Wikiversity

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

< Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship

Juan de Vojníkov (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs

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


Mentor's recommendation for full custodianship

edit

Juan has now completed the one month probationary custodian period. (Please note that he has a newly renamed account. He has previously used User:Juan and User:Juandev but his older edits have been merged into the new User:Juan de Vojníkov account.) He has been an active member of the english wikiversity for over two years. Juan has a great deal of experience as a wikiversity custodian including custodianship at betawikiversity: and as a custodian and bureaucrat at the čeština wikiversity (among other projects) I have always found Juan to be a great help to new users and he always strives to provide advice and assistance. He has a thorough knowledge of mediawiki software and has put this to use in creating learning projects that are engaging. During the probationary period he has shown great care and judgement in using the tools. I very highly recommend him for full custodianship. --mikeu talk 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

edit
  • When can a page be deleted from Wikiversity without discussion? What should a custodian do before deleting a page? What should a custodian do after deleting a page? For what reasons can a block be imposed at Wikiversity? When a block is imposed, under what conditions should a custodian prevent access to the talk page of the blocked account/IP? When a custodian imposes a bad block, how does the blocked Wikiversity participant get relief from the bad black? What information should be provided by a custodian on the talk page of a blocked account/IP? When can a custodian impose a ban? Do you feel that you are free to violate Wikiversity policies since you are a custodian? --JWSchmidt 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of questions John:-) Let me reply in points:
  1. Page can be deleted, when it is a vandalism, test or content, which doesnt fit to Wikiversity. But not all the vandalisms, tests and inapropriate content are for speedy deletion by custodian. Custodians should review page by page and sometimes you can protect wv by adding a content not deleting. If custodian doesnt know if it is for a speady deletion or if it is involved in the issue "negatively" he maigt place there request for speady deletion for other custodian or ask the community in voting for deletion.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Before deleting a page, custodian should review it, click on "what links here" and review it ones more. It might look like a vandalism, but in fact it could be a part of a project.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you deleted Fundamentals of Neuroscience/The Nervous System, did you click on "what links here"? In what sense do you think the person editing from 99.147.247.210 was "experimenting with Wikiversity"? Why not use a welcome template such as welcome and expand for such pages rather than delete them? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont remeber if I do that it is long time ago. Yes, you are right, I havent inform that IP user about the deletion and didnt welcome him. Its difficult to evaluate this case. Maybe a knew the user, I dont remeber. No, I dont believe in the function of welcome and expand, but if others think so. There was one case when someone placed this to a Spannish page, which I deleted latter on. So it is case by case.--Juan de Vojníkov 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain in what sense you think the person editing from 99.147.247.210 was "experimenting with Wikiversity" when they created Fundamentals of Neuroscience/The Nervous System? --JWSchmidt 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have deleted, because there were just one word "Neurology". In this case it was not the educational nor research resource. And "Please use the sandbox for experimenting with Wikiversity:" was the pre prepatred edit summary. Experimenting is nothing bad, it is usually a part of learning process and there is usually a feedback.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After deleting a page it is a good practice to inform the author about it.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For the reasons of extensive vandalism, spam, bad behaviour (e.g. verbaly attacking other users) or going around block. Blocks suh as locks are here to protect project and community. Did I forgot something?--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Did I forgot something" <-- is there a page at Wikiversity that explains when a block can be imposed? What do you think about giving warnings before blocking? What do you mean by "going around block"? Do you think that an editor is automatically banned from editing when an account is blocked? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you want to hear about this: Wikiversity:Blocking policy. giving warnings before blocking? Yes it is one of the approches. We use to the this often on Wikipedie warning users two, tree times before blocking. It sounds like a good practice, but the question is if it is effective. Maybe we can not just warn, but also explain. Going around block? The example would be Moulton. He is blocked indefinite, but he uses other accounts and IPs to edit here on wikiversity. That is "going around block". Answer to last question: yes he is automaticaly banned. We are not talking about accounts, but about users. He may only edit his talk page or other pages which community allow, but he is banned. I.e. editing from other accounts and/or IP addreses is "going around block" (=circumventign the block).--Juan de Vojníkov 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "yes he is automaticaly banned" <-- do you think important matters such as rules for when someone is banned should be determined by the community and described in policy or just left to the whim of custodians? --JWSchmidt 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I dont think so, we need a policy on this. I dont think so we need bans. Blocking users its enough. What we need is to explain, that it is logic to block all other accounts of the user in a specific range in which is blocked himself.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Well, majorly it is better to offer blocked people to edit their user page, but e.g. in the case of proxybot which violates repeatedly all pages including Talk name space. Or when there is a rule/community agreement to do so.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "proxybot" <-- What is a proxybot? How do you identify a proxybot? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Proxybot is a script which is using different IP adresses to do the nonsence edits e.g. on Wikiversity. How do you indentify? The same way as open proxy. There are some symptoms and than you flag it as a "proxybot" or "open proxy".--Juan de Vojníkov 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Well he can call for help via his talk page (if it is possible), send an e-mail to the cutodian which block him (or other custodian). Also IRC channel may help.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Custodian, should place there a reason why it is blocked and signiture (linking to custodians user page). In the case of proxybot the reason, signiture and indication of proxybot should be indicated. In the case of OP it schould be indicated to and in the case of IP address when more people might use it, it should be indicated too. There are fore each case a templates, if templates are not present it is written by a custodian.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you blocked an IP address of a school would you leave a message on the talk page explaining why that IP address is blocked? What do you think about Wikiversity:No shrines for vandals? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it sounds logic. The best would be to describe the situation by diff. When other users come from that IP, they should know, that they are not those bad guys, that someone different is punished there. Its midnight here. Give me one day to study it further.--Juan de Vojníkov 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think it is important to study issues around vandals, trolls and others. Well, I dont think so, I would support this policy.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of 18.85.10.9, did you leave a message on the talk page explaining why that IP address is blocked? Why did you disabled editing of the talk page for that IP address? --JWSchmidt 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It was visible there from the edit summary. Because was Moulton and he likes to argue on the discussion page. Now I can see this issue is open, so I will not be acting unless the community will agree something. Before I was just following the theory, when someone is blocked = he cant edit wv. Then I realised he is using IP range.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Just after community agreement and/or official policy.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does a custodian impose bans or enforce bans? How do you know when a ban has been imposed and is in effect at Wikiversity? --JWSchmidt 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not impose nor enfoce. Thats community which decide. This is quibble. But maybe you want to know if the account blocked indefinite is just blocked or banned.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Thats community which decide" <-- How did the community decide to ban Moulton? --JWSchmidt 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But my friend Moulton is not banned. He useses several IP addreses and editing wv, without problems. I think that you try to discuss an issue which doesnt have nothing with my custodianship. Something had happened and we cant change it, just the community can. Thats why there is Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please correct me if I have this wrong. You think the community should decide on bans, but a custodian can impose an indefinite duration block which is automatically a ban? Moulton was indef blocked and you've been enforcing a ban on editing by Moulton (by blocking IPs he edits from) but you also say that he is not banned? --JWSchmidt 03:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in fact I am contra bans at all. But if there will be a policy or community will, I should respect it. And now to Moulton. There was an intention to ban him, thats why he was blocked indefinite. But at the same time he started to edit from different IP adressess. So it was a false of custodians, that havent blocked all of them also. So we can say, that there is an intention to ban Moulton, but it doesnt work. My approach was, when I got sysops rights to fullfill the ban he was sentenced to. Noone told me, why he is not banned. So I blocke some of his community IPs and realised he comes from IP range. When there is a errr how to call it? problem? vandal? comeing from IP range another approach should be applicated. But at the same time, I was noticed, there is something like Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton, it means now the community should decide. And now you may ask: Who sentenced Moutlon to this ban? Community? Policy? The answer is clear: no! It was a steward. There were some agreement, but many people didnt agree and they left the project. Other people left during that perion of 6 month of disscusions. So I am happy for Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton. Here the community have a possibility to reevaluate Jimbo´s deal. Yeah, well, Im a little bit sad, that the community doesnt reply to my advices there:-(--Juan de Vojníkov 09:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    About your advice and the failure of the community to discuss it, I can only speak for myself, and I can only repeat what I already said on that page. It seems reasonable to me that anyone proposing to ban Moulton should be able to justify the ban by explaining how Moulton violated this community's rules. Any call for a ban that fails to do so is an unjustified call for a ban and a serious violation of existing Wikiversity policy. If this community wants to make Moulton's behavior a bannable offense, then is the correct path towards that goal the development of policy (such as the proposed privacy policy, blocking policy and policy for bans)? --JWSchmidt 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juandev (old habits die hard, sorry :)), I haven't been around much during your candidacy period, so am just picking up again as our academic year kicks off. How has it been for you? What did you do? What did you learn? What did you still want to do/learn? Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errr, you mean probationary period? Well, interesting, but it could be more. To study MediaWiki, parser functions and so on. Errr, I am sorry to Mikeu, but now I am not able to tell you what I have learnt, maybe after some time I will be abble to evaluate i better. Well, in the case of lerning I would like to continue. Now, I am studyin a web desing it means HTML, XHTML and CSS. Why? Because, than I can study JavaScript which is important here to create masks (such as CSS) and also PHP. Maybe now I can start to study MediaWiki software to understand it better. Well, there is also a need to improve my English and communication psychology, but nothing is done at once.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for full custodianship

