Jump to content

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Archive of nominations for full custodianship

Add links
From Wikiversity

This page is an archive of community discussions about nominations for full custodianship, bureaucratship and check user status. The discussions take place at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship and are moved to their own pages at some point during the candidacy process. A short summary of each discussion is provided on this page along with a link to the full discussion.

Discussions in 2006

[edit source]

Digitalme

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:Digitalme after a one month probationary period ending 21 September, 2006. The period for comments on this nomination was from September 21, 2006, at 8:31 am UTC to September 26, 2006, at 8:31 am UTC. Digitalme became the first full custodian on 26 September, 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Digitalme.

SB Johnny

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:SB Johnny after a one month probationary period ending 27 September, 2006. The period for comments on this nomination was from September 27, 2006, at 17:28 UTC and ended on October 2, 2006, at 17:28 UTC. SB Johnny became a full custodian on 3 October 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/SB Johnny.

Sebmol

[edit source]

Sebmol was made an "acting custodian" at the launch of Wikiversity (15 August 2006). Cormaggio made Sebmol an "acting bureaucrat" on 9 October 2006. The custodianship and bureaucratship of Sebmol was open for community discussion from October 10 to October 15. All community comments supported full custodianship and bureaucratship for Sebmol. Sebmol became a full custodian and bureaucrat on 16 October 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Sebmol.

Draicone

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:Draicone after a one month probationary period ending 26 October, 2006. The period for comments on this nomination was from October 27 to October 31, 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Draicone

Guillom

[edit source]

All who commented on Guillom's nomination for full custodianship, including Sebmol's mentorship report, were positive. The nomination period was from 27th November to 2nd December, 2006. Archive of disccusion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/guillom.

Rayc

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:Rayc after a one month probationary period ending December 2, 2006. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on December 7, 2006, at 07:48 UTC. Rayc became a full custodian on 7 December 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Rayc.

Discussions in 2007

[edit source]

MichaelBillington

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:MichaelBillington after a one month probationary period ending 10 January. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on 15 January 2007. MichaelBillington became a full custodian on 16 January 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/MichaelBillington.

J.Steinbock

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:J.Steinbock after a one month probationary period ending 16 January. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on 21 January 2007. J.Steinbock became a full custodian on 22 January 2006. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/J.Steinbock.

Remi

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:Remi after a one month probationary period ending 14 May. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on 19 May 2007. Remi became a full custodian on 20 May 2007. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Remi.

Historybuff

[edit source]

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:Historybuff after a probationary period ending 21 May. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on 26 May 2007. Historybuff became a full custodian on 27 May 2007. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/HistoryBuff.

CQ

[edit source]

There were no objections from the community against full custodianship for User:CQ after a one month probationary period ending 24 May. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on 29 May 2007. CQ became a full custodian on 30 May 2007. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/CQ.

McCormack

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of McCormack after a one month probationary period ending 24th May. The five day period for comments lasted between 5th and 10th June. McCormack became full custodian on 14th June 2007. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/McCormack.

HappyCamper

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of HappyCamper after a one month probationary period ending 28th May. The five day period for comments lasted between 5th and 10th June. HappyCamper became full custodian on 14th June 2007. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/HappyCamper.

SB_Johnny

[edit source]

SB_Johnny was granted check user status with full support from the community on 11th September. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Nominations for checkuser/SB Johnny.

JWSchmidt

[edit source]

JWSchmidt was granted check user status with wide support from the community on 11th September. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Nominations for checkuser/JWSchmidt.

Darklama

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of Darklama after a one month probationary period ending 23rd September. The five day period for comments lasted between 23rd and 28th September. Darklama became full custodian on 3rd October 2007. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Darklama (full custodian).

Erkan Yilmaz

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of Erkan Yilmaz after a one month probationary period ending 26th September. The five day period for comments lasted between 26th September and 1st October. Erkan Yilmaz became full custodian on 3rd October 2007. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Erkan Yilmaz (full custodian).

Discussions in 2008

[edit source]

Countrymike

[edit source]

There were some concerns raised about the custodianship of Countrymike both during the 1 month probationary period (December 15 - January 15) and during the 5 day community discussion period (January 15- January 20). The concerns related to Countrymike's expressed goal "to strengthen relationships between" Wikiversity and WikiEducator. Countrymike became full custodian on January 20 when Sebmol closed the discussion, saying, "...an ambassadorial role does not conflict with acting as a custodian..." See the discussion at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Countrymike.

Mu301

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of Mu301 after a one month probationary period ending 16th February. The five day period for comments lasted for 8 days between 16th February and 24th February. Mu301 became full custodian on 24th February 2008. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Mu301 (full custodian).

SB Johnny

[edit source]

All community comments supported bureaucratship for User:SB Johnny. The period for comments on this nomination was started on March 3rd, 2008, at 02:42 UTC. SB Johnny became a bureaucrat on 21st March 2008. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Bureaucratship/SB Johnny.

Mu301

[edit source]

All community comments supported bureaucratship for User:Mu301. The period for comments on this nomination was started on March 3rd, 2008, at 16:47 UTC. Mu301 became a bureaucrat on 21st March 2008. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Bureaucratship/Mu301.

