Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Adambro

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Adambro[edit source]

Adambro (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) has been recently discussed as a possible candidate for custodianship here: Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Vandalism tools. Adambro has recently been helpful and active in many respects with reverting vandalism but more importantly in improving and developing the WV project and its organisation. He has also been involved here for over 12 months and is an admin on several other WMF wiki projects. One of the areas Adambro tends to focus on is image files and admin rights would be very useful to help in allowing him to try to organise the many media files hosted on Wikiversity (e.g., many are already on Commons and so can be deleted). Adambro also seems to be very level-headed and to have earnt the respect of his peers.

If you are interested in being nominated, Adambro, please indicate below and also consider who might mentor you. I am willing, but other more tech-savvy / experienced custodians could be more appropriate and may well be interested (please also indicate below if willing to mentor). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be delighted to accept a period of probationary custodianship. The tools it offers would be very useful. The first area I'd set to work in would be dealing with the large number of images hosted here but already on Commons. I am happy to accept Jtneill's offer of mentoring but I'm open to offers from other if that might be more appropriate. Adambro 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

checkY Done This begins the 4 week period of probationary custodianship. --mikeu talk 13:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've realised that the probationary period ends just as I go away to Scotland and as such I would be unable to comment on any queries raised at a request for full custodianship. I'd therefore ask that any nomination for full custodianship is delayed until I am available again which will be about a week and a half later. I hope this isn't a problem. Adambro 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that should be a problem. Ping us when you get back. --mikeu talk 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am now back from Scotland, slightly earlier than I had originally expected, and so am available to answer any questions that may arise should Jtneill consider it appropriate to put me forward for full custodianship now that the four week probationary period has passed. Adambro 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentor's recommendation for full custodianship[edit source]

User:Adambro has contributed to Wikiversity for over one year and has now completed the probationary custodianship period. During this probationary period Adambro was very active over the first few weeks with approx 200 edits and almost 500 special edits (including deletions and blocks) that demonstrated very good mediawiki skills and understanding of how to administer WMF projects. Adambro's interwiki skills have also been valuable e.g., with improving system messages and templates. Adambro has been forthright but pleasingly also keen to engage in dialogue if others disagree and to find solutions. Overall, the work that Adambro has been doing is of significant benefit to wikiversity. He may also consider contributing to learning content in future. I highly recommend Adambro for full custodianship on Wikiversity. -- -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion and questions[edit source]

Questions to and discussion of the candidate.

Editing actions[edit source]

