on their talk page about this issue with
{{subst:Bad Fairuse|Image:Geoff Plourde}}~~~~

Simone 09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Geoff, noticed this. The problem here is that the Exemption Doctrine Policy explicitly does not allow fair use files outside of the main namespace, so if you do provide a rationale as asked, it will probably be rejected. The EDP was obviously written without full consideration of the needs of the community and wiki. This is under discussion in a number of places: on the Talk page for the EDP (which is a section on the Uploading files page), on WV:RFD, on my Talk page, as well as being an issue raised in Simone's current permanent custodianship vote. What we have is two users, for the most part, insisting on strict enforcement; I've been able to restrain this to require time being provided for response and consideration, initially deletions were immediate, and Simone been cooperative, mostly. But there is a real issue here, and I see it as a broken policy that was never really negotiated with the community, it was just written and put up by one user, with only a little work later and no consensus. Because this does require deep consideration, there are many involved issues, resolving the policy issue may require something that takes longer but that will ultimately be deeper, so I've started up a Wikiversity:Assembly topic on fair use policy. I specifically invite you to register for the Assembly, which will merely allow you to be notified of Assembly process, and to directly participate if you so choose. The Assembly page itself is designed to generate minimum watchlist traffic, the talk page has been detached. Your files demonstrate the problem with a rigid policy that seems to allow no exceptions.
Other existing process can be used to develop an immediate response to the situation. Should enforcement go ahead, or should it wait? (It's waited about four years already!) --Abd 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed Geoff 19:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abd's nomination for full custodianship[edit source]

Discussion re-opened on this nomination, November 16. You commented in the original discussion, but have not commented in the current one, which might close on November 21. The current discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian)#Re-opening_community_discussion. --Abd 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your administrator status on the Wikiversity[edit source]

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on the wiki listed above. Since that wiki does not have its own rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights.

If you wish to resign your rights, you can reply here or request removal of your rights on Meta.

If there is no response at all after approximately one month, stewards will proceed to remove your administrator and/or bureaucrat rights. In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact the stewards. Matiia (discusscontribs) 04:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. Matiia (discusscontribs) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]