Erkan Yilmaz

[edit source]

All community comments supported bureaucratship for User:Erkan Yilmaz. The period for comments on this nomination was started on March 15th, 2008, at 16:49 UTC. Erkan Yilmaz became a bureaucrat on 26th March 2008. The full community discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Bureaucratship/Erkan Yilmaz.

Jtneill

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of Jtneill after a one month probationary period ending 17th May. The five day period for comments lasted between 17th and 22th May. Jtneill became full custodian on 22th May 2008. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Jtneill (full custodian).

Gbaor

[edit source]

All comments supported the full custodianship of Gbaor after a one month probationary period ending 26th June. The five day period for comments lasted between 26th June and 1st July. Gbaor became full custodian on 3rd July 2008. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Gbaor (full custodian).

Terra

[edit source]

User:Terra became probationary custodian on 17th March 2008. The period was extended until 17th June 2008. The commenting and voting period took place from: 21st June to 31st June 2008. The outcome was that User:Terra can reapply again for full custodianship if he wants. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Terra (full custodian).

Erkan Yilmaz

[edit source]

Erkan Yilmaz was granted check user status with support from the community on August 3rd 2008. Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Nominations for checkuser/Erkan Yilmaz.

Erkan Yilmaz

[edit source]

Erkan Yilmaz left the project and handed back his tools. He was nominated for return, but didn't respond (yet). Full discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Erkan Yilmaz (full custodian).

Ottava Rima

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Ottava Rima

Mike.lifeguard

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Mike.lifeguard and Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Mike.lifeguard (full custodian)

Jade Knight

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Jade_Knight and Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Jade Knight (full custodian)

Discussions in 2009

[edit source]

Juan de Vojníkov

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Juan de Vojníkov and Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Juan de Vojníkov (full custodian)

Adambro

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Adambro

Leighblackall

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Leighblackall

Discussions in 2010

[edit source]

Jtneill

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Bureaucratship/Jtneill

Pmlineditor

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Pmlineditor

AFriedman

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/AFriedman

Diego Grez‎

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Diego Grez‎

Discussions in 2012

[edit source]

Collingwood

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Collingwood

Discussions in 2014

[edit source]

Dave Braunschweig

[edit source]

Dave Braunschweig (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

[edit source]

I'd like to nominate Dave Braunschweig for probationary custodianship. Dave has been contributing significantly to main space learning materials and has been an active contributor to the Colloquium and Wikiversity space discussions, as well being an experienced educator and IT expert. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply

checkY Done This starts the 4 week period of probationary custodianship. My apologies for the lengthy delay. I was hoping another bureaucrat would activate as I have nominated and offered to mentor (I would generally prefer someone else to add the custodian rights), but we clearly need more active custodians. [1] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)reply

Questions

[edit source]
  1. What are your best contributions to Wikiversity , and why? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 10:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
    My best contribution to Wikiversity so far is Internet Protocol Analysis. It exemplifies how OER content can be used to replace a textbook and how Wikiversity can be used to provide active learning opportunities rather than simple article learning. The result is much more effective for real-world students, and should also be effective for dedicated Wiki learners. The course is still generating an average of 5 hits a day six months after it was completed. My other contributions are more scattered, creating and cleaning up templates, adding categories to content I am familiar with, and participating in the Colloquium as time allows. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
  2. You have recently supported a speedy deletion request, did you notice that that the same article is being discussed at RFD Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Kedar_Joshi? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 10:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
    Yes, I had seen Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Kedar_Joshi at one point, but had not reviewed the article itself until yesterday. I did a couple of quick searches to find the deletion discussion again but was unsuccessful, so I commented on the article instead. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
    You first answer looks very good, and the second answer, not so much! I don't know how you tried to search, directly visiting WV:RFD or searching with Kedar Joshi prefix:Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion could be helpful! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 18:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
    I understand that this is an issue that interests you. However, the search method wasn't relevant, as I was specifically requested by User:Draubb to review his recent efforts. His comments were on the article itself, and I followed up there. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply

Comments

[edit source]

As I mentioned to James, if he's willing to nominate and mentor me, and the community is willing to have me, I'd be honored to support Wikiversity as a probationary custodian. I'm relatively new to the community, having only been active since October 2012. However, I've been quite active since then with a complete course developed and a variety of other edits, including several templates.

My "real-world" students have indicated that they prefer the Wikiversity course format to the textbook series they were using previously, and their mastery of the material is better so far with Wikiversity than with the equivalent textbook material. So, I'm now a strong advocate for Wikiversity. The best example of my approach to course development can be found at Introduction to Open Educational Resources, something I wrote to help encourage fellow educators to develop OER. I would sum up the approach as: Use existing resources where possible and provide active learning opportunities to help learners master and apply the concepts.

In terms of agenda as a Custodian, I don't have one other than to help support the community. But I do have several decades of experience supporting computer systems and users. If you review some of the discussion threads I've participated in, you'll find I'm big on a consensus approach to Wikiversity. And being a relative newcomer myself, I'm sensitive to those just getting started, and thankful that no one bit me when I made some of my first edits.