Adambro, will you please list all of the user accounts you have used in Wikimedia projects? Will you please list all of the Wikimedia project policies you have violated, particularly the Wikiversity policy violations since becoming a probationary custodian? What do you think about the practice of using off wiki (IRC, email, etc) forums to discuss the behavior of wiki editors and make plans to delete their work, block or ban them? --JWSchmidt 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a long list of users accounts that I can provide you. I only use this one but also operate bots as User:AdambroBot across a number of projects. I am unable to list "all of the Wikimedia project policies you have violated" nor "the Wikiversity policy violations". I have not delibertly set out to violate any policies but can I accept that I may have inadvertently done so in the course of my contributions intended to improve the project. If you have some examples where I have violated a policy then I may be able to explain more comprehensively. Regarding your last point, clearly issues relating to the project should be ideally discussed on the project but I can recognise that there may be instances where other means of communication may be more appropriate. Adambro 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I don't have a long list of users accounts" <-- Are you willing to have a checkuser search done on all your user accounts and IP addresses? Do you know Promethean? User:AdambroBot <-- Did you run your bot at Wikiversity before getting it approved? When should an edit be marked "minor"? Should a bot account ever be set to automatically mark all edits as minor? "there may be instances where other means of communication may be more appropriate" <-- Does this mean that you approve of the practice of secretly conspiring off-wiki to delete pages, block or ban users? "I have not delibertly set out to violate any policies" <-- Did your custodian mentor tell you to familiarize yourself with Wikiversity policy? Have you ever read the Wikiversity policies? Did someone tell you that you do not have to follow Wikiversity policy? Why did you start editing at Wikiversity? Why do you want to be a custodian? When can a Wikiversity page or image file be deleted without community discussion? Do you agree that an editor who proposes the deletion of a Wikiversity page should first try to improve the page? Do you agree that when an editor proposes deletion of a Wikiversity page there must be a provided reason explaining how the page does harm to Wikiverity? Did you follow Wikiversity policy when you made this proposal for deletion? When you edit at Wikiversity do you follow Wikiversity policy or the policies of some other wiki? When is it appropriate to cite Wikipedia policy when deciding what to do at Wikiversity? You have deleted Wikiversity pages while claiming that they are "beyond scope" for this project. Is it your belief that if a page or a "project seems to lack any realistic aims" then you have the power to delete it or vote to delete it? Which learning projects with "realistic aims" have you started? How do you decide if a Wikiversity page or project has "realistic aims"? Why is a page about Syphilis not suitable for Wikiversity? What do you think the word "disruptive" means? If anyone does anything at Wikiversity that you do not like are you ready to game the system and label it as "disruptive"? Why is a project for studying Wikipedia not suitable for Wikiversity? Why should a page such as Horbury High School be speedily deleted? Why do you claim that Wikiversity is not a place for people to practice writing? Do you think it is the job of custodians to threaten to delete Wikiversity projects? Do you approve of the practice of imposing bad blocks and then preventing the blocked person from disputing the block? When can a block be imposed on a Wikiversity participant without first giving a warning on the user's talk page? When can a Wikiversity participant be prevented from using their user talk page? When can someone be banned from participating at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 21:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it is reasonable to expect me to answer such a long list of questions. Many of the questions are likely to merit more than a simple yes or no but that is only really what it would be feasible to provide in a reasonable length of time. Perhaps you could pick out a more manageable number of questions from that list which you would like me to answer with a proper explanation which would still allow you to assess my suitability for custodianship? Adambro 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, esp. when most of the questions are along the lines of "Are you still beating your wife?" --mikeu talk 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adambro, Your failure to answer my questions indicates that you should not be a custodian. Has User:Mu301 or anyone else assured you that you do not need to answer questions from the community? --JWSchmidt 17:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has said I do not need to answer questions. I am willing to answer questions from you on any subject but you must be reasonable in your expectations of the number of questions I should be prepared to answer. Adambro 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"you must be reasonable" <-- Are you saying that I am not reasonable? The questions I asked are all reasonable questions that were raised by your editing history and actions as a probationary custodian. If you do not have time to answer these important questions then you do not have time to be a custodian. --JWSchmidt 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, I am saying you aren't being reasonable to expect me to answer another 31 questions from you. Particularly where it has always seemed obvious that you've been hostile towards me and so however I was to answer those questions it would be unlikely that you'd consider me appropriate for custodianship. Adambro 07:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, the links JWS gives above aren't accurately described, e.g. "threaten to delete Wikiversity projects" leads to a diff that doesn't mention deletion, and "When is it appropriate to cite Wikipedia policy" leads to a diff that mentions WP policy, but doesn't cite it as something to be enforced. Given the tone of the questions, as mikeu mentioned above, Adambro's response is certainly understandable. --SB_Johnny talk 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it very sad that two Wikiversity bureaucrats continue their efforts to stack Wikiversity with policy violating administrators who never have to explain their abusive admin actions. "diff that doesn't mention deletion" <-- read the entire talk page comment from Admabro which included: "If it does not become apparent that this will become a learning resource then it will probably find itself nominated for deletion". The example I pointed to of Adambo making reference to Wikipedia policy is relevant to his behavior as a probationary custodian. It has become all too common at Wikiversity for abusive admins to game the system by calling participation in learning projects "disruptive". I suspect Adambro is close to having wasted more time saying "I don't have time to answer questions" than it would have taken him to simply answer the questions. --JWSchmidt 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(removing insetting) Well, it would be nice to hear some response - and it would be nice for the questions to be asked a bit more nicely... Not sure if/who's going to go first? ... thinking about transactional analysis. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, on both counts. --SB_Johnny talk 19:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikiversity scope[edit source]

