Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Salmon of Doubt

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Salmon of Doubt (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)[edit source]

I am requesting custodianship on this project for a number of reasons.

Primarily, I intend to help with day-to-day maintenance. I have watched powerlessly as a pow-wow of three custodians were unable to clear a cross-namespace redirect for move. There are numerous edit histories on this project that are not GFDL compliant and require mergers. Image policy here requires a strong hand to fix - specifically, there is no robotic tagging and notification system for obvious copyvios. Users with bot-proficiency are necessary for a project in a growth stage, and I have that proficiency. Also, there are a lot of widely-used templates that require protecting, and the main page is regularly left open to vandalism - problems that I know how to solve.

Additionally, I would be extra vigilant in recent change patrolling - I have already been instrumental in dealing with one extremely vulgar vandal, and would be able to do more with the ability to stop vandalism in the project space without having to constantly revert while discussing vandal's intentions on their talk pages.

Finally, and perhaps more controversially, I believe that there is a serious problem with divulged personal information that cannot be solved without tools. In the event that otherwise private personal information about a user is disclosed, I will delete specific edits to protect the privacy of our contributors. If contributors to this project are driven away with threats to their health and well-being, there will be nothing left but people who make such threats. I do not intend to deal with this issue untill I have gained the trust of the full community, so consider it a longer-term project.

I will not protect pages to “win” edit wars, nor will I block established contributors without seeking broad consensus of other users, nor will I delete pages without wide consensus (unless those pages are blatant copyvios, only consist of invasions of privacy or where the sole author requests deletion). Three recent examples - the student portal and the albanian port history page and a case-study page I marked for deletion - where I supported deletion as an editor, I would determine as a custodian that there was no consensus to delete the pages and keep them.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Salmon of Doubt 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the Candidate[edit source]

Are you sure you can handle this, if I'm right users on this site must be registered here for three or four months or more and have the communities trust, but with you though is a bit of a mixture - I used to be known by a different username on this site and went into a probationary period but all it received was opposes due to me being too new and slightly went into problems with category creations - my advice for you is to leave this for now and try it in the next few months maybe then other users may permit this through, or they might allow it to go through now - but the community decides (including) the custodians. DarkMage 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am singularly positive that I can handle this. I do not see a time-registered requirement for custodianship, but if it is the will of the community that I wait longer, I am happy to do so. There are things I can fix right now, however, that have nothing to do with the conflicts that I am regetably involved in. At the very least, let me show my stuff. Limit me, as an example, to dealing only with users and issues I have no past history with and I'll prove myself. Salmon of Doubt 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe so, but other's may or may not agree to this - though if it does go through and someone does mentor you in using the tools then - you'll have to understand that you will be faced with many, many questions in the request for full custodianship , some of which maybe impossible to answer, though lets see if someone will mentor you or agree that you should wait a bit longer. DarkMage 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No question is impossible to answer, thought it may be difficult to convince others you are right. I merely want the chance. Salmon of Doubt 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first reply to me was to accuse me of being a Joan of Arc vandal, which is quite an offensive judgment to make especially for someone that seeks this candidacy. You also haven't answered questions related to the accusation of 'combatant' you made. Somehow you believe it is ok to make such hurtful accusations. Given the findings of controversy that I haven't brought here to Wikiversity until compelled like this, your accusations are not justified at all. Given a certain consensus that was stated on IRC about surrounding politics related to the past events that really had nothing to do about me, I have been very patient and hurt by such wrongful accusations then and now. 1) How are you going to solve this? 2) Why would you be happy to do it? 3) Are you going to update the revision link on the 'authority' you gave SB Johnny on his talk page after you answer these questions? Dzonatas 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the page does not substantially change the accusation on that page and also on other pages that have taken place, which may contain the way you still feel even after deletion. I don't see an easy way to justify someone trying to be contrite by the act of evidence being hidden of past actions. It doesn't provide a solution to your conduct I have noticed as stated above. In fact, you stated when you would update your diff, but you haven't changed that to update it to include answer you make to my questions. I'm not SB Johnny, and I can't force you to make further commitments than what you conditionally set. It does, however, reveal your level of willingness to do it, and that you did not answer my question of 'why you would be happy to do it' . I don't think you are ready for this. Dzonatas 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I make any additional commitments, I'll certainly update the diff. There's little more I can do about my past mistakes than apologize and pledge to move on, so that's what I did. I found your statement confusing - what do you mean by "why you would be happy to do it?" To what do you refer? Salmon of Doubt 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from JWSchmidt[edit source]

Q1. "protect the privacy of our contributors" <-- can you suggest any improvements/changes to Wikiversity:Privacy policy? Should we make that an official policy? --JWSchmidt 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see anything missing from that policy. I'll re review over the next few days. It should be official, yes. Salmon of Doubt