I'm sure I still have a lot to learn, but if approved, I'll do my best to help out where I can.

-- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply

Custodians willing to mentor

[edit source]

I'm willing to mentor. Dave has indicated his willingness/acceptance here. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply

Probationary custodian period started

[edit source]

Mentor's recommendation for full custodian status

[edit source]

Per the mentor's permission, I am nominating User:Dave Braunschweig for full custodian status. During an extended mentorship period, far beyond the norm, Dave has continued to tirelessly serve the Wikiversity community. I'll specially note this action, clear, moderate, and correct.

CentralAuth shows 14,500 edits to Wikiversity today, which includes deleted edits. As a custodian, Dave does not normally delete pages unilaterally, other than the usual spam or vandalism, but when he finds a problem page, he may nominate it with Template:Proposed deletion. As he is the only reliably active custodian, and after the period expires with no user removing the template, he does delete, and this then gives him a high deleted edit count, currently 1,202 (see edit stats below). In one case, I questioned a deletion of his, based on a speedy deletion request by another user, and he immediately undeleted for discussion.

Sysop actions:

I have no hesitation recommending Dave as a permanent custodian. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply

Discussion and questions

[edit source]

Questions to and discussion of the candidate.

Voting for full custodianship

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Closed as successful, see final comment. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please enter vote and a brief comment here.

Support
[edit source]
  1. Support I know the task and Dave Braunschweig is technically and humanely qualified. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
  2. Support Why not? --Goldenburg111 20:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
  3. Support Dave has gone above and beyond. Happy to support! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
  4. Support as nominator (serving in place of the mentor). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
  5. Support He has always been helpful to me. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
  6. Support He has my support --1sfoerster (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)reply
  7. Support Very helpful to new user (actually new privatizing handle for User:Geofferybard ) more familiar with WP & WB. (voting only once) K9Alliance2Train
  8. Support I do support Dave This comment added by User:Zionite lewis 12:35, 6 September 2014‎. just registered, with no other contributions at this time, here or globally. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
  9. Support Has been helpful to me as a new user and offered help where he thought it may be needed - I think he'd make a good admin. Khairdean (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
  10. Support Besides creating great content like the Internet Protocol Analysis course and being on the good side of the OER force he helped User:Sebschlicht and me a lot with his technical knowledge about Mediawiki. After creating the web science mooc (first version in the topic name space) and current version in the article name space which included (lua, javascript, templates and the possibility to think about bots) I would consider myself as a power user and Dave was always helpful. Besides that I am a custodian on trial in the German wikiversity and I also think (from the little that I saw) that Dave has the communication strength to fulfill the job. --Renepick (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose
[edit source]
  1. Oppose - Abusive language and unwarranted pressure from him and abd on my userpage. They were both supporting action that was clearly wrong. Again, I'm not judging a person's tendencies, but I'm judging that someone wants to make Wikiversity a place to encourage such behavior. Abd wants to turn this place into anarchy, and work with whoever supports his bent logic. I've taken a break since then. If this harms my chances, so be it, IT HAS TO BE SAID! - Sidelight12 Talk 03:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you please explain what you mean by "abusive language"? I don't remember him using vulgar language or personally attacking you. --Goldenburg111 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Condescending badgering. Accusing me of imposing my values on others, while he did it even worse, and even allowed another user to impose their own values unto others. Wikiversity isn't a place to soapbox pedophilia, which would be what one user was trying to impose their values unto others here. Dave lecturing me about his values on the community, is him imposing his values, when I took action against someone imposing their values. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Links or comments please? --Goldenburg111 11:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I am responding to this on a separate page, because there are privacy considerations. See /Privacy issue. Please do not discuss this topic here, it can lead to revision deletion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)I replaced the specific mention of the topic with "this topic" after Sidelight's response below.--Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Let me get this straight. You want this redacted, but if I want something embarrassing redacted from my userpage, that's not ok? Such hypocrisy. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Not straight. Sidelight has never understood user page policy, and he may blank and request revision deletion of comments there. Generally, he should not revision-delete them himself, that that would depend on the case. Sidelight's comments on meta were just redacted.[2] Were I not involved here, I'd have blanked his comment myself. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
There are no links to abusive language, because there never was any. Sidelight12's issues with my approach have to do with perception rather than reality. I'm an educator. As an educator, I ask questions, allowing others to form their own opinions. It's known as the Socratic method. I've used it in my interactions with Goldenburg111, and I've used it with my interactions with Sidelight12. What I may or may not personally believe has nothing to do with the questions I ask. However, Sidelight12 is more literal in his interpretation, and is confident that a question would never be asked unless someone already has a preconceived direction for the conversation. It's unfortunate, but that's his perception and his reality. It doesn't have to influence the rest of us. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I've explained this above. [3] Condescending badgering, and false accusations. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Sidelight links to a clear and cogent comment by Dave on User talk:Sidelight. "Condescending" is false, it was not "badgering," which requires repeated action, and Sidelight has not shown any falsity. Making false comments is not an offense unless they are deliberately false, i.e., lying. Sidelight is a probationary custodian and as such must be responsive to the community. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I am not an educator in any academic institution, but I'm a highly trained and successful coach in a non-academic system of education. I've raised five children to adulthood, seeing that they got what they needed to live well (and they are living well, and I have six grandchildren), and I also have two minor children, one of whom lives with me and who is officially "home schooled." In fact, she is responsible for her own education, and she is mostly "learning by doing," and doing spectacularly well, by all measures. Dave's expression above demonstrates why I fully support Dave's work here.
There are those who will oppose this (on this wiki and in real life). I'd rather not generalize about them. They are in a minority here; this candidacy shows just how isolated that opposition is, and that is good news for Wikiversity, founded with ideals of academic freedom and "learning by doing," as distinct from "schooling." There is nothing wrong with schools, as long as they are not abusively authoritarian, but there is a whole unschooling movement, and there is academic research supporting it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Neutral
[edit source]
  1. All I can see are a lot of page moves and very little admin work besides basic cleanup deletions. Why do you want to be an admin? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
    I don't want to be an admin. I'd like to be a custodian. And as I indicated above a year ago, I don't have an agenda as a custodian other than to help support the community. That view hasn't changed. But with an additional year of experience behind me, I can say I believe even more strongly that Wikiversity has tremendous possibilities in providing effective Open Educational Resource content and learning opportunities to the world. Web Science is an excellent example of what can be accomplished with dedicated effort and adequate support. Other approaches include Physics equations and the Introduction to Engineering Design-related projects. But these projects can't succeed without custodial support to answer questions, mass-move content when required, delete content created in error or in violation, and block disruptive users.
    In addition, Wikiversity needs to improve on training and supporting new custodians. We have 31 custodians and bureaucrats listed in our ranks, but only a handful are currently active editors, and there's very little custodial activity involved. We need to be continually looking to effectively expand our custodial support ranks to help meet what should be a rising need and demand. That can't happen without permanent custodians who are willing to mentor.
    Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Other comment
[edit source]
  • Closed as successful. Dave Braunschweig is now a permanent custodian. (Involved close, by necessity, if possible this should be confirmed by a bureaucrat or an uninvolved user. Because consensus is obvious, this close should not be reverted.) --Abd (discuss • contribs)

