Wikiversity talk:Custodianship: Difference between revisions

Let's use this page for centralized discussion of the Wikiversity name for "sysop". --JWSchmidt 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a log of IRC #wikiversity-en for today, that resulted in the idea to try to use "custodians" rather than "administrators" the refer to "sysops". --JWSchmidt 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

(edited for readability and brevity)

<snip>
guillom: *sigh* we have 4 sysop candidates
<snip>
sebmol: what if we didn't call them administrators on wikiversity

<many alternative names discussed: >
sebmol: housekeepers
SB_Johnny: janitors…..It carries a connotation
sebmol: it does…..one i'm not sure i like
SB_Johnny: Caretakers
sebmol: it is similar. but the connotation is a little better
sebmol: i like caretaker. even just Staff would be fine
SB_Johnny: Hey, how about comrade? :)
sebmol: janistrator?
SB_Johnny: Wikiworker
JWSchmidt: Staff has meaning in conventional universities
JWSchmidt: "process facilitators"?
SB_Johnny: Facilitator is good too.
SB_Johnny: Gilly is the scottish word for the guy who takes care of the estate, keeps poachers out of the woods, etc.
guillom: Trustguys
guillom: Assistants
guillom: friends ? :)
JWSchmidt: wikiservant
JWSchmidt: wikistaff
JWSchmidt: wikifacilitator
JWSchmidt: "community support staff"
JWSchmidt: community facilitator
JWSchmidt: consensus facilitator
JWSchmidt: consensus helper
JWSchmidt: process facilitator
JWSchmidt: "community process facilitator"
<snip>
cormaggio has joined channel #wikiversity-en
<snip>
cormaggio: i was wondering if we should have some sort of nomination system and not voting system for choosing admins?
<snip>
JWSchmidt: adminship should be "no big deal"
sebmol: many people perceive adminship as a big deal, as a confirmation of their work, as a means to climb the ladder, as a special badge, etc.
sebmol: that's why we talked about a different term earlier
cormaggio: what did you come up with?
sebmol: i think the serious ones were staff, facilitator and caretaker
sebmol: JWSchmidt: correct me if I misinterpreted that
JWSchmidt: we did not find a "best" choice
cormaggio: hmm, facilitator should be about helping people learn
cormaggio: not blocking Ip addresses :-D
sebmol: no, we didn't. there was also a lot of noise ;-)
sebmol: agreed
<snip>
JWSchmidt: I would like to see a new name
cormaggio: janitor?
cormaggio: was that already suggested?
guillom: cormaggio, it was
sebmol: my personal favorite is staff because it's non-descript. it doesn't imply any hierarchy or privilege
sebmol: but i can live with janitor too
cormaggio: does staff not imply that they are being paid?
sebmol: i've run events with volunteers before and they were all called staff. there was no paid position
cormaggio: true - as with the recent Wikimania, which I have a "staff" t-shirt for..
JWSchmidt: "janitorial staff"
sebmol: JWSchmidt: you seem to like compound words a lot
cormaggio: personally, i like short names/titles
JWSchmidt: just brain storming
cormaggio: one-worded

JWSchmidt: custodian
sebmol: it's gotta be snappy so people adopt it
sebmol: custodian would be fine with me
sebmol: could we all live with custodian?
cormaggio: custodian is ok by me actually
cormaggio: caretaker?
SB_Johnny: custodian is nice...
Dvorty|gone points out that the Spanish Wikipedians/Wiktionarians call admins "Wikitecarias"
Dvorty|gon: or approximately "wikibrarians"
<snip>
cormaggio: A Wikiversity custodian is a trusted user who follows and enforces policy for protection of pages from vandalism and blocking vandals from editing. Custodians also have the power to delete pages that the community has deemed unnecessary. cormaggio: ?
sebmol: A Wikiversity custodian is a trusted user who can protect, delete and restore pages as well as block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community concensus.
sebmol: a little less wordy
sebmol: that they follow policy is assumed, if they wouldn't, they would be neither trusted nor users ;-)
cormaggio: sure - i like yours better actually sebmol
Rayc: that looks good sebol
JWSchmidt: I think "custodian" will work
cormaggio: yes
cormaggio: yes, john, so put it up on the wiki, i suppose..
sebmol: should we move pages?
JWSchmidt: at least on the admin policy page for discussion
JWSchmidt: I hate decisions that are only on IRC
JWSchmidt: unless emergencies
cormaggio: well, making it so on the wiki is a reversible action - if peopel agree they leave it, if they don't they'll edit
JWSchmidt: true
JWSchmidt: Be bold
sebmol: be bold
cormaggio: yep
sebmol: JWSchmidt: i'm a fan of taking action, especially on wikis
JWSchmidt: wiki is reversible
JWSchmidt: do it
JWSchmidt: we are acting with honest good intentions
<snip>
cormaggio: John - i'd say all policies etc discussed on this channel must be discussed on wiki or on mailing list
JWSchmidt: okay
cormaggio: no decisions made on this channel are binding

