Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Jade Knight (full custodian)

Mentor's recommendation for full custodianship
User:Jade Knight has been an active contributer for 2 years and has now completed the probationary custodianship. During this [probationary] period Jade has made over 600 edits to both content and maintenance of wikiverstiy. The work that Jade has been doing is of great benefit to wikiversity, and Jade has also shown a willingness to learn and improve by asking others for feedback. I highly recommend Jade for full custodian. --mikeu talk 14:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting for full custodianship
Please enter vote and a brief comment here.

--mikeu talk 14:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've observed JK cares about the Wikiversity project, is knowledgeable about MediaWiki and Wikimedia projects, is prepared to be bold, but also respects consensus, is responsive to dialogue, and has shown a willingness to learn. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Jade Knight was made a full custodian a while ago. Not sure what happened. Thus this vote. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jade Knight should have been made a full custodian long ago. I am relatively new to Wikiversity, and from Day 1 he reached out to me. It's obvious he's qualifed for the job; he does excellent work here. KirbyPuckettFan 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (talk)

Jade is the man for the job -- he's been mentored, has displayed his vigor and responsibility as a full custodian, and knows what he's doing. Good luck, Jade :) [ Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do? ] 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I find Jade Knight's respect for the consensus process refreshing, and most welcome. As Jtneill rightly points out, this does not mean being bold is verboten, merely that doing so is constrained by community norms. I look forward to working with you in the future. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 02:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On some occasions I've enjoyed discussing topics with Jade Knight and I've learned things from him and I look forward to future collaborative editing with him at Wikiversity. However, I cannot support his candidacy for custodianship at this time. Jade Knight appointed himself as "the bureaucrat" for history at Wikiversity, and I've tried to ignore this absurd self-appointment as largely harmless. I was able to do so until it resulted in a silly page move/rename war with User:Emesee and the removal of Emesee's custodianship. In my view, having Emesee back as a custodian would be worth a half dozen Jade Knights. Jade Knight likes to call other people "agent provocateur" but I think that term is always on his mind because he plays that role himself. It is totally inexcusable for Jade Knight to have claimed the position "bureaucrat for history" at Wikiversity, unilaterally imposed rules for page names and then engineered the removal of Emesee's custodianship when Emesee was the only person who bothered to stand up and challenge Jade Knight's absurd game of playing the role of "bureaucrat for history". Similarly, I'm not happy with Jade Knight for the false and distorted claims he made prior to and during the bad block that was imposed on my editing. I still do not understand why he said he supported the idea of blocking me for "disruptive editing" and I don't understand why he has voiced his support for the absurd abuse of power that was put into effect without community consensus in order to terminate my custodianship. During the community review of his custodianship candidacy Jade Knight played silly games of avoiding answering some of my questions which I feel is totally inexcusable for a custodian, but in keeping with the behavior of his mentor and his mentor's gang who brought to Wikiversity the art of getting rid of the custodians who actually bother to follow Wikiversity policy. As far as I can tell, Jade Knight's past violations of the rollback and civility policies are rather trivial and I probably would not be concerned about them except he has indicated during this community review that he plans to continue treating good faith edits like vandalism. Jade Knight has also indicated that he would like the power to speedy delete any stub page or page that he feels has no value. I do not agree with Jade Knight's view of when a wiki page has no value and I so I must oppose his custodianship because I do not trust him to make good decisions about page deletion, as well as the other reasons I've mentioned. --JWSchmidt 06:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statements contain outright falsehoods: I never appointed myself at any time to be a "the bureaucrat for history", nor did I unilaterally impose rules for page names; you'll notice, that there is discussion about naming conventions at the School of History talk page, and virtually all contributors to the School of History have de facto followed the idea proposed there; Emesee's custodianship was removed for blatant and extreme violation of community trust—he removed comments about his behavior at the the "community review" page and then protected it to prevent them from being re-added; etc. You are either being intentionally deceitful or you have been severely misguided.  Either way, you are frustratingly incorrect on virtually every point you bring up above.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some minor reservations due to his fairly conservative view on scope, but he's certainly trustworthy, abides by consensus, and the discussion below give ample evidence of his ability to keep a cool head. --SB_Johnny talk 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and questions

 * Hi Jade Knight. We chatted about this a bit last week, but I wanted to get your current feelings about how we should approach new projects as they relate to Wikiversity's scope. As I had said elsewhere, my feelings lately have been that projects that resemble textbooks or collections of articles should be encouraged and allowed to progress, since they can always be imported to 'books or copied to 'pedia at a later date, and the important thing is that people feel encouraged and welcomed to contribute wherever they feel most comfortable. I'm not talking about long-abandoned 1-sentence stubs (which is an entirely different issue I assume JWSchmidt will want to ask you about), but rather outlines and multi-page efforts that blur on the wikibooks side of the line. So it's really 2 questions: first, does that sound like a good approach to you? If so, how do you think we can improve our "standard approach" to this sort of thing and how (if at all) can the custodian toolkit be useful in that endeavor? --SB_Johnny talk 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great couple of questions. After giving the matter some thought, I think your approach is a smart one—we want to always encourage positive contributions here, even if they're somewhat misplaced or misguided.  I do think we need to create more opportunities for new users to learn about the distinctions and relationships between Wikiversity, Wikibooks, and Wikipedia, however.  I've been looking at the development of various courses in the School of History over the last few years, and comparing them with some of the projects I've found elsewhere, and I really think we need to figure out both a) how to encourage learner participation in learning projects, and b) how to encourage project-developers to include participatory activities.  