Q2. You archived active discussions on a talk page then obstinately refused to clean up the mess you had made. Why should the Wikiversity community trust you to clean up messed rather than make them? --JWSchmidt 03:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I made a mess in that instance as it was trivial to revert my archiving of the page. I believe archiving the talk page would have solved the ongoing reversions on the page. That the alternative solution of my just allowing other users to pretend to be multiple individuals and deceptively sign their contributions was also successful is a demonstration of my improving acceptance of community norms here. Salmon of Doubt 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you retaining for yourself the right to improperly archive pages in the future? When you do so, do you expect someone else to repair the damage you do? --JWSchmidt 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't intend to improperly archive any pages. Salmon of Doubt 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience with you as a Wikiversity editor, I must entertain the hypothesis that when you say, "improperly", you might not be thinking about the standards of this community. Would you be willing to help author a Wikiversity guideline for how and when to archive talk pages and agree to abide by that policy? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should work together to make a guideline, and after such time as it is approved, I will abide by it, and until such time I will archive no pages but my talk page or pages with over 50kbs of text, and then only sections that have not been edited in over 30 days. Salmon of Doubt 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q3. In my view there are two paths to custodianship, 1) demonstrate an understanding and commitment to the Wikiversity Mission or 2) have documented sysop experience at another WMF wiki and an interest in helping with technical matters at Wikiversity. As far as I can see, you meet neither of these requirements. Why should the Wikiversity community allow you to be a custodian? --JWSchmidt 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unwilling to prove I fit on your second path, so based on your statement, I should not. Salmon of Doubt 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you will not reveal all your alternate accounts (which I believe is the strongly suggested course of action at Wikipedia), would you be willing to authorize a checkuser investigation that would confirm that you have no more than two alternate accounts on WMF wikis? --JWSchmidt 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have only two active accounts on this Wiki, this account and my redirected bot account. I do not authorize anyone to go fishing for what my Wikipedia user name is, as that has no relevance on this totally independent project. Salmon of Doubt 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your right to create as many alternative accounts as you find useful. However, there is a recent case of a person who created multiple accounts on a WMF wiki project and apparently used those accounts in tandem to improperly influence community decisions. There have been recent calls for diligence at all WMF projects. You have attracted special attention to yourself because of your editing history at Wikiversity. Are you willing to say how many accounts you have created and/or have password-access to at en-Wikipedia? Are all of those accounts cross-identified by means of links that connect the user pages of the accounts? "I have only two active accounts on this Wiki" <-- do you have password access to any additional accounts at Wikiversity? Do you have any inactive accounts at Wikiversity? Do you coordinate off-wiki with other Wikimedians and act as a meat-puppet for them when you edit at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made accounts that were the same as Moulton's character names to prevent those names from being usurped by another user, but I scrambled their passwords. I have access to three (?) account at en-wikipedia - one that is my real name, one that is a bot linked to my real name and a secret account that I use when I want to do things and not be bothered - that final account is linked to my main account through knowledgeable individuals. Oh - I signed Salmon of Doubt up to SUL and accidentally made an edit on it on en, I think.