Hi Adambro. Could you share your thoughts on Wikiversity's scope? I'm thinking, of course, about your comments about the Great Repeal Bill project, but I'm more interested in your thoughts on scope in general. --SB_Johnny talk 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the project scope is not defined clearly enough. I note that Wikiversity:Scope, which would seem the obvious place to set out the scope is marked as inactive. I think the Great Repeal Bill is a good example of some of the problems that exists here. The project seems to lack any realistic aims. To try to write a bill about repealing certain UK laws as a community project seems an impossible exercise. The format of a Wiki seems unsuitable for this in my view. I think Wikiversity will continue to grow into a useful learning resource but I think we've got to concentrate on the basics before we try to push the boundaries. I don't subscribe to the view that any content is good content.
I see a lot of content which has little prospect of turning into something useful and I think rather than benefiting the project, it actually is detrimental because it distracts us from managing the useful content. As an example, it is important that content is organised by categorisation. There are many pages that aren't categorised. Where we have pages that have only ever had vandalism, nonsense, or a template like {{whas}}, I think we should be prepared to delete them because they just add to the list of uncategorised pages without bringing any real benefits to the project. Adambro 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hope you don't mind, but I inseeted a paragraph break in your response because it's 2 issues.
It's really just the statement that "The format of a Wiki seems unsuitable for this in my view" that concerns me. From my point of view, this is an opportunity to see whether or not a wiki is suitable for this sort of thing. I'm "NPOV" on whether it is or isn't. But seeing whether it is or not is firmly within our scope.
"Stub pages" created en masse using templates like {{whas}} are a different story. I don't see anything particularly constructive there, since there's no effort whatsoever to engage with others to learn.
Do you understand what I'm saying? --SB_Johnny talk 20:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think I understand. What I am cautious about is Wikiversity effectively being used to test the Wiki software for its suitability to a particular project. I don't think that is what Wikiversity exists for, even if any such testing would likely result in some people learning something. I think we've got to be careful to not simply ask ourselves when considering some content, is anyone going to learn anything from this content, because in all but a few instances the answer would probably be yes. Even the act of editing a Wiki is likely to result in someone learning something but we shouldn't invite anyone to create random pages, we should point them in the direction of the sandbox. We just have to carefully manage research like this. Adambro 07:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, but I just plain disagree about what Wikiversity exists for :-). Figuring out how the software can be used educationally is indeed what we're here for, and studying how it can be applied to other fields (such as politics or democracy) is part of that. I think part of a custodian's job in cases like this is to try to suspend doubt and look for ways that "questionable" efforts can be steered towards a form that provides greater value (actually, even the best resources will always have room for improvement). The best way to handle things like this is to try to build up the policy and guideline structures that would help things move in a more satisfactory direction.
This is, I assume, to some extent moot, since I don't get the feeling you'll be speedy-deleting things following w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT ;-). However, you have experience on other projects with more developed policies, so perhaps you can help out a bit more in building ours... so long as we always keep an open mind and a wide scope, we can learn even from efforts that fail. --SB_Johnny talk 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is vital for the WV project that we foster a "developist" culture over a "deletionist" culture. I've started rambling a bit more about this here: How to be a Wikimedia sysop/Wikiversity. Interested in any thoughts/help (from anyone). Adambro, I think, as long as he respects the local culture/nature/idiosynchrasies of Wikiversity will be fine as a custodian. His sister project admin experience is perhaps both a strength and a weaknesses - Adambro brings significant wiki experience and outside perspective, but remember to also try and see the project material through "Wikiversity's eyes" - as material/people in the process of growing and learning. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for full custodianship[edit source]

Please enter vote and a brief comment here.

Support[edit source]
  1. I, CQ (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs second the nomination. - He dug right in and started fixing broken redirects right away. He has maintained a civil tone, welcomed newcomers and launched a diligent campaign to clean up redundant commons entries. Good work!
  2. Support Agree with jtneill recommendation. The work adambro has done to organize wikiversity content (removing duplicate images, etc.) and finding solutions where there are differences of opinion (ex: modifying the mediawiki interface to explain talk pages) will be a great benefit to our learning community. --mikeu talk 15:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Unfortunatelly can be with WV just in my thoughts and not with my fingers on the keyboard lately, but today I took my time and looked up the responses of our "colleague". I have to say a definitely a YES. Keep up the good work! --Gbaor 15:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Philosophical differences aside, I trust Adambro to use the tools wisely and according to consensus. --SB_Johnny talk 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Keep an open mind. Countrymike 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit source]
  1. Due to the candidate's failure to answer questions about his participation at Wikiversity, I think his probationary custodianship should be terminated. This is the wrong type of person to be given the power to delete Wikiversity pages and block Wikiversity participants. --JWSchmidt 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure[edit source]

checkY Done Adambro is now a full custodian. --SB_Johnny talk 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]