Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/JWSchmidt


 * Candidate for Bureaucratship

One of Wikiversity's finest. Cormaggio 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to take on the responsibility of Wikiversity bureaucratship on two conditions: 1) There is 5 day period for community discussion of candidates for bureaucratship 2) The current process for evaluating new custodians is modified to include a 5 day period for community discussion of users who are newly nominated for custodianship. I support the rest of the current suggested policy on custodianship. In particular, I support the idea of a mentoring system for "temporary custodians". In general, custodianship should be no big deal. However, I think that the policy needs to be firm and clear that a mentor of a "temporary custodian" has the power, at any time during the trial period, to ask the Stewards to terminate the custodianship of a "temporary custodian" that the mentor is advising. I will put more information about myself on my user page. --JWSchmidt 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions and requests
1) tell us more about your philosophies behind bureaucrats on this site? --HappyCamper 03:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea that tasks performed by wiki functionaries should be clearly defined by policy (Custodianship, Bureaucratship) and totally open and transparent. The community should be provided with simple methods to correct any problems that might arise in how functionaries act (example: Custodianship).


 * I favor the idea that being a functionary should not be a big deal. It should be easy for Wikiversity participants to become custodians. We can always use more custodians who can help make sure that the wiki has a quick response to block persistent vandals. I also like the idea of having many custodians because then the work load does not fall too heavily on any individuals. I'm not sure it is healthy to have wiki participants who spend a large fraction of their wikitime doing custodian work. I think Wiki functionaries should spend most of their wikitime making good wiki edits and directly contributing to the goals of the wiki. It should also be easy for the community to demote any functionary that has lost the trust of the community.


 * It is not clear how many bureaucrats are needed in a wiki. Some wikis get by with one or two, other wikis have 5 or 6, some have quite a few more than that. The total number needed is at least in part determined by how many are required to make sure that bureaucrat actions are carried out in a timely fashion. I think it is reasonable to expect bureaucrats to take wiki-breaks and not be "on call" 100% of the time. I suspect this is why quite a few wikis have 5 or 6 bureaucrats, so one is always available to act when needed by the community.


 * I also think it is good practice for community discussions of functionary candidates to include a question and answer section. It would also be useful to have a system for producing a short summary of the editing history of each candidate. --JWSchmidt 05:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2) It has become clear that this RfB may never end for reasons of JWSchmidt's unwillingness to accept the promotion. JWSchmidt, would you be willing to either (1) ask Cormaggio to promote as it is clear beyond all doubt that the entire community consensus is behind this nomination or (2) withdraw the request untill such time as you feel comfortable with receiving the promotion? AmiDaniel (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what happened was: at the launch of Wikiversity Cormaggio was made a bureaucrat and upon feeling uncertain about everything that needed to be done, he went looking for some help. Sebmol was able to step in an provide the needed help, particularly for technical issues like bots. I think if Cormaggio and Sebmol felt that there was a need for another bureaucrat they would probably make some noise. "withdraw the request" <-- I think that's up to Cormaggio. --JWSchmidt 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * -- An obvious choice, JWSchmidt has been active fromj the beginning in reinventing "sysopship" for wikiversity. He has a clear view of the wikiversity mission, and will make wise choices of who should get the keys to the toolshed. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * -- One of the pinnacle contributors here. I support this nomination. RichMac 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * , though the policy stuff will probably come along later. Well, if your half the bureaucrats on the site, and Cormaggio is on break, I guess you could set up any rule you want about when you promote them!--Rayc 06:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooh - being a bureaucrat isn't at all about setting up any old rule you want - that would be terrible. Anyway, I have every confidence that John would use the faith that people entrust him with wisely and fairly. Cormaggio 14:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * -- knows about administration. Good guy. HappyCamper 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * -- will make a great bureaucrat. Heltec  talk
 * --Hillgentleman|User talk:hillgentleman 08:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: this is discussion about bureaucratship. I am a custodian. --JWSchmidt 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong from me as well -- now, seeing as this thing's been going on since August, can we please close it? :D AmiDaniel (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There really is no hurry. I think a higher priority is for the community to draft Bureaucratship. Can the community really do a good job of selecting bureaucrats when we have not decided what bureaucrats will be called upon to do? --JWSchmidt 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I support him to because he seems to have the best insight on what's going on.
 * Strong He is kind and is trustworthy. He will do a great job.--Sir James Paul 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Per above (and a great mentor too!) :-) -- J.Steinbock 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user is marvellous, and has made many great edits improving the wikiversity, and has done well against vandalism I would say. Student Galaxy 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Full per RichMac, he is definitely 'One of the pinnacle contributors here'. Level-headed and helpful (not to mention very reasonable) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --Sir James Paul 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong -- I concur with all of the above. --Kkawohl
 * Full - JWSchmidt (a.k.a. JWSurf) was instrumental in getting Wikiversity up and running. He has been activly involved in a continuous process of moving the project forward since it was just an idea on wikibooks and meta. He understands and is commited to what it takes in establishing and maintaining WV as a vital educational resource for the long haul. CQ 05:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Full I have seen much good come from JWSchmidt. --Remi 21:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very helpful and certainly knows Wikiversity inside out. Xenon 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at JWSchmidt's contribution to Wikiversity, I support him. He is a valuable part of Wikiversity. --Freiberg 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Über He's very active and always helping out. --Devourer09 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A great contributor to this Wikimedia project. An active editor as well as an active sysop Zchenyu 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Always around, always contactable. A great custodian and an obvious choice for bureaucrat.  Chrisfow 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He is a nice and frindly Admin. I think this power is good in his hands. -- Supermark2000 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Support I think the power is in this hands right. --User:Sundance_Raphael 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been here but a few days and JWSchmidt has taken notice and offered support. Leightwing 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Full This user has provided much help and encouragement and is an ideal person for this role Open Research 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my time as probationary custodian - with John being my mentor - I have known him now better and with his views and actions he will certainly be a good person for this job. Erkan Yilmaz ( my talk page, wiki blog ) 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * he was one of the first people i met on here helped out a lot and stayed patient.Eadthem 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong he was the one who got me interested here - ideal candidate --Pumpmeup 11:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong anyone who knows Wikiversity knows JWSchmidt. Countrymike 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Over-whelming support good guy.  Sunderland06  23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --mikeu 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely a good choice. Captain panda 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * -- I haven't been here that long, but he seems to me to be a good choice on the matter. Editorofthewiki 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * -- Judging on JWSchimdt's contributions to en.wv all this time, JWSchimdt is one of the most essential contributors to en.wv in my opinion, and I'm sure he'll be an excellent bureaucrat. --[[Image:Assassingr_signature.svg]]-- (profile|chit chat|email) 09:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Update
Text below was copied from Colloquium.

