Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Collingwood (Bureaucrat)

Collingwood (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) edit

I have been a custodian here for several months, and in that time have done a lot of work, especially clearing backlogs of files to be deleted. There is a need to have an additional bureaucrat, as there are now delays in WV:CHU, and if the community finds me acceptable, I am happy to undertake this additional work.--Collingwood (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and/or questions for the candidate edit

I agree that WV:CHU needs attention. Although there are 5 en.wv bureaucrats Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat, there has been insufficient attention to cope with WV:CHU demand over the last 12-24 months. Collingwood has only recently been confirmed as a full custodian, but has served a long apprenticeship and clearly demonstrated a willingness to do administrative tasks in an efficient, knowledgeable, and trustworthy manner.

Collingwood, what are your thoughts about the draft Wikiversity:Bureaucratship policy?(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtneill (talk • contribs) )

I believe that it covers all aspects, though a few points could be picked up from corresponding pages on other sites. I have just made a small addition about the nomination procedure.--Collingwood (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that WV:CHU needs attention, and I have been thankful for Collingwood's quick and consistent attention to the Speedy Deletion category. Based on the Wikiversity:Bureaucratship policy and your (Collingwood's) stats, I was wondering if you could expand on or provide examples of your efforts toward consensus? I ask because your stats show a good percentage of User talk edits, but what is perhaps a relatively low percentage of Talk edits that would be helpful for consensus building. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bureaucrats act as the final interpreter of consensus with respect to candidacies for user group changes." Obviously, I have not done this yet, and in my time here there has been no controversial RfA, so I cannot demonstrate my abilities there. You will have to decide on my abilities from my record so far. I do not think that bureaucrats in particular should be general purpose conciliators. I would obviously attempt to resolve any conflicts I came across, just as I would as a custodian or indeed an ordinary editor. Do you have any examples in mind where I could have done this but did not? "They must demonstrate ... that they are not rash in decision-making, nor uncivil to others ... They must also have the ability and willingness to thoroughly explain decisions that he or she makes, as well as to admit fault, where appropriate." I believe that I have done this by explaining to people the rules about copyright, by occasionally declining deletion requests and on one occasion undeleting a page on request, and do not believe that I have ever been uncivil.--Collingwood (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've only been actively involved here for about two months, so I don't have examples of your efforts toward consensus one way or the other. My concerns are simply based on the guideline that bureaucrats "must be excellent judges of consensus" (Bureaucratship). In my experience in other environments, consensus typically requires discussion. Since I didn't see a lot of discussion in your stats, I thought it was worth asking. Although, I have to say that the more I'm here, the more I find consensus on Wikiversity to mostly be a lack of objection. If you're willing to do the work and be civil about it, that works for me, and I appreciate your efforts. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood, when you went through the request for Custodian process, an interested observer (and Checkuser) from another WMF project sent me a heads-up that you are almost certainly User:Poetlister. I don't think anyone here really cares too much about that, but since there is a global lock on that account, would you object to having a steward look over your account to confirm or debunk this theory? --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is about, but I certainly have nothing to hide, so a steward is welcome to look at my contributions to Wikiversity. I hope that this does not delay closing my RfB, as there is an increasing backlog om this page and on Wikiversity:Changing username that I need to tackle.--Collingwood (talk)

SBJ, has a CU request been made? Collingwood, have you edited en.wv using other accounts? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I have nothing to hide and of course a CU will show that I have not edited WV with any other accounts. All that this nonsense is doing is delaying the important bureaucrat work that needs doing.--Collingwood (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Collingwood - I've made a CU request [1]. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CU has been done and of course found no evidence. I hope that this RfB can now be closed in line with the clear consensus of the community.

Can SB_Johnny please reveal who this person is who claims to have evidence against me, and how he obtained this evidence when a steward could not? Better still, can he please forward the evidence to me, copied to Jtneill and Mu301. In the extremely improbable event that they are not happy, I shall withdraw from editing WV permanently, as of course I have no wish to continue without the support of the bureaucrats. I would also like to know why SB_Johnny did not make the CU request immediately, when Jtneill had no difficulty in doing so. Thank you.--Collingwood (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another way to make a point about someone else's possible alternative account, than to post that account name here? It might be a concern if an alternate username was blocked. I think it can be brought up without making mention of the other username, even if it won't seem to be effective. I don't want to upset this situation or make it worse. for future reference, there should be a better way to go about this. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CU request found that the possible alternate account IP trace is stale (too old), so it doesn't indicate evidence one way or another. The request has been left open pending our further response. As far as I can tell, there's not much else that can be done here via CheckUser? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood, at the risk of being pedantic, have you edited en.wv with other accounts? (regardless of what CU may or may not indicate) -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood, could you clarify why you've flagged your account IP block exempt? http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUserRights&user=Collingwood -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is turning into a witch-hunt, based on an alleged claim from an anonymous user who has unspecified evidence. I have no desire to take part in such a witch-hunt, or to edit on a site that tolerates it.

