Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Wikiversity:RFC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.png This page documents an official process on English Wikiversity that has wide acceptance among participants. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WV:CC


Instructions[edit]

Please add your request for custodianship (or other staff positions) below. Include a short summary of why you think you should be given the privileges and please refer to your involvement in other Wikimedia projects. If you have sysop/bureaucrat status at a sister project, please indicate so as well.

In a wiki, trust arises from good editing of webpages and "good editing" is what advances the project. If you have a record of good editing then you are likely to be trusted and be granted the tools to protect pages from vandalism and block vandals and delete useless pages. Having those tools really just means you have to do more work -dull and boring work - for the community.

Please place candidate requests or nominations on a subpage and transclude it here.

Requests and Nominations for Probationary Custodianship[edit]

Notes
  1. Registered users can both request custodianship, or be nominated for it by others. Candidates that have not accepted a nomination, or have failed to secure a mentor within one week are archived as incomplete.
  2. See MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook for some details on what options are available for custodians.
  3. Candidates can request a mentor from those listed at Wikiversity:List of custodian mentors; the requested mentor must agree.
  4. Candidates: please respond to any questions from the community about your wiki editing and wiki participation.

Guy vandegrift (talk | email | contribs | stats)[edit]

I'd like to nominate Guy vandegrift for probationary custodianship. Guy is a prolific editor at both Wikiversity and Wikipedia, and active at Wikibooks and Commons. He has shown a consistent interest in improving Wikiversity, interacts well with other users in support of their project ideas, and has always been willing to accept constructive criticism in return. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Comments[edit]

Custodians willing to mentor[edit]

I am willing to mentor. Guy has indicated his willingness / acceptance at [1]. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

YesY Done[2] - Guy vandegrift is now a probationary custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Abd (talk | email | contribs | stats)[edit]

If implemented, this will begin my fourth period as a probationary custodian. For reference, see

I have often written that I don't need custodian tools to work on topics of interest to me, here. That remains true. I can request deletion with a template or undeletion on a custodian's talk page, as examples, and this is normally handled quickly and easily. However, I have, more often recently, come across situations where it would be substantially more efficient if I had the tools. I will avoid anything controversial as to tool usage. Once again, I consent to the [[../Standard stop agreement]], (this permanent link), which will serve pending development of clearer policy. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

  • What pushes you to candidate again and again, even you had no support from the community?--Juandev (discusscontribs) 14:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Juandev. On Wikipedia, it's "admins for life" because it is believed that any admin who actually does the job will attract negative comment. There is some truth to that.
I made the request because I see work that I can do. It is not controversial work (or if it was controversial at one time, it is no longer.)
I have not asked for tools since 2011. I had lots of support then, definitely not "no support." I agreed to "permanent probationary custodianship" to avoid useless conflict. I am not, here, going over what happened then, not unless necessity arises.
My being a custodian is not a necessity, but custodianship policy, as it was established by the founders, and was unquestioningly accepted for years, is very important.
This is not a request that, by policy, should be controversial, nor is "consensus" required: a mentor agrees and a 'crat implements. It has been that way for many years. The safeguard is that a 'crat would not implement a harmful probationary custodianship, even if a mentor supports. Our policy deliberately allows renewal of probationary custodianship.
What happened almost four years ago should be irrelevant. What matters is the mentor and the supervising community. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Abd, what you have you learnt from the three previous probationary custodian periods that you think can make you a better Wikiversity custodian? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Patience. --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on how patience would make you a better custodian? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Since you ask .... In my previous periods, I treated probationary custodianship as if it were being a custodian responsible for site maintenance and keeping Wikiversity safe for users. for a time, in fact, I was doing almost all the regular custodial work. When there were serious issues requiring immediate custodial attention, in a very few cases (two), I treated them as emergencies. See the draft Recusal policy before it was gutted. In particular, the "emergency" section. I followed the draft policy I had written.
In another case, I waited 10 days to undo a block placed by a custodian, in my view contrary to policy and necessity. (And I still followed recusal policy, immediately referring the matter to the community.) Because there are now multiple active custodians, and as a probationer, I would instead make a request for action on RCA, the unblock not being an emergency. Not being a ratified Custodian by vote of the community, I would not have the level of granted authority needed for that action. Patience. Trust the community. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I really recommend against going through with this again without a consensus being sought ahead of time. A 4th go around would amount to making even more of a mockery of the process than the 3rd go around did. --SB_Johnny talk 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree; I'm not inclined to switch on custodian status for a 4th probationary custodianship period unless there is community consensus to do so. This could be done in a separate section below and advertised via Colloquium and sitenotice. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Custodians willing to mentor[edit]

Candidate, please indicate here if you accept one of the above custodian mentors:

  • I accept Marshallsumter as mentor. I invite all custodians and Wikiversitans to support and guide me through this process. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for Full Custodianship[edit]

Notes
  1. Candidates for full custodianship are listed here by their mentor after the one month probationary period. Do not add self-nominations to this section (use the section of this page Requests for Custodianship).

Nominations for CheckUser[edit]

Notes

CheckUsers are required to follow Wikimedia Foundation's CheckUser policy, including requirements for gaining access to the checkuser tools.

  1. Candidates must be 18 years of age or older, of legal age in place of residence, be familiar with Meta:Privacy policy, and supply identification to the Wikimedia Foundation.
  2. Candidates must have 70-80% agreed consensus or more and a minimum of 25-30 votes in support by local community members. Following this, permission must be requested from the Wikimedia Foundation. Projects must have 2 or more check users, or none at all.

None at present.

Nominations for Bureaucratship[edit]

None at present.

See also[edit]