Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Pmlineditor

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pmlineditor (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)[edit source]

Hi, I am Pmlineditor. I am probably a relatively new user at Wikiversity; and have only around 70 edits, though I have almost 20k crosswiki edits. True, that might be, in lack of a better word, pathetic; however, I know the different places of this wiki (or so I hope) and I think that there are many places I can help with as a custodian. Particularly, I'll like to help with C:SD and editing MediaWiki pages; apart from blocking, protecting etc. C:SD is backlogged and several MediaWiki pages need creation - take a look at Gadgets for instance. For what it is worth, I am a sysop at Simple Wikipedia/Wiktionary and also Meta, apart from being a Global rollbacker. I'll be delighted if I am granted probationary custodianship since I have lots of time to spare and I'll certainly become active, if not very active here. Thanks, Pmlineditor  11:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment by candidate: I don't want to appear rude/impolite/whatever, but I want to say that I don't participate in discussions about controversial decisions and neither do I take such decisions (or I try not to). I have made nearly 100 actions in Wikiversity and I don't think any of them were very controversial. I can at least try to assure people that whatever actions I take, it will be either for obvious reasons (obvious vandalism and the like) or per clear community consensus. If my probationary custodianship is made permanent, I will be open to recall and I would give up my tools at any point in time if the community feels I have misused it. I think that if adminship isn't a big deal, giving it up isn't a big deal either. Editing WM projects provides me a sort of relief from the dramas of real life and I don't want to be controversial/offend people here. Cheers, Pmlineditor  08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the Candidate[edit source]

Q: What "places" do you know, and how do you think knowing them makes you a good custodian candidate?

Ans: Well, "places" really meant, like, I more or less know my way round. I know what are the places that require custodian intervention; Wikiversity:Request custodian action, Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion to name a few. I frequent the Colloquium, and also know about Wikiversity:Community Review and other such pages in the WV space. I have participated in most of the "places" I mention, and I think I can be a good custodian.

Q: Why do you think files should be deleted when requests by the uploader? Why give uploader requests different treatment?

Ans: It might be possible that the said upload might have been a test; or maybe it has some detail which the author/uploader does not wish to reveal. Say, if I uploaded a screenshot bearing my name, I'll surely wish that the pic be speedied. This should be handled in a case by case basis; surely, if a file had no reason to be deleted; was of excellent quality and useful for the project, I'd drop a note to the uploader to clarify why exactly it should be deleted. Note that I could not view the files in question when I made that post; so probably, it wasn't entirely correct.

Q: What MediaWiki: pages would you create if you could?

Ans: The Gadgets page that was created... also, if the community agrees, maybe MediaWiki:Recentchangestext could contain more useful content. I will also like to add more gadgets, maybe Clean Delete Reasons, if I become a custodian.

Q: You mention you are a sysop on several other wikis already. Can you identify some of the major ways in which Wikiversity is different from other projects?

Ans: Wikiversity is certainly very different from other WMF projects - first of all, Wikiversity has different aims and a different target audience. The deletion criteria here is generally less strict than most Wikipedias; I think Wikiversity generally favors developing content rather than deleting. The (proposed) deletion policy clearly shows that. Wikiversity is meant to be a comprehensive learning resource and thus, communication is essential here; more important than on other projects. This is what I can think of right now.

Q: Who would you block? What pages would you protect? Why?

Ans: Persistent and obvious vandals should be the ones to block... an IP which continuously replaces a resource or any page for that matter with "penis penis" isn't clearly here to contribute usefully. Of course, blocks are preventative, not punitive. Heavily used templates or repeatedly vandalised resources (with recent vandalism) should be protected. Protection and blocks, both, however, should be used as a last resort.

Q: How else will you help Wikiversity besides custodian work?

Ans: I am very interested in writing content and getting something Featured and doing WikiGnome work such as categorizing, expansion etc.

  • Hi! I appreciate your interest for the custodianship status at WV. I have also seen quite a few entries from you marking vandal and test pages, that were speedy deleted afterward. Given that you are global rollbacker, you could have a good experience with wikis in general. Your biggest weakness (and in fact you know about it, because you started your self-nomination with it) is, that you are very new to Wikiversity. So my question is: What will you do, if you don't find a person willing to mentor you? --Gbaor 14:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll surely continue normal editing and create content. If an experienced user nominates me afterwards, then I'll run for custodian; however, I'll focus in gaining more experience at this wiki in general. Even if no one is willing to mentor me, I can certainly learn areas where I have to improve from my RfCustodianship, and I will attempt to help the wiki and become more involved in editing. Pmlineditor  15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custodians willing to mentor[edit source]

checkY Done The probationary period has started. --mikeu talk 13:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentors' recommendation for full custodian status[edit source]

