Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/S Larctia

S Larctia (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) edit

SB Johnny recently suggested that I should become a custodian, and offered to mentor me. I therefore am submitting a request for temporary custodianship. I agree to the standard stop agreement. --S Larctia 17:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

  • Wow! Cool. Please place this wikitext in your candidacy statement:
I agree to the [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Standard_stop_agreement&oldid=751460 (permanent link to effective version)].
  • It should be there so that this is crystal clear to a steward, should that be necessary. You could change the agreement and agree to something different, but I recommend keeping it simple. That's what I agreed to, myself. --Abd 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow again! With the Standard stop agreement, I can't see how this could be a problem. If you can find a mentor and 'crat to act, Good luck! I'm practically speechless, congratulations. As to the name, it's much better, and ultimately I'd see a page like this as a subpage under more general higher level resource. But we can work all that out later. I think you are getting that Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia! Where the name would be Very Important. And we could revert war until the cows come home. Here, we just don't care that much, we'll take a stand for what we think best, but, then, well, cooperation gets far more done than fighting. Marshallsumter's research is important to him, and he is, with the rest of us, a "learner." We will do what is needed to prevent possible harm, with any project, and I'll be happy to help with yours. --Abd 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Policy requires a mentor and 'crat action. It's true that a decision could be made to restrict rights, informally, but enforceably -- see the Standard Stop Agreement! -- but I don't think it's truly necessary. However, it's really up to the mentor and crat. They could flexibly implement any restriction, ab initio or on-the-fly, as provided in the Standard Stop Agreement, it makes it trivial, and any custodian has authority to Stop about any custodial action, with teeth. That was the point of that agreement.
I'll note another thing. Suppose the rights are restricted to rollback only. But the user sees serious vandalism (not marginal or questionable), and can prevent damage by blocking. What should the user do? I'd say it: block, and go immediately to WV:RCA and ask for review of the action (because it violated the restriction, which would be disclosed). If some custodian gets a bug about it and goes to meta and the probationer is desysopped, this can quickly be fixed for cause. All it takes is the mentor and a 'crat agreeing that the action was okay, and resysopping. And probably no custodian would go to meta for the action as described! -- the community would not like this! This is the real meaning of w:WP:IAR. We are not rule-bound, but rules are also important for guidance and routine expectations. --Abd 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Custodians willing to mentor edit