I don't know that I have great solutions to either of those issues, though the English Language Reference Desk and French Mentoring projects both have been attempts of mine to make Wikiversity more learner-teacher interactive.  One thing I've been planning to do for a while has been to create a learning project at Wikiversity to explore these things in a peer-focused context.  Alack, I only have so much time to devote to Wikiversity, and cannot do everything at once.  As far as what we as Custodians can do particularly about all this?  I'm not sure, other than providing a good example, being friendly, and facilitating things for others.  I'm open for suggestions, of course.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 17:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but maybe we should avoid describing these efforts as "misplaced or misguided"... rather we should assume they're in the right place, and provide them with guidance, help, and encouragement ;-). I think for some it's difficult to try to organize a set of WP articles (since they're articles, and can't be edited to become course materials because of reversion), and it might be less daunting to come up with a series of lessons than it is to try to write a textbook. --SB_Johnny talk 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was speaking generally, not just about "these" examples. But yes, guidance and help are always helpful.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess what I meant to say is that we should pick our words carefully when discussing the good faith efforts of new contributors. If you cut your hand in the parking lot of the animal hospital, the vet will probably give you a bandage (but probably not stitches) :-). --SB_Johnny talk 10:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I'm too straightforward, I fear. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When should a Wikiversity page be "speedy deleted"? How do you decide when to over-ride another Wikiversity participant who has used a welcome template such as Template:Welcome and expand on a page and propose that such a page be deleted? How do you distinguish between good faith edits of Wikiversity participants and vandalism? Under what conditions should edit revert tools (rollback, undo) be used? When there is a dispute over the name of a Wikiversity page, how should such a dispute be resolved? What do you view as "disruptive editing"? When would you block a wiki editor for "disruptive editing"? Do you think there should be a warning given to "disruptive editors" before they are blocked? Under what conditions can a custodian have their custodianship terminated? Why do you have no interest in allowing Wikiversity participants to experiment with wiki technology and make use of page protection templates? --JWSchmidt 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Broken down for convenience:
 * A page should be speedy deleted when it does not serve a useful function for Wikiversity, and its deletion should be uncontested—examples would be relics of moved pages, pages blanked and them nominated for deletion by their creators, etc.
 * How do you personally decide that a page does not serve a useful function? Do you think there is any difference between "can serve no useful purpose" and "does not serve a useful function"? Does Wikiversity policy support your idea that saying "does not serve a useful function" constitutes a valid reason for speedy page deletion? Why does the Wikiversity policy page for deletion say that "obvious vandalism, obvious copyright violations, or have other content that is obviously harming Wikiversity" are the reasons for speedy deletion? "deletion should be uncontested" <-- If you decide that a page "does not serve a useful function", do you think it is possible that someone else might disagree and contest your decision? --JWSchmidt 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, any page under the sun, including sheer vandalism and sockpuppetry, can serve a useful purpose. Can't get much done if we live in nothing but hypotheticals, can we?  Currently, JWSchmidt, Wikiversity has no established policy on deletion.  So we cannot currently appeal to Wikiversity policy.  I do think we should establish one, however!  It is always possible that someone could disagree and contest my decisions, JWSchmidt.  Even vandals sometimes disagree with and contest the decision to remove their vandalism.  The idea, however, is that one should use one's best judgement.  That is how judging consensus at DR's works.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Can't get much done if we live in nothing but hypotheticals, can we?" <-- Is this question meant to be an answer to my questions about speedy deletion? It is not a "hypothetical" when custodians routinely make speedy deletion decisions. I find your history of page deletion decisions to be highly questionable and your answers to my questions about speedy deletion (above) to be incomplete, flippant and alarming. I am trying to evaluate the quality of your best judgment so I can decide if you can be trusted with the power to delete Wikiversity pages. Your answers and non-answers to my questions give me no confidence that you have the needed maturity and judgment to be trusted with custodianship. "That is how judging consensus at DR's works" <-- can you explain how this is relevant to my questions about speedy deletion? --JWSchmidt 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You said "Do you think there is any difference between "can serve no useful purpose" and "does not serve a useful function"?" The fact is that talking about "can" is talking about hypotheticals.  Is there something you need me to clarify in my response?  I find it very sad, JWSchmidt, that you refused repeated requests (by me and by others) for comment on my contribution history—I am always interested in improving my editing here—but you have insisted on refusing to help me improve my methods of contributing here.  How am I supposed to improve if the users who object to my editing refuse to talk to me about it?  My point about "judging consensus" was simply to illustrate that, in all of these cases, one must use a principle of "best judgment".  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Is there something you need me to clarify in my response?" <-- I am still trying to understand how you make decisions about page deletion and more specifically how you will use your power to speedy delete pages. You started out by saying that you want to delete a page if it "does not serve a useful function for Wikiversity". My view is that your decision that a page does not serve a useful function is not a sound basis upon which to speedy delete a page. You seem to have rejected the idea that speedy deletion is for "obvious vandalism, obvious copyright violations, or have other content that is obviously harming Wikiversity", which, in contrast, I believe is a solid basis upon which to make speedy deletion decisions. I asked you to explain how you decide that a page does not serve a useful function and you replied that you must use a principle of "best judgment". Since I find your decisions about page deletion to often be highly questionable, I'd like to find a way to get you to explain the basis of your "best judgment" about page deletion. Since you apparently reject the existing Wikiversity guidelines for page deletion, can you 1) explain why you do not agree with the existing proposed policy for page deletion and 2) explain the basis of your "best judgment" about page deletion? Since we are running out of time for this community review, let me say that I believe we are going in circles here and that when you say "best judgment" you still mean that you intend to delete any page that you feel serves no useful function. It is clear that you and I often do not agree about when a page serves a useful function, so your preferred approach to speedy deletion will often cause me to contest your decision....but speedy deletion is not supposed to to be controversial. Can you explain why you are trying to become a custodian while proposing a new standard for speedy page deletion which contradicts the definition of speedy deletion? Your approach seems fundamentally disruptive for Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your patience in trying to sort through my comments to get an understanding of my opinions, JWSchmidt. Now, you'll notice that Wikiversity currently has no deletion policy, and Deletion policy has not even started a voting process to gauge consensus.  