Q4. When you talked about using an unauthorized bot to control the ability of another Wikiversity participant to edit, some people were upset and indicated they did not feel safe at Wikiversity if you were free to make what they felt were terror threats. You indicated that you intended to use the bot to "remove links to malicious sites" At that time, I tried to get you to explain what you mean by "malicious sites". You replied, "that's none of your concern". Is it your intention as a custodian to have no concern when editors threaten to use unauthorized bots at Wikiversity? What is the correct way to deal with unwanted links to external sites? Why should the Wikiversity community trust you to follow proper procedures after you made a threat to violate the Wikiversity bot policy? "The operation of a bot requires approval" <-- have you used an unauthorized bot at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious sites are sites which either attempt to install malicious software on your computer (ency...dramatica), or sites where the accessing of the site tends to reveal personally identifying information to an individual with a history of disclosing that information. I do not intend to deal with user-conduct issues during my time as a probational custodian, including users who threaten to use unauthorized bots. Beyond that, how are you sure that such threats are not just special learning? The "correct" way to deal with unwanted links to external sites is to remove them. As I've said, I have used an unauthorized bot twice at Wikiversity - once to roll-back the contributions of a vandal who was later blocked indef for vandalizing and impersonation of a living person and once because test code escaped the corral. I reverted the one change made by the test code immediately. I will defend my use of automated tools to revert vandals, even if it is technically in violation of the bot policy if you so insist. Salmon of Doubt 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first I found it strange that a Wikiversity custodian would claim the right to violate policy...but now that I think about it, your mentor has done the same thing. Is there a legitimate way to prevent Wikiversity from having links to external sites? I'm not sure that your plans ("I will defend my use of automated tools") mesh with Wikiversity policy. Are you sure you cannot suggest additions to the proposed privacy policy? Maybe something like, "User:Salmon of Doubt has the unique right to, on his own, decide what constitutes a 'malicious site' and use his unauthorized bot to remove links to those sites." Then again, maybe part of your mentoring is about how to impose new policy on a whim without having to ever edit a policy page. --JWSchmidt 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I could add those sites to the blacklist. I think you'll need to remain civil. Salmon of Doubt 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that only when prompted did you mention the legitimate way to prevent Wikiversity from having links to external sites. Do you intend to work with the Wikiversity community to make decisions about blacklist/whitelist or do you intend to use other means to impose your views of what constitutes a 'malicious site' at this community? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to be involved in decision to blacklist/whitelist any sites at this project in the immediate future except to the extent that the sites are indisputably and currently malicious (nimp.org, for a timley example). Salmon of Doubt 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q5. When I was developing a page by constructing a learning project at the Student Union page you kept reverting my edits and falsely claimed that there was consensus to support your desire to keep the old undeveloped version. Why should the Wikiversity community trust you to be a custodian when you feel comfortable making a false claim of consensus while repeatedly reverting a fellow Wikiversity participant who is in the middle of building a learning resource? --JWSchmidt 04:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no false claim of consensus made in that case - there was an actual consensus that your actions were counterproductive. I am thankful to Jade who eventually found a third-solution to the problem - moving your problematic and disruptive contributions to a third page. Salmon of Doubt 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a custodian, how do you intend to judge consensus for matters such as page deletion decisions? For the particular case of your edit waring at the student union page, can you count the number of editors who spoke for and against your claim of consensus? --JWSchmidt 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will evaluate the arguments of all of the parties and see if there are any valid objections raised. In the event of any valid objection. I would not use custodian tools. Consensus is not a vote, so I would not "count" editors. Salmon of Doubt 16:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is Wikiversity policy with respect to the edit reverts? Do you also agree to follow Wikiversity policy with respect to the edit reverts you perform in the future? "any valid objection" <-- What do you view as constituting a "valid objection"? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is not currently a policy on reverts to the best of my knowledge. I no longer intend to revert the contributions of other editors outside of blatant copyvios and obvious vandalism. There is a policy on the use of rollback in edit wars (don't), but that seems to be all there is. Salmon of Doubt 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you were repeatedly reverting my good faith efforts to create a learning resource I pointed you towards this page: Wikiversity:Rollback. Are you willing to accept the idea that the only time it is correct to revert an edit at Wikiversity without providing a specific reason in the edit summary is when reverting cases of obvious vandalism? --JWSchmidt 02:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, yes. There are times where it might be appropriate to rollback without edit summary but I can't currently put my finger on it. Salmon of Doubt 04:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That learning project was highly controversial. Consensus (3-1) was to remove the information which you posted there. Or do you believe, JWSchmidt, that you had consensus (1-3) in consistently re-adding the material? The Jade Knight 04:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiveristy uses reasoned discourse and not numbers to determine consensus (or meta:consensus). Hillgentleman|Talk 04:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus (3-1)" <-- thanks for providing your (Jade Knight) count...I'm not sure how you arrived at that count. The reason for deleting the learning exercise seems to have been: "I do not want to learn about deletionism, so delete this learning resource about deletionism". I do not accept that as a valid justification for the removal of Wikiversity content from a page. Maybe there was another argument for deleting the learning exercise? --JWSchmidt 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q6. As a custodian, how many of your fellow Wikiversity participants do you expect to call a troll? --JWSchmidt 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None. Like I've said, I made mistakes in the past and do not intend to repeat them. Salmon of Doubt 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you apologized to all Wikiversity participants who you have called "troll" or accused of trolling? Will you apologize to them all? --JWSchmidt 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Who needs apologizing to? I'm sorry I called any and all of you trolls. Salmon of Doubt 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that apology. Since learning is a two-way street, can you ask your mentor to think about making the same apology? I seem to recall that he once referred to you as a troll (in #wikiversity-en). --JWSchmidt 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the need to be apologized to, but that you for thinking of me. Salmon of Doubt 01:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custodians willing to mentor[edit source]

  • I will mentor on two conditions: (1.) you will act in exactly the manner you described above, and (2.) you will leave an edit on my talk giving me clear authority to ask a steward to revoke your tools without discussion, reason, or explanation. --SB_Johnny talk 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept those conditions. Salmon of Doubt 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the edit. --SB_Johnny talk 20:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was crafting. Salmon of Doubt 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done Good luck with the mop. --mikeu talk 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Salmon_of_Doubt&oldid=2130608"