Discussions in 2015

[edit source]

Marshallsumter (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

[edit source]

Hi!

From the "How does one become a probationary custodian?" policy at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians:

  1. "State your reasons for seeking this position and in what areas you are or would like to be active": while I am and will continue to help with Wikiversity:Resources with Files Pending Deletion, Wikiversity:User Pages with Files Pending Deletion, and Wikiversity:Unused Files Pending Deletion, so as to possibly save resources, I am willing where and when possible to help with other custodial matters.
  2. "The community will be given a period of five days to discuss your background, ask questions, and determine if there are any serious issues that would prohibit you from being trusted to use Custodianship tools." Fire away!
  3. "Custodian mentors are expected to guide and advise you on the appropriate use of custodian privileges in accordance with established policy and community consensus." As I believe in both open systems and do not wish to slight anyone, I am asking for such a mentor here as and when point 2 above is being completed. As I interpret, ""Experienced custodians" means Wikiversity custodians who have at least 3 months of experience as a sysop ("administrator" = "custodian") on Wikimedia Foundation projects.", this also includes probationary custodians with at least 3 months of experience, especially if any of our usual mentors are unavailable or not as active as in the past. To me a mentor is someone willing to answer my questions.
  4. As I understand this process, this request disappears in 7 days if points 2 and 3 are not completed in time. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply

Questions

[edit source]
Hi Goldenburg111!

Thank you for your question! To answer the second part first, in the section above it shows "Marshallsumter (...,contribs), just click on the "contribs" and it should list them for you. A second is to click on contribs after your own name and after the display, exchange my user name for yours and it will list mine. Excepting routine edits to other resources, my contributions focus on original research efforts in a variety of fields. The lectures/articles are learning resources which stand on their own to help Wikiversity students and educators alike. In the sense of education they are helpful contributions to Wikiversity. Lessons, problem sets, and laboratory activities are designed hopefully to succeed in Wikiversity's goal of learning by doing. The quizzes are presented to help students learn through iteration as well as improve their test-taking skills and hopefully help to overcome any test-taking anxiety they may have.

I am trying to bring each contribution to the state of the art or science for its field both to help Wikiversity resources to be at that state and to show where original research finds and fills in (or creates) new knowledge where there is a gap or void. I hope this helps to answer your questions. Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply

Thanks! --goldenburg111 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It depends on the context. If it's vandalism, I delete it. If it persists, I ask a custodian to block the sender. But, the context may indicate someone who could benefit from contributing here as you and Abd have discussed with respect to apparent vandals. If its intent is malicious, it is worse than vandalism. If its intent is attention, it depends me. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply

Comments

[edit source]
historical details

The change was proposed by a disgruntled ex-custodian. See Wikiversity talk:Probationary custodians. The actual process does allow the community to register objections, but, routinely, if a custodian is willing to mentor, and a bureaucrat is willing to implement it, it's done without delay. There is no time limit for the request. I have never seen a request closed because of "7 days." . The bottom line is that whatever a bureaucrat is willing to do is what will happen.