Hi all, I'd like to revive JWSchmidt's nomination for bureaucratship. I seem to be either away or occupied a fair bit of the time, and I feel Wikiversity needs a bureaucrat who at least checks in once a day! (I'm not sure if Sebmol does any more.) Since there is such overwhelming support, might it be better to say "any objections?"? How about giving this a period of two weeks - here, or on the nomination page? (I should also say, I haven't checked this with JWschmidt, and will leave it to him to decide if reviving this nomination is ok.) Cormaggio talk 10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest a further waiting period of two hours. I think 16 months is already sufficient. --McCormack 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the community values his contributions and strongly supports his nomination. I suggest we wait only as long as it takes for JWSchmidt to accept (and I hope he does.)  --mikeu 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If he accepts, I'm happy to promote him. That's the only thing that has ever stopped me. He had said in the past that another bureaucrat is not necessary. I do not know what his current opinion is in that regard. sebmol ? 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe once a month we have made use of Sebmol to activate a new custodian. Sebmol responds quickly when notified by email. I think it works well to have active editors mentor probationary custodians while having someone like Sebmol who can look at candidates with full objectivity. If I were a bureaucrat, I would still want to have Sebmol (or Cormaggio) be the one to make people custodians in most cases because I am often involved in recruiting people to volunteer to be custodians in the first place. Since I'm usually something of a friend to candidates, I'm not really an objective judge when it comes time to flip a bit for a custodian candidate. Also, as a believer in checks and balances, I'm not sure it makes sense to have CheckUsers as bureaucrats. In my view, bureaucrat work related to custodianship is under control. For a long time I have looked upon my bureaucrat candidacy as a "spare tire" that could be used in an emergency. Since there has been no emergency, maybe the Wikiversity community should think long-term. I've been concerned about the bot situation. In addition to activating new custodians, Sebmol has also been granting bot status. However, I wonder if Wikiversity might benefit from having a more active bureaucrat with an interest in bots. I went out and tried to find people with some useful bots (such as for signing discussion pages when people forget to sign and checking newly added text against existing web content for apparent copyright violations), but those bots do not seem to work now. I do not know much about bots, so I'm fairly useless. Maybe the community should try to find a bureaucrat candidate who would have the time to take an active approach to managing bots for Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wise words, as ever, from JWS. Perhaps a compromise solution, as he vaguely suggests: keep him on the backburner as a bureaucrat-in-waiting who can quickly be appointed if the need should arise. As the community has overwhelmingly supported him, in enormous numbers as well, over a long period of time, there would be no need to repeat the process if we did need a bureaucrat suddenly. Perhaps we can call him a "bureaucrat-elect" (elected but not in office)? It's a nicer word than "spare tire" ;-) --McCormack 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)