On the talk page, a few different users (myself included) have posted various concerns.  On the same talk page, you've reiterated your stance on speedy deletion.  Another user, however, thought that the entire policy should be for speedy deletion.  Personally, I think speedy deletion belongs somewhere between the two extremes of your view and his/hers.  But there are no current Wikiversity guidelines to use in deciding speedy deletions.  I would very much appreciate it if you would give examples of pages I have deleted or flagged for speedy deletion which you have found examples of "highly questionable" judgment—it is difficult for me to see why you find my judgment questionable without specific examples.  One final comment here:  I am not "trying to be" a Custodian.  I did not ask to become a Custodian, I am decidedly neutral on becoming a Custodian (as I am not one to seek out greater responsibility), but I am willing to be a Custodian and give it my best, if the community wants me.  And I really have no idea what "definition of speedy deletion" you're talking about; Wikiversity currently has no accepted policy on the matter, and I don't see a definition for speedy deletion at Wiktionary.  However, in an attempt to understand you better, I googled "speedy deletion", and found, as the first result, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.  I must say, my idea of what Speedy Deletion should be used for is quite similar to how it's used at Wikipedia in "general", though much less so for the guidelines they give for using it specifically for "articles" (or the other categories).  However, if you look at the "general" category on that page, that should give you some fair idea of what I feel speedy deletion should be used for.  Is that better?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've actually nominated pages for deletion which I have added welcome templates to. There is no "overriding" involved.  I add those templates (generously developed by McCormack) to any empty or stub page I come across, with few exceptions.  I expect that many others do similarly.  If a page gets nominated for deletion, then the community can weigh the merits of that particular page and determine whether its deletion is more or less likely to further Wikiversity's goals.  I acknowledge that, thankfully, it is not my role to determine whether pages should or should not be deleted, but the community's as a whole.  As a Custodian, it would be my responsibility to listen carefully to the community, of course.
 * You did not answer the question. What I was asking about is a situation where another Wikiversity participant has added a welcome template to a page and then you later decide to try to get that page deleted. In that situation, another Wikiversity participant has called for development of the page and then you call for deletion of the page. Someone else decided that the page should be developed and then you decided to override that decision and try to get the page deleted. The question is, how do you decide that such pages should be nominated for deletion? --JWSchmidt 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have perhaps forgotten that a deletion request is not a done deal, JWSchmidt. The community makes the decision, not the user who nominates the article.  It is therefore the community which overrides either a) the call for expansion of the page, or b) the call for deletion of the page.  In my opinion, this should always be the prerogative of the community.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your continuing failure to answer questions very disturbing. Has your mentor or some other custodian assured you that you will be granted full custodianship even if you do not answer questions that are asked in this community review? --JWSchmidt 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to answer your questions to the best of my ability, JWS. Please let me know if I've missed something (by telling me specifically what I missed), and I'll do my best to answer what I missed, so long as the question is not misleading.  I shouldn't have to say it, but of course no custodian has assured me that I will be granted full custodianship.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Please let me know if I've missed something (by telling me specifically what I missed)" <-- We are not dealing with a difficult of complex question here, so I do not understand why you are having so much trouble answering a simple question. Sometimes you see a page where another Wikiversity participant has placed a welcome template. You then decide that the page should be deleted. How do decide that such pages should be deleted? You seem to feel that this does not involve overriding a decision that was made by the person who added the welcome template. Are you saying that other people place welcome templates on pages without deciding that the page is useful for Wikiversity and should be developed? If you are not comfortable with using the term "override" in this context, then how would you describe what you are doing when you propose deletion of a page that other Wikiversity participants have tried to develop by using a welcome template? --JWSchmidt 20:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused as to why you don't seem to understand that when I place a template on a page, I decide only to place a template on that page. I don't decide if the page will be expanded or improved (unless I specifically work on expanding or improving it).  I don't decide if the page will be deleted.  Etc.  It is the community which decides.  I just choose to notify the community.  Does that not make sense?  This is how I would describe it:  I am notifying the community that a specific page may warrant deletion.  I am not deciding anything (other than to notify the community).  I am not "overriding" anything, either.  Just as, if someone has posted a request for deletion, you would not be "overriding" that request for deletion by adding a "welcome and expand" template to the same page.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is often difficult to distinguish between good faith and bad faith edits (which is why we assume good faith), vandalism is fairly obvious—it is generally disruptive and out of place. Of course, edits are not simply black and white, and edits may be made, of course, which are neither constructive nor vandalism.  There is no need to create false dichotomies here.