Essentially, as soon as a permanent custodian is willing to mentor, and a 'crat is willing to set the bit, a candidate becomes a permanent probationary custodian. It's a very simple process. There is no time limit for a request. Any restrictions are a matter of agreement between the mentor and the probationary custodian (but a 'crat effectively approves by acting). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply

Thank you for clarifying this Abd. Perhaps the non-policy Wikiversity:Probationary custodians should disappear? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Are we stopping or not? --goldenburg111 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
As exampled above, the suggested policy could pose a number of severe restrictions to Wikiversity having more probationary custodians. Most of us are creating or improving resources, this includes custodians and probationary custodians. In my opinion, such severe restrictions may serve as a resource in understanding and learning from the creation of policy, for the creation of functionally progressive policy, but instead may result in unnecessary political restrictions. One alternative is to remove the resource from actual policy consideration to a learning resource on how to develop policy, another is to put it up for deletion. What do you think? Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with you. --goldenburg111 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
  • Pages in Wikiversity space with policy proposals would generally not be deleted; rather, they would be deprecated. I.e., the proposal, if not accepted in a reasonable period of time, would be marked as rejected or inactive. I'll take a look, but I need to be careful about involvement in policy pages. This really isn't the place to discuss that. The place to discuss policy and proposed policy is on attached Discussion pages. Meanwhile, I assume, this and other custodianship requests will be handled as traditionally. Give it time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
  • The original policy page makes no reference to a period in which to find a mentor. However Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship does, referring to archiving a request if no mentor is found within a week. Given the paucity of active permanent custodians, that could be impractical. (At one time, with many custodians available, it made sense.) However it's harmless, because a candidate may continue to seek a mentor by requesting it of permanent custodians, and a candidacy may be reinstated at any time, trivially. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Banned from Wikipedia Discussion
[edit source]
Marshallsumter, you have been banned from Wikipedia? I am very concerned about this. I would like Marshallsumter to reply to me. Marshall, what do you have to say about your ban from Wikipedia? (verify) --Goldenburg111 (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your question! The indefinite ban on my contributing to Wikipedia is for two "violations" of their policy. The first is bringing some of their articles and ones I wrote, some 250, to the state of the art or science using primary sources following US copyright law. The effort in each article I originated was called "original research", banned on Wikipedia, which each was not yet at, but has found a home here. The second is that at Wikipedia following US copyright law to produce entries there as I do here is considered a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. Wikipedia endeavors to sell books to individuals world-wide including those within countries and territories that have a more restrictive copyright law than the US; hence, my entries may cause legal problems for these book producing and selling efforts in these countries. In spite of this policy the WMF has included probably all of my Wikipedia entries in various books sold world-wide without any apparent problems. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Were you warned? --Goldenburg111 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your question! The answer has two parts. Individuals in 2011 would put an entry up for deletion as having original research and I would disagree. No one warned me about the copyright concerns! Let me add that as a US citizen I am required to follow US copyright law. Wikipedia copyright policy at least at that time is too restrictive. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I confirm Marshall's account. -Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I confirm Marshall's account as to historical fact. When Marshall was blocked/banned on Wikipedia, it appears to have been without warning, or without adequate warning. See the ban discussion. It was not part of the original report, but he had posted many quotations from copyrighted material, but apparently believing that this was acceptable. Wikipedia effective policy, as applied, is, in fact, much stricter than copyright law requires. Marshall's explanation for this is not exactly the case, but it's close. The copyright policy is designed, not to protect Wikipedia, but to protect re-users of content. Not the Wikimedia Foundation, which doesn't sell content. Since a nonprofit re-user would be protected by the same laws as Wikipedia, for fair use content or even for actual and clear copyright violation, the strict policy *only benefits for-profit re-users.* I made this point a number of times on related discussions on Wikversity, where fair use content had an educational purpose, but the need to protect for-profit re-users was sustained as more important.
When the material was discovered, it required, the Wikipedia community believed, massive clean-up. It appears that his block was retaliatory for this. When he came here, there were some concerns raised. Marshall promptly addressed them. There have been no sustained problems here.
The Wikipedia discussion shows how many long-standing ideas about how Wikipedia works don't match the reality. There are no real policies, i.e, standards that are enforced, particularly to protect users from being punished for making mistakes. I also notice that the discussion was started by a sock puppet, of a user who was also active here. I've seen this many times, that a highly disruptive user starts a ban discussion that then rouses a mob. (I've seen this done by an IP editor who was quickly identified as being a banned editor -- but the "community" continued to do exactly what this banned user was demanding.) "Community banned" means little more than "some editors demanded that the user be banned," and an administrator agreed, while not so many defended him. Marshall had, indeed, written articles that were "original research," though I think he didn't understand the term at that time. Original research, of course, is allowed here, under proper conditions.
Complicating this all was an interpretation of something Marshall had written, on Wikiversity, of unclear meaning. It was interpreted as indicating that he was researching how Wikipedia would respond to disruptive editing. I think that quite unlikely, but, again, that this was so readily believed, that so many editors converted from "assume good faith" to "deliberate disruption" citing this idea, shows the mob mentality of Wikipedia. Deliberate vandals are not banned without warning, normally.
That it is possible to restrain an editor by requesting voluntary compliance with clearly-stated standards seems to be beyond the understanding of Wikipedians. There is a concept there that "bad editors" are just plain bad, and that's it. Ban them. Yet if an editor has friends .... they can sometimes get away with multiple, repeated, clear violations of policy, ignored warnings, etc. Wikipedia process is utterly unreliable, many know this, I'm not making it up. I see no sign of any movement toward changing that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@Abd thank you for clarifying. Abd, I agree with you that Wikipedia is an alien planet. But yet, as I believe it, being banned or block on another wiki does not qualify for adminship on any other wiki. Well, since they skipped right to a banning discussion, like they did to me on Simple English Wikipedia. I'll change my oppose to a support. :) Cheers! --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply

Custodians willing to mentor

[edit source]

I am willing to mentor. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply

checkY Done @Marshallsumter: is now a probationary custodian with @Dave Braunschweig: as mentor. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply

Recommendation for full custodian status

[edit source]

I would like to nominate User:Marshallsumter for full custodian status. Marshallsumter has been a probationary custodian for five months, and has demonstrated a consistent willingness to support the community through administrative moves and deletions, responses to questions in the Colloquium, etc. He also continues to seek community input toward his own learning projects and efforts, a welcome approach. Please discuss and indicate your views below. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)reply

Discussion and questions

[edit source]

Questions to and discussion of the candidate.

Voting for full custodianship

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Closed as successful, see final comment. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please enter vote and a brief comment here.

Closing comment

Marshallsumter has mentor support and the consensus of four apparently reliable, thoughtful, and known users, with no detractors, and the voting has been open for a week, so it seems fair to conclude that there is good consensus from the community that Marshallsumter should now be a full custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)reply

Discussions in 2024

[edit source]

Guy vandegrift (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Closed as successful. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I nominate Guy for bureaucrat. Guy has been a prolific content contributor to en-wv for over a decade. As a custodian (since 2015) he has made numerous productive contributions to maintain our site. He has always been very helpful and polite to new participants. His judgement is cautious and he seeks advice from other staff and consults the community when uncertain about how to use the tools. I am confident that he will endeavor to continue improving our learning and teaching environment. @Guy vandegrift: please respond to any questions from the community. Also, feel free to make a statement, if you choose. --mikeu talk 20:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply

I accept this invitation to serve as WV bureaucrat.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  • Support trusted user who has provided long term help to many and shown good judgement.
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support A long-term active custodian is an acceptable candidate for this role. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(Note) I have contacted another bureaucrat for the closure of the discussion. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. Addemf (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support.--Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support For the past few months, I have worked with Guy in WikiJournal tasks and I trust him. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@Mu301 @Guy vandegrift has Guy accepted this nomination? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for the oversite, and accept this invitation (as you can see at the top of this discussion.) Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Great, now I can Support since its clear you would be a great 'crat --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Guy has the support of the community and all other bureaucrats. Guy is now a bureaucrat. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Dan Polansky (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

[edit source]
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Closed with comment -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm nominating Dan Polansky for curatorship because he has been actively involved in useful editing and contributing thoughtfully to Wikiversity discussions for some time and seems to know his way around.

Dan has a long edit history on Wikimedia sister projects and has disclosed an indefinite ban on Wiktionary. The relevant discussion is here. I imagine the community here would like to know more about that, if you don't mind explaining below, Dan?

Personally, I'm happy to assume good faith and base on my view on actions on Wikiversity. From my perspective, Dan's contributions add value to Wikiversity and further useful contributions could be made as a curator.

Let's discuss and see what the community decides. Over to you. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)reply

Thank you. I was banned for "racism" and other allegations. I did acknowledge and still do that I should not have made the remarks for which I was banned indefinitely. Editors should be judged based on individual merits and behavior, not based on group membership. One may think that group membership statistically predicts certain cultural traits and behaviors, but one should not e.g. prevent Chinese from gaining adminship in the English Wiktionary; observing the behavior of the individual person in question is all that is needed to determine fitness for adminship. I am not sure why I made these remarks. Did I or some part of me want me blocked? The best rational reconstruction I figured out later was that it was a provocation (a knowledge-acquisition tool) made by some entity in my unconscious, but that is very speculative and unreliable.
Another allegation was "obstructionism". This manifests itself as me saying things like, if you are saying you have consensus, where is your evidence? Thus, where is the Beer parlour discussion or a vote? An example of my "obstructionism" was my disagreement with editors renaming reference templates to include language code, which runs counter to plain majority preference revealed in Wikt: Wiktionary:Votes/2019-06/Language code into reference template names. A small number of editors proceeded to push their preference without a vote and counter to the mentioned vote, and they are likely to prevail. I think my stance of asking for evidence of consensus is usually a fair one, giving power not to me but rather to supermajorities.
There are other allegations. However, the blocking administrator did not build any case to support most of the statements in the block summary, e.g. by providing diffs or other specifics. I cannot comment on specifics that the blocking administrator did not provide.
On my talk page here, I proposed that I obtain tools only for a probationary period of, say, 1 year. After that period, I would automatically lose the tools. If editors would be happier with 6 months, why not. That would mitigate risks.
Let me add that while I am grateful to you (James) for having so much trust in me to nominate me, my not having the tools is very unlikely to hinder the things I love doing the most, contributing content. I am happy with the English Wikiversity providing a venue for publishing various ideas and researches, often philosophical ones, providing excellent tools for doing so. The English Wikiversity has a great potential that for some reason remains largely untapped. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Been listening to his music for 18 years. Very willing to help, but I'm no mentor Dumbassman (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)reply
(Note) This user made their 1st edit in Wikiversity after the opening of the CFC discussion. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Custodians offering mentorship
Discussion and voting

