Wikiversity

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/MichaelBillington (previous discussion)

< Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship

MichaelBillington

edit
  • I'm nominating myself for custodianship. I am most active on the English Wikipedia with over 5000 edits, and am interested in enforcing the prohibition of editing from open proxies on the English Wikiversity. (where I've been less active than I'd like, but still here) I am very active on IRC also, where I will be available for helping out other users - I have level 15 access in #wikipedia, as well as level 10 in #wikimedia-au, #wikipedia-in and #wikimedia-social, in additioon to level 30 in #wikiquote-en (though that's only a very small channel). You'll also find me monitoring the recent changes IRC channels for a number of projects - Wikiversity among them. Thanks Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the nominated custodian candidate

edit
  • Dear Michael Billington,
  • 1. What is your vision for wikiversity?
    • I'd like, most of all to see it expand into something that classes can visit as a source of coursework, whilst keeing the community spirit in tact. Another thing would be the avoidance m:instruction creep that may tie back new users from joining in.
  • 2. What have you contributed to wikiversity?
    • I've written the bulk of the pages under Topic:HTML, and I like to think I've helped out Topic:Visual Basic as well, but AmiDaniel seems to have taken care of it more recently. On my todo list I still want to get a few of the dormant projects related to programming and scripting off the ground, and write pages in the (also dormant) mythology topics. I've also made a few navigational templates, and an edit counter as a replacement for Draicone's tool.
  • 3. Why do you think you need the custodianship?
    • I was talking with SB_Johnny about the abscence of an open proxy project on Wikiversity, and I was informed of the drastic effect on the amount of vandalism after he had embarked on blocking a number of them on Wikibooks. I would like to collaborate with him (and any other interested users) in getting Wikiversity up to speed with the other projects as far as open proxy blocks go. I am also here for a large part of the day, and as mentioned above, I monitor the recent changes channel. (whch should help with making anything I need to do happen quickly)

--Hillgentleman|User talk 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the open proxy project the only custodial task you plan to perform on Wikiversity? --HappyCamper 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the first few weeks while I catch up with the block logs of other wikis, probably. But there are only so many open proxies that need to be blocked for now (though the number is in the thousands..), and keeping in sync with the metaproject will not occupy all of my time. I do anticipate closing a few of the stale deletion requests and keeping the speedy deletion category empty. Any other tasks I'd be happy to help with as well. I spend a lot of time on en.wikipeida clearing backlogs, though it would be nice if they never develop in the first place, something I would also use a mop for if given one.

Mentoring

edit

I have promoted User:MichaelBillington to temporary custodianship. His mentorship period will last until January 8. sebmol ? 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • I'm a bit hesitant about this request myself. There is good reason to do things in a proactive or preventative manner, but you'd need to summarize and justify the motivation to pursue this here instead of relegating it to a link. There are many times in which well thought out technical projects are not supported by the community because those not-in-the-know have not been engaged. A need to prevent editing from open proxies in itself should not be a prerequisite for custodianship. On the other hand, if we've got someone who apparently has expertise that we need and knows what they're doing, why not give them the green light? I will say this: I'll be 100% supportive of this, but when nominations for full custodianship come up, I'll expect at least a sentence or two addressing other aspects of custodianship. Great to have specialist custodial WikiGnomes, but please do share those other experiences with us during that time. Full support. --HappyCamper 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have to confess that I have some hesitations about handing Michael the mop. I think he's a great guy and have enjoyed collaborating with him on enwiki and on Wikiversity; however, I think I'd truly like to see him have some experience as an admin on another Wiki. I would note that his recent WP RfA failed by majority opposition, and I find some of the concerns raised in that RfA of relevance and concern. I do believe that he would be the first Wikiversity admin who isn't subsequently an admin on another foundation project, and that bothers me given Wikiversity's fragile youthfulness. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to say that with Johnny willing to mentor him, I have no objections at this point, though I might when he comes up for full adminship (err... custodianship, I learn the lingo one of these days =P). AmiDaniel (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I find some of the concerns raised in that RfA of relevance and concern" <-- I would rather hear about these concerns than leave them bottled up as a mystery. Can you describe what you are worried about? --JWSchmidt 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that RfA until AmiDaniel's post. People, I cannot overemphasize the importance of evaluating a candidacy's merits based on what is presented here. --HappyCamper 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The things I found most concerning were allegations of gaming the system through group think, which bothers me not because I think Mike was involved in elaborate attempt to hijack Wikipedia's processes, but rather because I find it displays his immaturity and inability to recognize that his actions may have more implications than he intended. Basically, I'm just concerned about maturity--as I understand Mike is fairly young, and I'm not sure how committed he is to the project nor how he will be able to hold himself in some serious issues that may come about if he becomes an admin (legal threats, the scrutiny of the community, etc.), but also, as I said above, I'd feel much more comfortable if Mike had experiece as an admin on another project before being given a sysop flag on Wikiversity, as, unlike other projects where administrator kram has all been codified, on Wikiversity pretty much all administrative actions are left to the common sense of the admin, which takes a while to develop. I likely would have supported Mike's RfA on Wikipedia had I seen it in time, and I do highly respect him as a contributor; however, I'm not too confidant that Mike is ready for the sysop bit on Wikiversity, or rather that Wikiversity is ready for Mike to have the sysop bit here. I may well be wrong though; it wouldn't be the first time ;). AmiDaniel (talk)
I assume your post was a post in response to JWSchmidt. I think I'll revisit this after Hillgentleman's questions have been addressed. They're open ended and designed to be opportunities for the candidate to address issues that have been raised here. --HappyCamper 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AmiDaniel, the thing that I would definitely like you to know that thread, was that Hoopydink asked a few people if they were willing to be named as being in the channel. Whilst most people said 'no', Draicone and I agreed. I'd linke to think this is a good thing, as I'm always willing to be accountable for my actions (rather than hiding behind 'no public logging') As for experience on other projects, I don't have a sysop bit on any Wikimedia projects, but I do have a 'crat flag on CoderWiki, and an O:line on the Ncdrink IRC network, both of which operate on common sense, with no policies on how an admin must act. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I've looked into this and talked to Mike about it. I am not concerned about the issue, and am still happy to mentor him. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed over IRC? --HappyCamper 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partly... it was mostly just going through records at wikipedia, and talking to Mike privately. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, I would like to state I'm not an admin on any other project, so he wouldn't be the first.--Rayc 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/MichaelBillington_(previous_discussion)&oldid=2130590"