edit

Please enter vote and a brief comment here.

  1. Strong   Support --mikeu talk 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support IMO mikeu's strong support should carry some weight here. In my experience as well, Juandev is a dedicated user in very good faith. I am impressed by his open approach to discussing edits to Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not (see Wikiversity talk:What Wikiversity is not). As a member of the Welcoming Committee, I also consider his hands-on, positive yet critical mentoring of Graeme E. Smith (with mikeu) to be a good example of how new users should be treated. --AFriedman 16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Understands the site very well, and knows how to handle situations (such as: arguments). DarkObsidian 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Seems to have a good head on his shoulders and willing to discuss before doing anything too major. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support A very level headed guy who's been around for quite some time, and has established himself to be quite trustworthy, and positive about Wikiversity as a whole. The fact that he's able to be as diplomatic as he is in a language he's not fluent in speaks volumes. --SB_Johnny talk 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support I am a new user and Juan has been very friendly and helpful in getting me started.Rbusch 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Has a good history of involvement with WV, seems to be direct, prepared to take initiative, but also to be learning from "mistakes"/experiences, and his building of positive relations with newcomers is also to be commended. He also seems to be 'using the tools', in general, to help the WV community. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status granted

edit
 Y Done with unanimous support, Juan de Vojníkov is now a full custodian. --SB_Johnny talk 15:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Juan_de_Vojníkov_(full_custodian)&oldid=2130581"