I made my account block-exempt as an experiment to test my powers as a custodian, and with no other motive. It makes no difference, since as you know, all custodians are automatically exempt anyway. So far as I know, I have never tried to edit from a blocked IP.--Collingwood (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and explanation, Collingwood. I didn't know about IP block exempt as a user rights group until looking at this last week and didn't realise that custodians are IP block exempt anyway (is this documented somewhere?). Maybe undo that user right, to help make it clear that it was a test. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've done that. The list of rights enjoyed by each user type is here, visible to all users via Special pages. Obviously, if I had intended anything funny, I would have given myself the same right at WQ. A custodian whose behaviour is highly suspicious is Diego Grez. He gave himself the right, then took it away, then gave it to himself again. He also gave it to his alternate account. he is no longer a custodian, but both accounts still have that right, and I suggest that someone removes it.--Collingwood (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to WV:CHU what is your opinion on the application of usurpation? There was some brief discussion long ago at Wikiversity:Community Review/Usurpation of usernames but no clear consensus emerged. --mikeu ^talk 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very reluctant to allow usurpation ofany account with edits, unless they were purely vandalism or the other user agrees. However, if an account has no edits or e-mail, and is more than a year old, I would grant it immediately without warning the other user, as warning would be a waste of time. If the other user has a SUL with edits elsewhere, I would not usurp.--Collingwood (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting edit

I'm happy to vote for you. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karanodakasayi (talk • contribs) )

Support Kind of a drive-by !vote, but I was popping around various wikis I'm not terribly active on and saw the RfB note at the top of the page. I've worked (indirectly) with Collingwood over on Wikiquote, and he seems to have a pretty level head; dunno about what is exactly necessary on this project, but I have every faith that he would do a good job. EVula // talk // 10:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As custodian, I know deleting possibly un-copyrighted images may be difficult, because its hard to know for sure. Its better to leave that work to the uploader to prove material is not copyrighted. It makes sense that unproven images have been deleted, so I'll say that was a good job and effort. As for bureaucrat-ship what do you intend? I noticed how quickly you applied: perhaps from eagerness to improve Wikiversity. Sidelight12 ^Talk 11:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been a custodian since 30 June. However, I was never confirmed. It was only when I considered RfB that the need for confirmation was realised. Certainly this RfB was due to the fact that another bureaucrat is needed. My first action will be to sort out the pending requests for usurpation and name changes. Then I shall clear up this page, closing unsuccessful requests and ensuring that any unconfirmed custodians are formally confirmed. After that, I shall try to prevent backlogs recurring.--Collingwood (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need a bureaucrat willing to do this work. Collingwood appears to be willing, and has shown himself to be very responsive as a custodian. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very active user. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the work Collingwood, it is very reassuring to know you're there and ready to do this work. Leighblackall (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support always nice to have someone volunteer to do the work, I don't see any reasons to against it! This is not my home Wiki by the way (my home Wiki is Vi Wikipedia), just happened to come across here and see this. I thought may as well cast a support vote!Trongphu (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support New user, but an objective one. From the discussion and comments I'd have to agree Collingwood is fit for the role. If you're willing to do the work, I'm willing to vote.M4ttisbeast94 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is a good user. --ecarv- ^talk ^{^E-mail} 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good that you are taking the next step on from being a Custodian. Leutha (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great user, won't misuse tools. --LlamaAl (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Collingwood has been locked for being a sockpuppet of Poetlister. Mathonius (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing edit

The global lock on the Collingwood's account for being a sockpuppet of Poetlister would seem to confirm the concern expressed in the discussion above for Bureaucrat that Collingwood has previously, and may have continued to, edit under multiple accounts, making it, for example, somewhat difficult to determine consensus from the voting, with a number of votes from users with little en.wv history. I think this makes it pretty clear now that there is no point in making Collingwood a bureaucrat. Fundamentally, bureaucrats need to be trusted by the editing community. Are there any other comments or questions before closing this request (bearing in mind that Collingwood cannot edit under this account currently, but can be contacted via email)? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I second the closing. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the custodian flag should be removed as well than. -- dark lama 18:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Have made a request for removing Collingwood's local systop status. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. Collingwood is no longer a custodian. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Philippe (WMF) has explained on meta how the confirmation of Collingwood as a sockpuppet of Poetlister et al.[2] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]