 Comment The link Jtneill has provided is broken, but here's the link to the relevant discussion. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)reply

@Atcovi: Thank-you for the correct link - I've updated it in my nomination. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)reply

 Comment I have read the discussion about the alleged racism, including this one, but I don't really see it that way. I see Dan Polansky as a philosopher who simply wants to have an open debate. In my opinion, it is very difficult nowadays to have an open debate about cultures that are different from your own, because you then have the entire woke movement against you. I believe that you should be allowed to say anything about other cultures, even that they might be backward or outdated, as long as you maintain respect for the people of that culture. As long as everyone is treated equally and no one is excluded, you can say whatever you want as far as I'm concerned, provided you remain respectful and thoroughly explain why you hold your views. That's how it should be in a democracy, in my opinion. As Voltaire would say: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."— Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Perquin (talk • contribs)

This nomination has been open for five weeks. Community support is mixed. The nomination has also drawn mixed comments from several users new to this community. It is important to note that the nomination itself is for curatorship rather than custodianship. Curators have additional content tools. They don't have additional user tools. I don't see any comments questioning Dan Polansky's content approach, only regarding user interaction on other projects.

Separately, I reviewed several discussions regarding content edits in which Dan Polansky has participated. The discussions were consistent in showing respectful discourse, even when disagreements remain. Because Dan Polansky will have a mentor, and because curator tools may be removed by the mentor or any other bureaucrat or custodian if deemed necessary, the nomination is approved. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)reply

Discussions in 2025

[edit source]

Discussions in 2026

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

Juandev (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

[edit source]

I am requesting custodian rights because I was invited to do so, and because, in addition to creating educational resources, I can offer my time and experience to the project administration.

I have been actively involved in English Wikiversity as an editor since 2006 and as a custodian from 2009 to 2022. In addition, I have experience creating and administering Czech-language Wikiversity and Wikipedia, and I contribute to other projects.

In 2022, after a long period of inactivity on the English Wikiversity, I lost my rights. In 2025, I decided to return to the English Wikiversity and develop educational resources. I have been working on it since the beginning of last year. Additionally, I welcome newcomers and participate in community discussions. I have reviewed my older contributions, edited some, and marked the unsuitable ones for deletion. I am also reviewing the policies and would like to elaborate on some and bring them to community consensus.

As a custodian, I would handle requests on the Request custodian action page. Provide fixes and adjustments to templates and settings in the MediaWiki namespace; I have intermediate IT and programming skills. I live in the UTC+1 time zone, so I can respond to urgent requests from European users.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)reply

Perfect since he has experience. I don't see any inconveniences in giving him the role MrZazon (discuss • contribs) 07:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)reply

Custodians offering mentorship

[edit source]

Discussion

[edit source]

Outcome

[edit source]

There is unaminous support. @Juandev: is now a custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)reply

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Consensus has been reached, and PieWriter is now a Curator. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

PieWriter (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

[edit source]

I’d like to request curatorship. My main interest is helping with deletion requests at WV:RFD (which i feel is a neglected area), where I’ve noticed the backlog, with requests not closed for over months. By stepping in, I hope to ease that workload and keep the process moving more smoothly. I understand that curatorship is a position of trust, and I would use the tools carefully, following consensus and policy. My account is only about three months old, but in that short time I’ve gotten to know the community and how RFD works. I’m happy to answer any questions about my intentions or approach.

Custodians offering mentorship

[edit source]

I'm willing to mentor per my message on my talk page. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)reply

@Atcovi I think this can be closed? It had been open for more than a week and I hope I have answered all questions thoroughly. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply
I'll keep this open for a few more days, then I'll close it. Apologies for the slight delay, still very busy in real life. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay! PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)reply

Discussion

[edit source]

@PieWriter: I have a question. Say for example that there is an RFD request which had no participation at all (no votes or comments), and it has been left open for more than one week. In that case, what would you do according to Wikiversity:Deletions? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)reply