"you will be approved for temporary custodianship"
At the start of Wikiversity there was a pressing need for some custodians who could protect the project from vandals. I hope we have enough people watching for vandalism at this time. I think we could afford to allow a minimum of 5 days for community discussion of new candidated for custodianship.
suggested change: "you will be approved for temporary custodianship after a 5 day comment period if you have a mentor and a bureaucrate is willing to activate you as a sysop" --JWSchmidt 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I want to go on the record that I am very much concerned to weekly opposed to this process of creating those with sysop status that is granting it to just about everybody who asks for it. This is primarily from the viewpoint that this is such a huge departure from the way it has been done on almost all of the other Wikimedia projects that it seems as though the experience and wisdom of the experience on the other Wikimedia projects is getting lost in the process.

First of all and most important, we can't "de-sysop" people locally. This to me is the #1 issue that can throw a bug into the whole process and stop it cold. As I tried to explain on the IRC channel (not listed above), we absolutely need to get the strong support of the stewards before we go off and institute this very liberal policy of granting sysop status. While policy states that stewards need to act on behalf of established policy on each project, I have seen an incredible relutance on the part of stewards getting involved in local projects even when there is very clear project support for a certain action. Even to the point of reversing the decisions of some local projects. A classic for me is the absolute apathy that stewards have for performing checkuser scans when then are explictly requested by project admins (I've done it) that go unresolved for months. I've even taken them down because the stewards simply don't even seem to care. The same could be said about admin requests that take weeks to be reviewed, and even bureaucrat requests that have taken over a month to be acknowledged.

I will also acknowledge that stewards are usually involved with other projects and don't check the steward pages constantly or as faithfully as perhaps is needed, but the point here is that if we have somebody who is getting out of hand with the admin options, it is very difficult or even impossible to stop them except by wheel warring. BTW, I got into a wheel war with Jimbo of all people, and it wasn't pretty.

Another huge issue that is of concern, and this has been raised on many forums including Foundation-l, is that custodians have access to deleted content. This also includes copyright violations and other inflamatory content that is often better left alone. One particular Wikibook that was deleted (for a good reason) has been formally requested by several individuals to have it "undeleted" so they can have a copy of it, and put me in a real awkward situation as an admin.

On the other hand, the merit that this whole concept is to remove the "elitism" that exists currently among the admins and bureaucrats on other Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia. It has been widly acknowledged that becoming an admin on Wikipedia is incredibly difficult, and the standards are getting even harder. To the point that even honest and generally trusted users are getting turned down simply because of these increasingly higher standards. If there were dozens or even hundreds of people with sysop privileges here, we can all keep each other in check just as we all do anyway in terms of reviewing content on a regular basis.

Finally, I want to make mention that ordinary registered users can help combat vandalism and other project issues about as well as admins. You can mark pages for deletion, revert edits, move pages, create new pages, and access almost every page on the Wiki with very few exceptions. There are even protections available now that make pages editable only for registered users, so we can help fight off anon users who might try to vandalize prominent pages (such as has happened with Wikiversity:Main Page).