 * "vandalism is fairly obvious" <-- I do not understand what you are trying to say. Many wiki editors make distinctions between types of vandalism such as "obvious vandalism" and "sneaky vandalism" and "fairly obvious vandalism" sounds like it might be in the middle where only some people might recognize it as vandalism. "no need to create false dichotomies" <-- I do not understand this response. Are you saying that making a distinction between good faith edits and vandalism is a false dichotomy? Do you agree with the following statement about vandalism from Wikipedia? "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." --JWSchmidt 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that making a distinction between good faith edits and vandalism is a false dichotomy. I am saying that choosing to look at edits either as only a) good faith edits or b) vandalism is a false dichotomy—wiki contributions are a wonderful spread of grey (or indeed many different colors), and not simply black and white.  I find it unhelpful to lump everything into only two different camps; each edit should, of course, be evaluated on its own merits.  While I would agree with that Wikipedia statement in theory, I find that, in practice, it is an unhelpful statement—it is nigh impossible for an external editor to truly judge what contributions were made "in good faith", as mind-reading is not possible.  This is why we assume good faith.  It does not mean, however, that we tolerate disruptive behavior without question, however, even if it is "good faith" disruptive behavior (à la Moulton).  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "an unhelpful statement" <-- I think the utility of that statement is to remind people not to treat good faith edits as if they were vandalism. The reason I'm asking about this is because you sometimes seem to treat what I view as good faith edits like they were vandalism. I agree that there can be edits made in good faith that are misguided or ill-considered or not helpful for the mission of Wikiversity..... how should custodians deal with such edits? If you were unsure that an edit was made in good faith, what would you do in order to try to figure out if an editor is acting in good faith or making sneaky vandalism...particularly for a new editor.....besides mind reading? --JWSchmidt 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that all edits are made in good faith, including vandalism. That does not mean that all edits are appropriate for Wikiversity, of course, or that no edits are vandalism.  But when I say I assume good faith, JWSchmidt, I mean I assume good faith for all edits.  Not just the edits I choose to assume good faith for.  So, for me, it is unhelpful to draw a distinction between "good faith edits" and "other edits", as all edits should be taken as having been made in good faith.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my mind, Undo and Rollback convey different connotations, and should be used in different contexts. Rollback should be used only in circumstances where it seems evident that the edit was vandalism, a test edit, or similar cases where the use of rollback is most likely to be uncontroversial and uncontested.  If a Custodian can foresee that certain users might find a reversion controversial, they should use the "undo" function, instead, and clearly explain why they are reverting in the description field.  While no Custodian can possibly foresee all opinons regarding a reversion, common sense should suffice in the vast majority of cases.