@Codename Noreste If an RFD has been open for more than a week, assuming like ~2-4 weeks, with no participation at all, I would normally close it as no consensus and keep the page. However, if the discussion was only open for like 1 week exactly, I would wait some time before closing the discussion, in case anyone was planning to comment. This follows Wikiversity:Deletions#How_to_discuss, particularly the line: Resources are generally kept when a community decision is inconclusive. A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. from WV:RFD.
However, when looking at WV:RFD, most candidates seem to receive at least some comments, except for relatively new ones. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)reply
In my experience, discussion tends to move a little more slowly on Wikiversity (e.g., weeks to months). So, I encourage you to work through backlogs in reverse-chronological order rather than closing recent discussions too quickly. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the advice. :) PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply

Another question. You have been active on Wikiversity and Wikipedia for a few months only. Do you think your experience is large enough to apply for custodianship? --Dick Bos (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)reply

@Dick Bos: The candidate applied for curatorship - not custodianship. I think I'll have to request whether to separate the page title nominations. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)reply
@Dick Bos Thanks for the question. Just wanted to note, the right requested here is curator rather than custodian. While I’ve only been active on Wikiversity for a few months, I have done some things to help out here. During this time, I’ve helped out with discussions at WV:RFD and responded to some requests I am able to do at WV:Request custodian action. I’ve also taken part in archiving discussions and doing some routine maintenance (Category:Hatnote templates with errors and Category:CS1 errors).
I’ve also spent time reading and trying to understand the main policies related to curatorship and wikiversity in whole. I know my time here is still relatively short, but I feel these experiences have helped me become familiar with how things work and what the responsibilities of the role involve.
In case I am unsure of anything, I will ask my mentor before proceeding.PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)reply
@Codename Noreste. It may be helpful if the application for the candidate is done at the right place, indeed.
@PieWriter. Two months is a few months indeed. But I'm sorry that I didn't notice that you apply for curatorship. It's perhaps good to notice again, like it is done on the page about curators, that curatorship is a responsibility, not a right! I cannot determine exactly wether there are enough curators at the moment, but in general I think it is great if participants at wikiversity apply for these kind of jobs. Have there been any activities already in which you really missed to have the curatorship-role? --Dick Bos (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)reply
@Dick Bos Most of my work so far has involved helping with discussions at WV:RFD, archiving, and responding to some requests at WV:Request custodian action. There have been a few occasions where curator tools would have been useful. For example, when I came across spam pages that could likely have been speedily deleted, I instead had to tag them and wait for a custodian/curator to handle the deletion.
Similarly, when helping with RFD discussions, having the ability to close discussions and carry out deletions after consensus is reached would make the process more efficient and there wont be much of a backlog. (You can check Special:ListUsers/curator for the current list of curators, however most are inactive) PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)reply
In a community project it makes sense to involve community members even if you regard that process as less efficient. Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bert Niehaus That’s a fair point.
In the example I mentioned, I was thinking more about clear-cut cases like obvious spam/vandalism, where speedy deletion would normally apply. PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)reply

@PieWriter: Welcome to en.wv and thanks for getting involved with admin over the last couple of months and being willing to help out further. I'm wondering if you could expand about your MediaWiki experience/journey, perhaps on your user page, to help this community know more about you? It seems like you bring some previous experience/knowledge? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply

@Jtneill Here's a short summary: My editing journey started with helping participating in cross-wiki vandalism (SWMT) using tools like SWViewer and RTRC, which I saw some editors use, which turned out to be very useful. I also asked around for help when I was unsure, and the editors were pretty friendly. I managed to learn about wikitext as I slowly started creating pages on Simple Wiki. As I was patrolling I came across Wikiversity, and it seems quite interesting and useful to me, especially resources like psychology, which I major in, and I enjoyed reading through the resources. I have also helped around in maintenance tasks like helping fix errors in Category:Hatnote templates with errors and Category:CS1 errors. I have also helped in the archiving process of some pages, as some were quite long. I will probably edit this and add this to my userpage, so that it is more applicable globally. Thanks PieWriter (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Thanks @PieWriter for your background. Maybe share about this on your user page, to help users get to know you. With > 10,000 global edits with good and growing technical MediaWiki and WMF project knowledge, seems well suited for en.wv curatorship. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)reply

Outcome

[edit source]

Consensus has been reached, and PieWriter is now a Curator. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)reply

Codename Noreste (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

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

Strong community support. See log here. --mikeu talk 16:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Hello, everyone. Per the call listed at WV:NOTICE, I am running for custodianship. Here is what I plan to do with my new custodian abilities:

  • Block vandals, spammers, and LTAs; on the other hand, I would unblock users if there are potential false positives from the abuse filter.
  • Delete and view deleted content, and possibly restore if there is consensus.
  • Manage abuse filters for maintenance and fixes.
  • Modify the user interface for dark mode support (although I am running for interface administrator, that is mostly used for CSS changes, such as moving that code to TemplateStyles)

Currently, I'm a sysop on English Wikibooks, English Wikiquote, and Meta-Wiki, so I am familiar with the administrator toolkit. I have been a curator since March-April of this year. I'm willing to serve as a probationary custodian for a period of four weeks, and when it's time, I will run for permanent custodianship. Thank you for considering me. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Custodians offering mentorship

[edit source]

Available to mentor. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Questions

[edit source]

Comments

[edit source]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Archive_of_nominations_for_full_custodianship&oldid=2808807"