Also, the sysop privileges are not needed at all for anybody who wants to form a learning experience, nor those who want to participate in those learning groups. This really is the janitor crew that cleans up after everybody, and has the "keys" to the buildings so they can do that cleanup which is necessary. --Robert Horning 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

case study. We already had our first removal of sysop permissions. As shown at Wikiversity:Custodian requests, User:Mirwin requested to be removed from the sysop ranks at 06:14, 20 August 2006. At 07:57, 20 August 2006, User:Sebmol requested that a Steward remove sysop status from Mirwin. By 8:15 it was done. Wikiversity custodianship: easy come, easy go. --JWSchmidt 17:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to note that while this is good so far as it goes (a statistical study of n=1 BTW), I am concerned about long-term issues related to Wikiversity. That said, Wikiversity seems to be getting incredible support from developers and other interested supporters including stewards, and some people who know the difference between the official places to make requests and where to really make them if you want them done (there is a huge difference here.... documentation on Meta is absolutely horrid on this point and I think somewhat deliberate). This example doesn't change my mind but rather seems to demonstrate a good ol' boys club that simply should not be right now. --Robert Horning 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean about an "ol' boys club", "where to really make" requests, and "deliberate" bad documentation. If any of these systems (on Meta) are not as efficient as you would like them to be, please tell the people who monitor those pages, or make it clearer by editing them. It is true that you can get swift action on IRC (if that's what you're referring to here) by pinging a developer - hey, that's the one and only reason I'm a bureaucrat* - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get swift action on Meta (within reason). Or have I somehow missed your point, perhaps? Cormaggio 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to add that Custodian status is not given to anybody who wants it. There's a process that needs to be followed and capacities that constrain new custodianships. Right now, for example, we have several candidates without mentors. As long as there are no mentors available, requests for custodianship will not be granted which I think is a very wise decision. Once the two custodians currently in mentorship emerge, they can take on their own mentees. -- sebmol ^? 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict: slightly duplicating what Seb is saying, but I'll paste it in anyway): I'd also have to say, in response to Robert's main point above - that I agree we shouldn't get too laissez-faire about handing out custodianship - I fully agree with your earlier point about simply getting stuck in and helping out in the numerous way anyone can without needing those few extra custodian abilities. I would only say that we have been fairly casual about it in our first week in order to get the importing (from meta and wikibooks) we need to do done, and to keep a general eye on things. And we don't have too many that we can't monitor eachother - and, as you can see, not every request on WV:CC has been acted on. Cormaggio 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rename admins to janitors - discussion at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was some discussion at IRC #wikiversity-en about the possibility of becoming a custodian without having a mentor. Should there be a process by which a custodian candidate could ask for community evaluation/discussion/support and then be made a custodian without having a mentor? --JWS 15:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the end if it leads to a better wiki(versity), the means for becoming custodian is not important.

Custodians should be seen only as normal users, which have access to tools to help the community. The power to decide still is in the hands of the community - we are wiki.

Probably there will be many pro and contras, but how about doing this in Wikiversity style ? Let's evaluate this with an experiment to learn from it. ----Erkan Yilmaz (my talk page, wiki blog) 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

At Requests for Custodianship it says "Candidacies that have not secured a mentor within one week are archived". We could just remove that and replace it with, "If you do not have a mentor, try to gather community support for you candidacy. If you get a show of support then you can ask a bureaucrat to start your one month probationary period without a mentor."
--JWSchmidt 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the moment there is a pilot project running for all wikimedia project custodians. More info at beta, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

While reviewing the history of this page I noticed that JWSchmidt changed this policy from a proposal to an official policy on 12 February 2007. However I am having trouble finding any discussion or vote that took place either on this talk page or on the talk page for Wikiversity:Policies at around the time of the change. Now I don't doubt or question that such a discussion or vote took place, but I think proving a link to the discussion or vote could help improve or reaffirm things for anyone confused over what appears to be inconsistencies in the establishment of policies, guidelines and processes on Wikiversity. --darklama 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• In the light of this unexplained change, and the subsequent changes to the policy for which I can also find no wide discussion and agreement, I think we must change this policy back to proposed. --McCormack 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The changes should be discussed, not simply inserted into an official policy. --McCormack 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Original version: "If you are not nominated for full custodianship, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. If you are unable to find a new mentor, you will lose your custodianship status but you may reapply for a new mentorship period."

• Proposed variant #1 by User:Darklama: "If your mentor evaluates you as unfit for permanent custodianship at any time during your probationary period, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. You may however reapply at a later date."