I would like to recommend Pmlineditor for full custodian status. As you can see from his stats, he has made quite a few deletions, most to clean out images that lacked copyright info and other problems. He would make a great addition to our staff, especially iwth his adminship experience on other websites. He is also active on IRC and easy to get a hold of. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions[edit source]

  • How many learning projects have you taken active parts in? How many are you planning? What is your vision for Wikiversity, and how are you going to help develop it? Regards, :-) Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be honest, I haven't been active in the mainspace here. However, I have taken part in few learning projects, such as the Visual Basic, Computer project and the How to be a Wikimedia sysop projects. I intend to work on these projects and also in other projects I may come across and find interesting.
    Wikiversity, in my opinion, is a project with a lot of potential, but it needs improvements in several vital areas. First of all, it needs more projects and a greater degree of comprehensiveness for the ones it already has. As I said earlier, I intend to work on a project and get it to featured status. Apart from this, I want to help out in admin matters that need doing, for example, deleting/protecting pages, blocking users and closing deletion requests. Regards, Pmlineditor  16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where do you see Wikiversity in 5 years? How would you like to see Wikiversity mature and develop? What would you like Wikiversity to do to move forward? -- darklama  01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am unsure where Wikiversity would be in 5 years, but it is likely that it would grow significantly in size. For development, a larger community is essential, and I hope more people start editing this wiki. I would like to see this project improve and adopt policies which remain proposals even now. Some of these, such as this, this or this are significant — basically everything here should be discussed and adopted. As I said earlier, building content is very important for the success of a project. I am sure that if the project focuses on content, develops and adopts key policies and gets a fairly large userbase, it should do well in future. Pmlineditor  16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi, and thanks for the questions. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble in getting through large edits particularly for Wikiversity. I'll definitely answer the questions tomorrow. Pmlineditor  11:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Pmlineditor. You are obviously quite an experienced editor, sysop and (past) bureaucrat on other WMF projects - e.g,. meta:User:Pmlineditor/Matrix, experience that should be invaluable here at WV. My main question then is about what do you think are the main differences in being a WV Custodian compared to sysop on other WMF projects? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Basically, sysopship on different WMF projects are different. From what I see, Wikiversity favors improving articles rather than deleting them, so I will try to avoid deleting pages where there is a scope for development. In most of the Wikimedia sites, pages containing only original research would merit a deletion, which is not the case here. Since the project is "devoted to learning resources, learning projects", admins should be tolerant of newly created pages although that does not mean that they should tolerate vandalism. Being polite and tolerant and collaborative is essential here, although it is important in other Wikimedia projects as well. Pmlineditor  11:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I think I missed a lot here. :/ Reply[reply]
    What would you do when two or three people are saying "wait and see" and seven or eight people are saying "vandalism and delete"? Whose call is it anyway? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not sure whether you are talking of speedy deletion or AfD. If it's the former, the best option would be to go through a formal process (AfD). In case it is the the latter, it really is on a case by case basis. If a person says "Keep: it is very useful for us" and three others say Keep per the user, while those in the delete section give valid reasons, it is likely that the article should be deleted. Either way, it depends on the nature of the votes and the article. Basically, any deletion that is controversial should go through a formal process. Whose call is it? In my opinion, it is the community's call in such cases. Pmlineditor  08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What's your view about the recent issues with the ethical breaching experiment pages and User:Jimbo Wales' subsequent involvement? As a custodian, what (if any) actions would you have taken? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In my opinion, the block without notifying the community was inappropriate. I am basically neutral on the deletion and blocking, but the manner in which it was done was not good, both for Jimbo and WV. I wouldn't have taken any action as a custodian, at least not as soon as the block was done, since I am sure Jimbo knows what he is doing and reverting him would be a bad idea; discussing why he blocked/deleted would be a better option. To sum it up, I am not fully favorable of either keeping or deleting the page(s) (although, I agree, they were not outside our scope), but I think Jimmy could have notified us about it and clarified why he performed these actions. Pmlineditor  11:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since you are "basically neutral on the deletion", can you explain why anyone might claim that the deleted learning resource was "Beyond scope"? --JWSchmidt 15:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PMlineditor: Do you know what you are talking about when you said you think Jimbo knows what he is doing and then you said Jimbo could have notified us about it? And how about this, Jimbo had to give himself the custodial flag to read deleted contents (see his logs). Why didn't he read it carefully before he deleted it? And look at the discussion between Jimbo and SB Johnny on Johnny's talk page. Do you think Jimbo actually knew what Johnny is talking about (doing the exact opposit of what another participant asked for)? Can you clarify what you were say? Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That Jimbo changed his rights to see deleted revisions to look at the pages he just deleted is an assumption. It is more likely in my view that the deleted revisions concerned were those of the how to subpage that had already been deleted. However, either could be true, we don't know. Adambro 15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First, I agree with Adambro and I am sorry that I didn't clarify on this. Second, I apologize if I'm being impolite, but seriously, I don't see what is so contradictory about "Jimbo knows what he is doing" and "Jimbo should have notified us about it"... Pmlineditor  08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questions. How do you define "troll"? What do you mean by "obvious troll"? As a custodian, do you claim the right to make unilateral declarations of which Wikiversity participants are "trolls" and then delete their work and block them from editing without warning or discussion? What if someone does not agree with your judgment of what constitutes "disruption"? How can you, as someone who who is barely a Wikiversity participant, feel confident in making judgments about what is best for this project? --JWSchmidt 15:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not someone who participates in what is, to be blunt, wiki drama. If I were to block Kohs, I could have done it here or on any other wikis but I do not consider it to be appropriate to do so when the community has not decided about it. It's obvious that my opinions may differ from others, but that does not mean that I will start blocking people whom I find trollish. Coming back to the user in question, well, I have seen him disrupting Steward elections in Meta (well, I think it was disruptive). If you see my post, you will notice that I stated that it was my personal belief that the block was fine. I have never been someone who makes controversial blocks and I'm sure I will avoid making such blocks here as well. I never said I was confident that the block was appropriate, I was merely expressing my opinion. I don't see any reason why this should be problematic for custodianship. Pmlineditor  08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you think that calling people "troll" is a sanctioned way for Wikimedia sysops to generate wiki drama? Do you think that speaking in support of unjustified bans or blocks at Wikiversity is a violation of the civility policy? If someone has violated no Wikiversity policy why shouldn't they be allowed to edit here? --JWSchmidt 15:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe "troll" was a bit of an overstatement and I admit that I could have phrased it better; maybe "a user who, in my opinion, has been disruptive" would have been better. I don't consider anything to be a "sanctioned way for Wikimedia sysops to generate wiki drama"; I try to stay out of drama as far as possible. I should have stayed out of this and focused on maintenance of the wiki in this case too, and I regret not doing this. But, I don't think that speaking in support of unjustified blocks or bans is against the civility policy. If User X gives a reason why they support the "unjustified" ban/block of User Y, it in no way means that they violated the civility policy; users are allowed to express their opinions; it is not as if the entire community opposes the block and one user does not, they do not automatically violate the policy unless their choice of words is wrong. I admit that the latter was the case in my comment about Kohs and I would like to apologize to him for my choice of words. Concerning blocking for cross-wiki issues, well, I consider it to be appropriate to block for such issues (after all WV is, as of now, a WM project), but it is obvious that many others don't. I have no problems with Kohs editing in this wiki, if he focuses only on uncontroversial content and does not replicate the behavior that led to his block on various wikis. I accept that he did contribute a lot of content in enwiki, and was not a net negative. I want to reiterate that I for myself will try to avoid blocking for such reasons and as such avoid making controversial decisions. Pmlineditor  16:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "I have no problems with Kohs editing in this wiki, if he focuses only on uncontroversial content <-- I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Can you define "uncontroversial content"? Are you suggesting that Wikiversity participants not be allowed to say anything controversial or just Kohs or just people that Jimbo wants to ban from Wikiversity or just people who you think are disruptive or what? Is it your intention to keep a list of Wikiversity participants who are not allowed to make controversial edits? "after all WV is, as of now, a WM project" <-- What do you mean "as of now"? Do you agree with Jimbo's strategy of threatening the Wikiversity community with termination? Do you think Wikiversity must comply with the rules of other projects such as Wikipedia? In this edit, why did you remove a page about facebook from Category:Web 2.0? --JWSchmidt 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, I am not trying to suggest that Wikiversity editors should not say anything controversial, but focusing solely on controversial matters is not acceptable in my opinion. I do not have any intention of keeping lists of users who are not allowed to do controversial edits. I am not the dictator of a wiki that I will impose arbitrary rules on users. The removal of Web 2.0 was purely accidental, I readded it back. I am sure you will appreciate that we all are humans and susceptible to errors. Coming back to "as of now", well, I whole heartedly oppose Jimbo's so-called "strategy", but I do think that this project should at least try to comply with some of the rules generally accepted throughout Wikimedia (Civility policy, AGF, NPOV etc.) Pmlineditor  09:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "focusing solely on controversial matters is not acceptable" <-- this is an interesting claim...can you expand and explain your position? Can you answer the question I asked before about how you define controversial and uncontroversial content? Is it your intention to use your Custodianship to support bans of participants at Wikiversity who are interested in controversial topics? In my view, Wikiversity is a place where participants explore their personal learning goals and for some participants their personal interests are focused on topics that some Wikipedians just happen to define as "controversial". Why not welcome all honest learners, even, or particularly, if they are exploring unpopular or controversial topics? "this project should at least try to comply with...NPOV" <-- does this mean that you oppose any existing and future Wikiversity projects where editors have/will work outside of the confines of NPOV? --JWSchmidt 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (<--Outdent) This is going to be a short reply; in my opinion, controversial content = content for which you have been banned on other projects, although I do not think that that should automatically lead to a ban on Wikiversity. I have been saying this several times, I do not wish to use my custodian flag to block/ban users because I disagree with what they do. Of course, teaching resources can't be entirely NPOV, but I don't see that as a reason to make an article with hate speech/needless ranting about something. It is obvious that I am not a big fan of topics which are controversial, but that said, I am not going to complain about it but neither am I going to participate in such learning projects. Pmlineditor  10:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As you said on top, you have avoided controversial issues in your custodial works. Now just a simple question for clarification: Will you keep your opinions within your work as a participant and not let it influence your work as a custodian? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can at least try to assure you that my work as a custodian will never be affected by my personal opinions. My opinions are my own and I am practically no one to enforce them on the community. I will not take decisions solely based on the "I don't like it" thing; if I don't like something, I'll say it, but I won't go around reverting actions/blocking users/deleting resources for such a reason. Pmlineditor  10:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting for full custodianship[edit source]

  • Support Pmlineditor is relatively new on WV, but I think his contribution as a custodian will help our community to develop, and he will improve even more in the process. I trust him with the tools. --Gbaor 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, but I think that is part of the mentor's recommendation? I don't know. Redundant. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I looked through the edit history, including the deletion log, and the responses to questions here and get the impression of a level-headed admin. It would be nice to see some more content creation in the main space, but from what I've seen so far, Pmlineditor seems to be using the tools in a trustworthy, collaborative way. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Hope these votes aren't happening too soon considering a few questions remain... I'm satisfied that Pmlineditor understands the preference NOT to delete content simply based on controversial issues or a user's reputation, and will focus such deleting on clear vandalism. On the matter of content that breaches copyright - I hope you will be supportive and take the time to suggest an alternative image to the user who may have not understood how serious copyright is taken here. Leighblackall 11:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment. I'm still waiting for answers to some questions. I request that this discussion remain open until the candidate answers all the questions from the community. If the discussion is going to be closed before all questions are answered then I'd like notice to be given before discussion is closed so that I can state my view of the candidate before closure. --JWSchmidt 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Real life has kept me busy throughout the week and I agree that the discussion should not be closed when I have not yet replied to questions. As such, I intend to answer them in a short while, preferably today. Pmlineditor  07:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose. I'm opposed to self-nominations for custodianship, particularly when the candidate's stated interest in Wikiversity is something other than creating learning resources or participating in learning projects. The candidate appears to have not been adequately mentored, with many involved parties apparently assuming that prior experience at other wiki websites is a "free pass" to custodianship at Wikiversity. The candidate's stated intention is to judge Wikiversity participants according to the rules and mandates of other wiki websites, an attitude which I find totally unacceptable since Wikiversity participants need to be judged on the basis of their contributions to the Wikiversity project and its mission. I take the candidate's stated belief about how NPOV should apply to Wikiversity as an indication of the candidate's poor understanding of the policies and unique aspects of the Wikiversity project. Given the candidate's replies to questions on this page, negligible participation in learning projects and development of learning resources and inadequate mentoring I don't trust the candidate to make good decisions about page deletion and blocking. --JWSchmidt 16:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- I am seeing some good stuff, particularly with regards to the interest on the subject of Chemistry, and elsewhere. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think Pmlineditor should wait a little longer and create more contents. Wikiversity is a learning community. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Please be careful, Pm, WV policies are different, per the necessities of academic freedom, which require allowing some stuff here that is inappropriate elsewhere. Civility and AGF do apply here, and there are special rules about NPOV that apply to some pages. Generally, though, admins don't make decisions requiring tool use about NPOV, it's supposed to be prohibited, since those are content decisions. Thanks for volunteering to help here, the community needs it. --Abd 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, with a few reservations. I feel that Pm has made valuable contributions in the way of cleanup and such, a true *custodian* as it were, but I'd like to see more content edits. As far as the custodian tools go, though, he seems like a level-headed, trustworthy, and respectful candidate. (Speaking as a self-nominated custodian.) --Trinity507 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I don't believe this this has closed yet, so hopefully I can still get my support in. Maximillion Pegasus 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure[edit source]

There are 7 votes of support and 1 oppose. There is some concern and advice towards Pmlineditor about paying particular attention to WV custom and policy which differs from other wikis and towards encouraging Pmlineditor to creating more main space content in order to better understand WV. However, in general (other than the 1 oppose) the community appears to be content with Pmlineditor having access to custodian tools. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]