 * At Rollback it says "This tool is used to respond to obvious vandalism." Do you agree that, "When a custodian reverts an edit that is not obvious vandalism the rollback button shouldn't be used"? Do you think this statement applies to "undo": "Any other mechanism for reverting edits that does not involve providing an edit summary specific for each reversion should also only be used for obvious vandalism"? Do you agree with the following? "Rolling back a good-faith edit without explanation may be misinterpreted as 'I think your edit was no better than vandalism and reverting it doesn't need an explanation'." --JWSchmidt 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with that first statement as a general guideline, yes: Edits which are obviously vandalism, test edits, and the like are the only edits which should be rolled back. The "undo" function, however, leaves room for edit summaries (per your quote), and so is different than rollback in this regard.  Does that answer your question?  I do not agree with your last statement, as it draws, IMO, a false dichotomy between "good faith edits" and "vandalism".  Vandalism can also be done "in good faith", and it is nigh impossible for any editor to know which edits are good faith, and which are not.  Using the rollback tool to revert any edit, however, does send the message "Your edit appears to have been clearly inappropriate in this context, and reverting it should not need an explanation."  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, as a custodian you intend to use vandalism-reverting tools like rollback to revert non-vandalism edits and good faith edits without providing an edit summary that will explain why you are reverting? Can you give an example of an edit that would be vandalism done in good faith? --JWSchmidt 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any disruptive editing may be done in good faith, JWSchmidt—vandals may come here to try to prove a point in good faith. Moulton evaded a community ban despite requests that he respect the community and not do so, but I believe he was acting in good faith (albeit disrespectfully and sometimes disruptively).  Emesee's abuse of Custodial tools, I believe, was done in good faith—he was trying to honestly protect (inappropriately) Wikiversity in the way he particularly thought Wikiversity should be protected.  Etc.  I don't choose to see any edits or actions which come here as in bad faith, regardless of how inappropriate or unacceptable they may be; I understand that we all have differing viewpoints and priorities.  As a Custodian, I intend to use tools as they are intended to be used; When to use Rollback should give you a good idea of the kinds of situations I would find it appropriate to use the Rollback tool in (to wit: "to revert edits which are clearly unproductive").  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus should be respected, with greater weight being given to a) those who specifically voice their reasoning in a clear and rational manner, and respond to objections, b) those who are most actively involved at the page(s) in question, and c) those who created or contributed significantly to that page in the past. The latter two elements of this are, of course, a simple matter of respect.  A willingness to discuss is, of course, very important to those who strive to develop consensus.
 * Do you agree with Naming conventions where it says: "Page names, category names, and header titles use sentence case: lowercase letters are used at the start of second words and subsequent words except when they are proper nouns."? --JWSchmidt 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, and several other editors have voiced disagreement with that statement as well. There is a reason that that proposed policy has more than twice as many votes against it as it has for it.  I consider it to be fully rejected in its current form by the community.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "several other editors have voiced disagreement with that statement as well" <-- Please name those editors and summarize how they each specifically voice their reasoning in a clear and rational manner, and respond to objections. If you feel that "Page names, category names, and header titles use sentence case" has been rejected by the Wikiversity community (which I do not agree has ever happened), isn't it your responsibility to write an alternative policy to replace it and show that your alternative has the support of the community or is it you view that the name of every page must decided by consensus on an individual, page-by-page basis? Since we are running out of time for this discussion, let me jump to what seems to be your actual position. Do you think that an individual such as yourself can self-proclaim to be "the bureaucrat" for a Wikiversity subject area and then decide unilaterally on naming conventions for pages you have taken ownership of? --JWSchmidt 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that this would become an argument over the relative value of those individuals as members of the Wikiversity community if I were to heed your request. JWSchmidt, please realize that this is a review of whether or not I should become Custodian, not you or any other user, and the purpose of this review is not to discuss the actions or beliefs of any other user—I was simply pointing out what should be fairly obvious.  If you look at the talk page of that project, however, you will notice at least two other users who have specified opposition to that sentence.  You're welcome to take any disagreement you may have with them up with them on a relevant talk page.  And, JWSchmidt, is it my responsibility to write every single policy which Wikiversity lacks?  I should think not!  I do not have an infinite amount of time, and I cannot be expected to unilaterally write any policy which may be lacking at Wikiversity—my main work here, in my opinion, is not to be had in the Wikiversity namespace, though I certainly try to contribute where I can to the developments there.  And you should know by now, JWSchmidt, that I strongly dislike taking any administrative action unilaterally!  I do not purport to decide unilaterally on anything; I believe that the community of every project, however, should certainly have the right to adopt a naming convention which is most suitable to their purposes.  Think about it this way:  It would be absurd to force articles written in Psychology to adapt MLA conventions and refuse to let them use APA.  It would be ridiculous to force the History department to use APA and refuse to let them use Chicago when citing their sources, etc.  Different subjects and different communities may have different standards in how they expect things to be done.  These differences should be honoured and respected.  Community consensus, as always, should prevail.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing could be a wide variety of things, and it would certainly be beyond the scope of my review to discuss it ad nauseam. However, taking a Stewart approach to it should serve well in almost all cases, remembering that consensus should be respected where disagreements occur.  We may safely say that vandalism is an example of disruptive editing, but I am particularly reluctant to block users for single-occurance vandalism.  Additionally, I would like to see more Custodians employ shorter blocks at Wikiversity, even in the case of vandalism: instead of creating indefinite blocks, why not simply block a user for a month, or three months?  If they come and edit disruptively again, the account could be blocked for a year, and so on.  In my mind, everyone should deserve a second (and third) chance, at least in some respects and at an appropriate time.
 * But, to whit: I could foresee blocking disruptive editors in circumstances of a) repeat vandalism, or b) continued disruptive editing, which goes against consensus (and even then only after a clear warning and corresponding opportunity for change has been given which explains exactly what is disruptive about the editing).  In severe circumstances, highly disruptive editing may require a very short (24-hour) block to enable things to settle or an intermediary to step in, though generally temporary page protection would be preferable to this if the disruption has arisen simply over a disagreement over page content.  And, of course, a Custodian should never block a user or protect a page for a conflict they are a part of.  If necessary, an outside Custodian should be brought in to mediate and handle the situation.