• Proposed variant #2 by User:McCormack: "If you are not nominated for full custodianship, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor, or alternatively you may nominate yourself for full status. If you are unable to find a new mentor or secure the immediate approval of the community for full status, you will lose your custodianship status but you may reapply for a new mentorship period."
  • I prefer this one. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • It seems like may be prudent to allow for the community to grant full status, but I think the word "immediate" should be removed from the last sentence. Emesee 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the sense in this process of 48 hours to find a new mentor, to be honest. (48 hours from when exactly?) I think it is fine for the mentor to give an evaluation: either positive, negative, or a recommendation for a further mentoring period. This evaluation could be opened to discussion for a set period - say, a week. If consensus is positive, full custodianship is conferred; if clearly negative, custodian rights are removed; or, where appropriate, a further mentoring period is renewed, with a new mentor only if the original mentor has decided not to do so. Any problems with this? Cormaggio ^talk 09:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can agree with this, too. Sounds simpler, and friendly to all concerned. --McCormack 10:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, 48 hours could be uneccessarily short - a week sounds fairer. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jtneill, Interesting. In what sense is it fairer? A candidate custodian is someone whom wikiversity would sufficiently trust as an editor, but not as a custodian. Why should wikiversity leave the candidate unsupervised for a week? And in the interim, should the candidate be allowed to touch the custodial tools? Hillgentleman|Talk 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, fair enough hillgentleman - 48 hours to find or new mentor or self-nominate for full status or lost tools - but I gather removal of tools from a probationary custodian is going to take longer than this to achieve, wouldn't it? I gather it requires "community consensus" that the tools be removed before the request is made to WMF?. So, how would this work here on WV in practice? e.g., the scenario is: a probationary custodian's mentor withdraws during the candidacy, the candidate doesn't find a mentor, and doesn't self-nominate for full custodianship. 48 hours passes - what takes place then? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stewards are allowed to remote the tools without discussion if its part of the community's policy, because a community's policy is based on "community consensus". This happens on English Wikibooks for instance due to inactivity, no discussion is required before removal if the criteria for inactivity are met. Just requires pointing to the relevant information like there contribution history and the log for them, to show the criteria has been met on English Wikibooks. Similarly if English Wikiversity wants custodians who have not gotten the approval of the community, there mentor or not secured a new mentor within 48 hours of there probationary period ending, then a policy just needs to make it crystal clear what conditions must be met for a steward to remove the tools, as stewards may not be familiar enough with a project to know what kind of assumptions are being made or how policy is intended to be interpreted. I think the suggestion of writing an unstable draft is probably the best approach to resolving this problem, if it is still considered a problem. --darklama 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Speaking for myself (!!), I think we are all watching the probationaries all the time anyway. More to the point, most active custodians watch each other and help each other out. --McCormack 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Proposed variant #3 by User:McCormack taking Cormaggio thoughts into account: "A candidate may be transferred between mentors if all involved parties agree. At the end of the 30-day period, the mentor will give a report with one of three recommendations: positive, negative, or extension of the probationary period. The recommendation is then opened up to community discussion for the establishment of consensus (7 days or so)."

I've just gone through Terra's process, and I recognise that SBJ was keen to keep his initial advisory words to Terra's talk page and not to invite a wide discussion/vote. Bearing in mind that we're always trying to avoid the sourness that WP's admin process has often created, I think it's probably a good idea to have this agreement to a further probationary period between mentor and mentee as an explicit option. Hence:

• Proposed variant #4 by User:Cormaggio: "At the end of the 30-day period, the mentor will either suggest to the candidate that the probationary period be extended, or give an evaluation of the probationary period thus far on WV:CC. The evaluation is then opened up to community discussion for the establishment of consensus (7 days or so). In the event of consensus towards a further probationary period, the candidate may seek another mentor if all involved parties agree." Cormaggio ^talk 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

All this is good, but I note we are now extending ourselves to cover what is pretty well the entire scope of the current sections IV and V, so it might be worth going back to the original (see project page) and making a few additions to #4 so that it really is a completely replacement for the whole of sections IV and V. --McCormack 11:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me rather than discussing how to best rewrite it, there is a need to first discuss what perceived problems people have with the current policy, how people propose to address the problems, and to take into consideration that mentors are volunteering to take a custodian under there wing. A mentor or a probationary custodian might end up having other obligations, or may no longer feel conferable with their mentor/mentee, preventing the process from working as intended. There seems to be three issues that needs discussed before trying to rewrite this policy, 1) what the normal process should be for custodianship (e.g do people agree on this?), 2) what to do when the normal process fails, and 3) should mentors/mentees be accountable for having other obligations or for not wanting anything to do with there mentor/mentee, and if so how. --darklama 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This could be a very long conversation - how about putting new proposed versions on a fork/draft page, and then we can 'freely' work together on shaping a new version. Obviously the mentorship process needs some further thoughtful consideration, as indicated by this thread so far. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, when I used to be known by Terra - the main reason why my RFC failed, could have been because of me just creating categories and not doing anything else other than that, in despite of that I'm trying to expand of what I do on Wikiversity - though like I said to Erkan on my talkpage I mainly prefer to do small edits and not large ones - the other main reason why I'm cautious of creating articles is because last time when I was active on wikipedia, I did start to do some but then went into serious problems with a number of user's - the categories I'm now trying to avoid due to the amount of criticisms which I received last time. Dark Mage 11:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This post follows a discussion on IRC. The issue is: "Are mentors answerable to the community?" It is my understanding that all the actions of custodians, including their actions as mentors, are ultimately under community supervision. There has been a suggestion that mentors are not answerable to the community, which would mean (for example) they do not have to give reasons for their actions or behave transparently. I dislike a system where cronyism could emerge, because probationaries are over-dependent on a mentor's favour. --McCormack 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not sure of the context, but I would have thought in (this type of) wiki-land that anyone with "power" should be even more answerable to the community than those without the powers. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

McCormack, (You probably know all that - any potential for the problem of cronyism was supposed to vanish as the number of custodians grows; In the beginning, the custodian mentor system was a means to get as many custodians as wikiversity needed quickly.) May I suggest that on a wiki, custodian actions should be answerable (with due respects to privacy issues), but custodian inactions are unanswerable? Hillgentleman|Talk 06:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks for your knowledge from the past. No - I did not know that at all! But if you are right (I'm sure you are) then it is a further indication that we may need to improve and democratise the current system. It is a great problem that we are rather few active custodians, although it is good to see more content being written than in the past. If numbers cannot guarantee fairness, then we may need some improved rules to act as a safeguard instead. Anyway, this is not an urgent issue right now - but it is a medium-term thing we need to sort out. --McCormack 08:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't abide a system where someone's actions were above being answerable to the community. That's why I think the discussion process around a mentor's evaluation is a good idea. However, I don't see how "numbers" of custodians is relevant - custodian, like all other actions, are answerable to the whole community, not to the sub-community of custodians. Cormaggio ^talk 11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does not appear that non-flagged users can do this. Emesee 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean here? Are you talking about very recently logged in users, who need to wait a few days (I think) before they can move pages? Cormaggio ^talk 11:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's restricted to sysops. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Trying moving a page that has subpages; you'll see an option to move all subpages. Non-flagged users do not have this option. Emesee 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason it's restricted to sysops? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The massive potential for abuse? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You think it would be abused more than the normal "move" function? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was abused on Wikipedia and that is why the developers switched to restricting it use to people with the sysop flag. --darklama 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I recall it was abused on more than just Wikipedia, but yes that's essentially correct. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think we should remove the template about material changes here. The change was made by darklama in June 2008 and it seems to be essentially the same as the old version. What does everyone else think? --AFriedman 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm probably being a bit dense. Are you suggesting that {{changed policy}} be removed from the page? --darklama 03:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. --AFriedman 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a problem with doing that than. Some people didn't consider my changes to be essentially the same as the old version though and wanted to word it differently. That conversation stalled in August of last year. --darklama 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, whenever an explanation for an edit is not obvious, rollback should not be used. Blatant vandalism is the most common such situation. However, there can exist other situations where there is a need for efficiency in reverting edits, and rollback is a tool designed for that. The one that I've seen is to revert a flood of edits coming from IP, where the IP being a blocked user (or imitating a blocked user!) is obvious. The down side is the lack of edit summary, but when an administrator is facing the need to take many actions, the time savings can be significant. Wikiversity should balance the need for transparency with the need for efficiency; at a given time there may be only one administrator available, and administrators in general tend to become overworked, especially considering how much they are paid. So, bottom line: rollback should not be used where the reason for a revert is not obvious from the context. However, the use of rollback where technically improper is not a major offense unless it is regularly repeated. It merely requires more work later, to explain the edit (as well as work from someone asking why the edit was made.) In considering if an administrator erred in using rollback, we should consider the immediate conditions that were faced, in deciding whether it was reasonable or not. As with most wiki situations when we try to over-generalize, it is not as simple as "not vandalism" = "no rollback." I propose the addition of language reflecting alternate use of rollback, because violation of this policy has been asserted when the usage may have properly been allowed. At the least, that exceptions may exist should be stated. --Abd 23:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:Rollback correctly describes how rollback should be used. "to revert a flood of edits coming from IP, where the IP being a blocked user" <-- If the edits are constructive then there is no basis in Wikiversity policy to revert them. Reverting constructive edits disrupts Wikiversity. Sysops who engage in such practices are disrupting Wikiversity and should stop. Abd, if you don't have the time to write a correct edit summary or a correct log entry then you don't have time to be a Custodian. --JWSchmidt 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