 * In the context of a wiki website, doesn't "disruptive editing" mean edits that disrupt the mission of the wiki? You've said that some of my edits have been "extremely disruptive" and that you support the idea of blocking me from editing for disruptive editing. Can you provide links to my edits that are "extremely disruptive"? "a Custodian should never block a user or protect a page for a conflict they are a part of" <-- do you think Page protection should be a policy page and include a statement such as, "never protect a page during an editing conflict that you are involved in"? --JWSchmidt 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated, I have never supported any efforts or proposals to block you to date. Review of disruptive editing on your part can be found at Request custodian action/Review of JWSchmidt.  If you need specifics from me, I would be glad to discuss your review in further detail, but this is not the place for it.  The purpose of the review of my suitability for custodianship is not to evaluate your actions, JWSchmidt.  I do not think it would be helpful to make Page protection a policy in its current form.  However, I would certainly not be opposed to the creation of a policy governing page protection.  But it would make much more sense to me to alter Custodianship to include the relevant "rules", instead of making a separate policy over the matter, as page protection is something which only Custodians can be involved with.  I do think that there should be something explicit at Custodianship advising Custodians that they should, if at all possible, avoid using Custodian tools of any sort in a conflict which they are involved in.  If tools must be used, it is best to ask another Custodian to use them.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "I would be glad to discuss your review in further detail, but this is not the place for it" <-- I do not agree. You participated in the review and you were one of the people who made false claims about my editing, you have falsely claimed that I had a chance to respond to those false charges before I was blocked, you have said that you support the idea of blocking me for disruption and you have said that you support the removal of my custodianship. You called me a whiner for pointing out that I was blocked without a valid reason being given when I was blocked from editing. I demand that you list my edits which you view as "extremely disruptive". I'd also like to know what kind of "disruption" you were thinking about when you said that you support the idea of blocking me for disruptive editing. As a custodian, is it your intention to demonstrate your civility by routinely calling people whiners when they point out that they were subjected to a bad block or was that special treatment just for me? I still would like an answer to this question: In the context of a wiki website, doesn't "disruptive editing" mean edits that disrupt the mission of the wiki? --JWSchmidt 03:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've answered this. To repeat:  Yes, except for in extreme circumstances (see above).
 * I believe it is the right of the Wikiversity community to terminate the Custodianship of any Custodian they feel no longer adequately represents Wikiversity. While there are some clear grounds for termination for Custodianship, such as major and deliberate policy violations, major abuse of Custodial tools, and the like, if there is consensus to remove any Custodian from their position at Wikiversity, then the community, in my opinion, has the right to request (and see to) their removal.  Custodians should be considered sterling examples of Wikiversity Participants, and if they don't have the trust of their community, they may not deserve the responsibility.
 * You have recently participated in disputes with two custodians that resulted in their custodianship being terminated. Can you explain the basis in Wikiversity policy for how the custodianship of those two Wikiversity custodians was terminated? Other Wikiversity custodians have violated policy and yet remain as custodians; can you explain why policy violators are made into custodians while other custodians who have not violated policy have their custodianship removed? --JWSchmidt 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not the individual(s) who terminated the Custodianship of those two Custodians, so I cannot tell you the reasons involved in the termination of their Custodianship. If you'll read what I have posted above, however, you'll notice that I believe that the community has a right to terminate the Custodianship of anyone they feel does not adequately represent Wikiversity in a positive manner.  I can also not tell you why certain individuals have been made Custodians, as I do not purport to speak for the entire Wikiversity community, and I have also not sysopped anyone.  So, as you see, I can neither speak at an individual, decision-based level, nor at a community-based level.  You're more than welcome to ask my own particular opinion on specific cases, however, and why I voted or commented the way I did.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have said that you support the removal of my custodianship. Can you explain the basis in policy for how my custodianship was removed? My custodianship was removed by a gang that conspired in secret off wiki to make false charges against me, blocked me without warning before I could respond to their false charges, tried to justify their bad block of my editing and the removal of my custodianship by pointing to the false charges that were made against me and banned me from #wikiversity-en without warning, discussion or reason given.... a ban which has never been lifted. Is it your intention as a custodian to continue supporting such abuses of power? You proclaimed yourself "bureaucrat of history" at Wikiversity and unilaterally imposed a new rule for page naming which resulted in a ridiculous page move/rename war with User:Emesee and removal of his custodianship. What is the basis in policy for you to claim the role of "bureaucrat of history" at Wikiversity? What was the basis in policy for the removal of Emesee's custodianship? --JWSchmidt 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mu. You've asked a question which makes false assumptions.  You're welcome to rephrase your question and repose it, however.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "You've asked a question which makes false assumptions" <-- Please tell me what those false assumptions are. User:Wmciver expressed an interest in protecting Wikiversity course materials from editing. Your response was to suggest that he create his own wiki. Another editor later expressed similar concerns about protecting Wikiversity course materials from editing and you again suggested that the "most logical thing" was for such protected course materials to be hosted at another website. Rather than help these editors find a solution to their concerns (such as using page protection templates) you made unwelcoming comments such as saying that protected pages would not be wiki content and that they should take their course materials to other websites. There is no rule that says every Wikiversity page has to be open to editing by everyone. If some Wikiversity participants want to select their collaborators for the development of learning resources, why not help them do so rather than tell them to go to other websites? --JWSchmidt 02:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The false assumption was that I am not interested in allowing users to use such templates, etc. You asked me, in essence "why do you oppose", when I "do not oppose".  This would make any question of why I oppose inherently erroneous.  I also disagree with your characterization of my remarks as "unwelcoming".  I would appreciate it if you would please try to avoid using further such loaded rhetoric.  I have not said that educators "should take their course materials to other websites".  I do not believe, however, that Wikiversity is the ideal place for content which a creator absolutely does not want others to edit.  We are currently bound by the current limitations of the software.  However, if you've watched my editing history enough, you'll know that I have voiced support for giving content creators greater control over their content here, and I have always been an advocate for respecting those who create useful content here.  Part of respecting content creators is giving due weight to special requests they make at project pages they have developed.  Your last question likewise depends on similar misunderstandings—I certainly think that due respect should always be given to content creators here, whatever their reasonable demands might be.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still baffled as to why you, as a supporter of the use of page protection templates, rather than helping these two editors with their expressed desire to protect learning resources at Wikiversity from editing, told them "you're free to create your own wiki using the MediaWiki software" and "The most logical thing for content that is not intended to be wiki content is simply to host it elsewhere on a private website". Your comments were unwelcoming because rather than acknowledge their concerns and help them think through options for meeting their concerns here at Wikiversity your comments encouraged them to take their learning resources to other websites and thus not make them available at Wikiversity as the editors desired...further, you made the false claim that protected pages are not wiki content. It seems to me that this particular unwelcoming behavior on your part is part of a pattern in your editing that includes other unwelcoming actions such as removal of good faith edits of other Wikiversity participants by edits made either with no edit summary or misleading edit summaries, by use of vandalism revert tools or proposed deletion of pages with good faith edits and welcome templates. I'm also baffled by what you must think "welcoming" means since you once said that I was not welcoming when I tried to prevent a Wikiversity user's page from having biographical information, scholarly references and links to learning resources removed from the page. --JWSchmidt 04:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what JWSchmidt wants to know is whether you feel that instructors should be able to have some confidence that the pages they create for an ongoing class session will be left alone during the duration of the class. My own question would be about whether you think it's appropriate to use page protection for this. A step further would be: if someone edits a page they're not "supposed" to edit, should the block tool be used? (I don't think so, but it's a logical next step if we're going to take this sort of "protection" seriously.) I know you're not being elected as policy-maker-in-charge here, but it is an interesting dilemma, so please share your ponderings :-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that, if they have a legitimate reason for it (which, to be honest, could be almost anything), their wishes regarding authorship of the page's content should be respected within reason (i.e., if they start publishing information which others consider false, some explaining may be in order...). Forking could be encouraged.  I think the important thing, however, is simply that all interaction should be conducted with respect in mind—respecting those who create content, as well as those who come to learn.  I personally do not think that using page protection in such contexts would be beneficial, as then the author would not be able to edit the page in question (unless said person was a Custodian, but that sounds a little unfair to me, to have this be a privelege reserved strictly for Custodians).  I think blocking would be entirely inappropriate unless those editing the page are doing so to be expressly disruptive (i.e., vandalism, etc.) instead of genuinely attempting to improve the content there.  But these are, remember, only my opinions, and I would gladly submit to consensus and future policy on all these issues.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What would you consider a legitimate reason to protect pages? Do you think protecting pages for courses is a good idea? What do you consider a reasonable amount of time to protect pages? Do you think allowing protection for pages used in a course could lead to abuse by people who do not disagree with the usual wiki model of collaboration? How do you propose to deal with this dilemma which could down the road if left unchecked lead to an environment where everyone has to create their own fork instead of working together, because "User A was able to have their version protected and didn't have work together so why should I?" type of attitude? Do you think there might be better way than page protection or asking people not to edit pages that would encourage educators and instructors to use and contribute to Wikiversity? Do you think there is a way that educators and instructors could become more open to the idea of open collaboration rather than Wikiversity having to change in order to appeal to educators and instructors? The other extreme from SB_Johnny's question: Do you think Wikiversity custodians should block instructors and educators who revert good faith edits or try to limit who can edit pages? --darklama 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate" is a funny word, given that we have no policies on the matter. While protecting pages for courses, given the current circumstances, does not sound like a particularly good idea to me right now, I would hate to rule out the possibility entirely—I would like to see an experiment with a high-profile project involving extensive community discussion on the matter.  Then we could all make more informed decision.  Assuming your next question intended "do not agree", I could certainly see people creating content and not wanting to "share" it in a wiki-fashion.  Whether this would be abuse or not, I'm not sure.  Your next question is highly hypothetical—any response on my part would be wildly speculative.  I have, however, always tried to support and encourage users to collaborate and participate on the same page as eachother—I think that, given the current circumstances of Wikiversity, forking is much less beneficial than cooperating right now—regardless of whether pages are protected or not.  There may be such a way—but the nature of people, especially educators, I've found, is to want to resist new things.  Some educators will will latch onto the wiki model readily (as Jtneill has done).  Others won't look at it no matter how you present it.  I am, unfortunately, no expert in education outreach.  To your last question:  if such things were happening, discourse would be key to resolving issues maturely.  Only after thorough efforts at resolving the problems via conversation have proved unfruitful could such blocks be considered (if necessary to curtail disruptive behavior), and even then I would prefer they be temporary.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the questions above relate to the existence or non-existence of policies. For example, the use of rollback is brought up (an "official" but never-discussed policy) in relation to reverting disruptive edits, and the lack of a policy specifically noting that you shouldn't protect a page where you're engaged in a dispute. So three questions to ponder: 1) what's your take on common-sense vs. (generally absent) policies when confronted with a problem that needs solving? 2) Should the "speedy-officialized" policies from 2006 and early 2007 be de-flagged as proposals? and 3) While (again) you're not being nominated for policy-maker-in-charge here, do you have any ideas for how to move forward with the creation/amending/approving of policies so we're not always in the dark about them? --SB_Johnny talk 10:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely think common sense should prevail as much as possible. Some people, sadly, seem to have little in the way of common sense, and so important elements of "common-sense" handling of things should be turned into policy, where appropriate, to help inform such individuals of what they should expect will be supported and opposed here (at a community-based level) at Wikiversity.  This is a service, however, and just because there is no official policy on a matter does not mean, in an adequately disruptive situation, Custodians should have their hands tied and be unable to effective address the problem using common sense (and, as much as possible, community consensus).
 * The "speedy-officialized" policies should all be placed under review by the community to be rejected or accepted in their own rights by the community. In my opinion, no policy should exist at Wikiversity without community support, period (though I do understand that a select few policies come to us as mandates and are absolutely non-negotiable).
 * It's a great thing to ask, but I'm afraid I'm just not sure about that. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is simply getting more voices to be heard—when only two or three people work on and comment on a policy, it's very difficult to get a sense of community consensus regarding it.  Perhaps we should broadcast more loudly which policies are under development and review, to get more of the community involved in them?  In my opinion, lack of involvement is the greatest hindrance to development of policies currently.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

section break
We're winding down a bit here so I'd like to see some of the concerns JWSchmidt has pointed to above answered. Here's the meat of the questions:
 * While your deletion logs to date seem routine, JWSchmidt seems to be concerned that you will interpret your full custodian status as a license to perform speedy deletions on the sorts of pages that you have recently nominated for deletion on WV:RFD. Is his concern valid?
 * Do you think the current deletion policy needs updating? If not, will you abide by and respect the current deletion policy?
 * I'm not absolutely sure, but I think JWSchmidt feels that if a fellow contributor adds the we template to a page, that contributor's feelings, intent, and effort should be taken into account before nominating the page for deletion. Do you agree?

I hope I've captured the gist of what John wants to ask about, and that this is a bit more clear for you to answer. --SB_Johnny talk 01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not intend to change my nomination pattern after becoming a Custodian—the pages I flag for speedy deletion now are the same sorts of pages I intend to flag in the future, unless the community at large thinks I am currently doing a shoddy job of it. I believe I have posted an explanation above of some general guidelines I follow when deciding this factor.
 * 2) We have no current deletion policy, and the current proposed policy definitely needs updating, as comments on the talk page (including my own) show.
 * 3) I don't see the adding of a welcome template to involve any more feeling, intent, and effort than adding a stub template. It's simply an administrative task one engages in to notify the community where work needs to be done.  It does not alter the nature of the page in question unless work is done on that page as a result of it.  In the same sense, it does not alter whether or not the page should be deleted, though whoever added the template is more than welcome to voice their feelings and intent at the RfD entry, and their feelings will certainly be taken into account in determining community consensus.  Does that answer your question?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, almost. I think it's more of a sense of "having a personal stake" in pages one adds we to. I think what he's suggesting is that when you add the template, you're essentially making a personal request for content about a subject you'd like to learn about and/or think it's important to have content about. I'm not saying I agree, but I think that's what he's trying to express. --SB_Johnny talk 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, people use that template to simply point out a page needs to be expanded; I have seen absolutely no indication that any user at Wikiversity uses it only on pages they particularly want to learn more about, unless they want to learn more about everything (which defeats the purpose of being selective and having a particular investment in any specific topic, does it not?), though I do not rule out the possibility that some user might potentially use it that way. As for my part, I certainly don't use it in that fashion.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 01:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Status granted
✅ - with nearly unanimous support, Jade Knight is a full custodian. --SB_Johnny talk 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)