there is no basis in Wikiversity policy to revert them. There is if we rewrite this policy as I'm suggesting. JWS, you just contradicted yourself, and you seem totally confused: reverting edits doesn't require sysop tools, and rollback would normally only be used for repeated removal, i.e., the "flood of edits" where you approve of its usage. As an ordinary user, I can revert edits, with quasi-rollback, just restore an older version, it's more flexible, and I'm not forced to write an edit summary. Does policy require that? Rollback is a minor convenience and reduces the server load, and a community that doesn't want to afford minor and relatively harmless conveniences to the dedicated volunteers called sysops doesn't deserve to have them. The existence of an occasional bad apple doesn't change this. That may be, indeed, what JWS wants, that sysops leave. I know that he wasn't interested in asking for the tools back when I suggested it, he just went on another tirade. --Abd 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:Rollback is the place that discusses the practice of reverting without an edit summary; that practice is not welcome at Wikiversity and is only done when reverting obvious vandalism. If you want to change that policy then go to Wikiversity talk:Rollback and make your suggestions. "minor and relatively harmless conveniences" <-- The need of the community to see the reason for reverts is greater than your need for "minor convenience". I might have sympathy for your proposal if you provided links to some specific edits that you think you should be able to use rollback on. --JWSchmidt 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note: This topic (proper use of rollback) is now the subject of a community review. --JWSchmidt 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A common practice recently has been to allow for an extension of the four week probationary custodianship period. Allowing extensions isn't currently reflected in policy, even though it can make sense to do so. I suggest that we modify the policy to make it more clear that one of the options at the end of four weeks, if the mentor does not wish to terminate or nominate for full custodianship, is for the mentor to propose an extension of the probationary period. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please list the past examples of extended probation and provide the reasons why extended probationary periods have sometimes been granted? An extended probationary period would seem to remove the power of decision, originally given to the entire community, whether to extend custodianship past the one month probationary period, and give a new power to individual Custodians to extend the one month probationary period. I don't understand the benefit of an extended probationary period. --JWSchmidt 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think part of extending the probationary period is inviting the community to comment. The community should have a few options at that point: a) support the extension, b) oppose with termination of custodianship, c) oppose with support for full custodianship, or d) say nothing leaving the decision up to the mentor and probationary custodian. I believe so far extensions have been given because the mentor or probationary custodian have been too busy with life to give Wikiversity and the mentoring period the needed attention, or because the probationary custodian hasn't done much yet for the mentor to adequately determine what the probationary custodian needs to learn. -- darklama  13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Examples of use of extended probationary custodianship:

• Terra
• Leighblackall
• AFriedman
• Abd (note: some debate about whether the extended period was 'official')
• Diego Grez (current)
• (Please add more if found). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - Mostly because only community consensus can determine the overriding of a policy in an emergency situation. Otherwise, you grant a "mentor" the ability to grant semi-permanent sysops for an indefinite period without consensus. That is not what the mentorship is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That shouldn't be an issue if the community is invited to comment and oppose if there is any problem. That is what is already done, even if often times the community decides not to comment. -- darklama  14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I meant as part of an addition to the policy. If there will be an addition, I would want the following: 1. mentor provides a clear statement as to reason why it needs to be extended, 2. a finite period of time for the extension, 3. provisions for termination during the extension (such as the signing statements that Abd, Diego, etc, took that state that they can be terminated at any time and reversed at any time) and 4. clear community consensus agreeing to the extension. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"the community is invited to comment and oppose....That is what is already done" <-- As far as I can tell, extensions have simply been given by the mentor as a fait Accompli. I can't find the reason for extension of probation in the case where precedent was set for extensions. Can someone please explain why the probationary period was extended for Terra? --JWSchmidt 14:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looking through Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Terra (full custodian), I found this comment from non-mentor McCormack that "During the first 30 days his inexperience showed; his probationary period was extended by 2 months to give him more time to find his feet; it is generally felt (including by Terra himself) that this has given him adequate time to allow a judgement to be made." Mentor SBJohnny subsequently did not nominate Terra for full custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, it appears that in the case where precedent was set for extensions, the rules for probationary Custodianship simply were not followed and there was no community discussion of the extended probationary period. --JWSchmidt 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seems so - I'm guessing there was some related discussion on Terra's talk page - which could take some finding as I recall Terra did quite an extended job of moving/removing his talk history. The subsequent cases I think have had more explicit opportunities for community discussion on the nomination page, but in general there hasn't been much comment in response and I don't recall yet a case of a mentor's request for extended probationary periods being denied. I think that if the community wants to allow for extended probationary periods, that it would be desirable for more explicit procedures to be added into policy. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree if extended probationary periods are desirable that a procedure for doing so should be in policy. What I am saying is I think part of that procedure should be to give the community a window to comment on the extension. If nobody comments the extension should be allowed. If there is consensus that the extension should not happen than there should be no extension. People should also be free to say that an extension is not needed because they think the person is ready to be a full custodian or that the probationary period should end because they think the tools should be removed. That should all be possible outcomes in policy for a proposal to extend the probationary period. -- darklama  15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is very clear that the four week period (sometimes stated as thirty days) is emphasized as a minimum time. It would be contrary to policy to proceed to !voting on permanent custodianship prior to that period. Obviously, the actual time that !voting begins, then, is after the set period. How long after is not specified, so, by default, it lasts until a decision is made. There is no precedent for desysopping, thus actually ending the "probationary period," prior to one of three contingencies:

1. a mentor withdrawal or conclusion of unsuitability, whether before or after the minimum time, followed by a 48 hour period for the probationary custodian to find another mentor, and then a mentor request for desysopping (but I'd think it could also be someone else, particularly if the mentor was not available);
2. A failure of the probationer to find approval in the final review, as determined by a 'crat.
3. As an emergency desysop to prevent immediate disruption.

The term "probationary period" has an obvious meaning. It is the time during which a probationary custodian has the tools, ending with confirmation as a permanent custodian or the tools are actually removed. There is no "automatic desysop" after a fixed period. I see no unclarity in the policy as it stands. However, I am editing the policy to remove one possible source of misunderstanding. I will self-revert because of the possibly controversial nature of this. See my self revert at [1]. If you think this is an improvement, please undo the self-reversion or improve further.

The present policy does not allow for permanent custodianship without the approval of a mentor. That is proper, in my opinion. If a probationary custodian cannot find a mentor, the candidacy should almost certainly not be approved, though community consensus could override this, as determined by a 'crat. (And if a 'crat wants to override this, the 'crat, believing that the candidacy is worthwhile, could simply become a mentor, since 'crats are allowed to mentor.)--Abd 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word "of" does not mean minimum. It means exact. Stop making things up. Crats cannot determine anything outside of community consensus. There is no ability to randomly promote people to sysop status without community consensus or a process based on it. And you are wrong - Salmon of Doubt is strong precedence that it doesn't even need to come to a vote to result in loss of tools without the mentor's recommendation for a vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Leighblackall there was no good reason for the extension. There is no requirement that a probationary custodian perform some number of edits or uses of custodial tools. If the mentor was not willing to nominate, the probationary custodian should have been given a chance to get a new mentor. --JWSchmidt 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The policy was not designed to allow for a new mentor - see Salmon of Doubt and exactly why it is in place. In other words, it is to keep a non-community approved custodian from existing for an indefinite period of time. As you would know, if there are temporary sysops having the ability to declare new understandings of policies and have their ops without any community vote, then it gives the custodians/crats a lot more power than could ever be deemed appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply