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

This comment was correct and sound. Wiki time periods, established for various processes, are generally understood as minimum periods, not fixed limits or maximums. Even the 48 hour period specified in the policy isn't a fixed limit, for if the mentor waits more than 48 hours before a desysop request, there is no particular consenquence. If a 'crat does not close a permanent sysop discussion within the "five days" specified, the wiki does not crash. At some point, people might start making some noise. It's how wikis work, not by rigid schedules; rather times specified are guidelines and sometimes protections. Suppose a 'crat sees a discusion on custodianship as a snow and closes accordingly. Fine. No problem. Unless there is a problem. Someone offended by that can ask for it to be re-opened! On Wikipedia, many times, I saw a close of an AfD where inadequate comment had been received. Almost always, a simple request to the closing admin was sufficient to get it re-opened, and frequently, with more comment, I saw a contrary result. It takes time to gather comment from people knowledgeable about a situation or willing to take the time to investigate it. There was an alternate process to contest deletions, Deletion Review. Far more disruptive, requiring much more attention and being more contentious. Generally, we prefer to keep things simple if possible, but as Wikipedia got bigger and less civil, I saw less use of direct negotiation and request, and more attempt to force decisions by reference to policy requirements. Let's not go there! Policy is important, and custodians should particularly be careful if not following policy, but, in the end, it's the goal that counts, not the exact means by which we get there.

So the "extension of time" was what wikis do naturally when a process is set for so many days. It did not need to be written in policy because it was so natural. *Any process specifying a set number of days can be extended when there is no objection.* When there is objection, the objection should not be "it's not policy!" but "this is actually doing harm in this or that way." What is the harm of extension? I have not seen any clear description of it, only a few confused hints at some unusual possibilities. --Abd 21:10, 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

My "signing statement" did not provide for "termination at any time." I'm not sure about Diego's, he was inspired by mine but may have stated it differently. It did provide that my mentor (or any "supporting administrator," for that matter) could reverse any of my actions without it being wheel-warring, in effect, but that did not allow reversal if the reversal itself was violating policy, creating a possible ambiguous area; but it was clear that my mentor could ask me to cease usage of tools, specifically or generally, and, from the rest of the policy, I could, if I so chose, seek another mentor; regardless, if the mentor was terminating, I'd have 48 hours to find another mentor. If the mentor was not terminating, I could not use tools as prohibited, unless I find and substitute another custodian mentor. To interpret that I could not do this substitution would be preposterous, and only dilatory, since with a new mentor I could file a new request, even if my original mentor sat there proclaiming, "I'm your mentor, kiss my ring, I'm not going to let you go until you comply." We do not subject anyone to that kind of dictatorship. The policy provides for substitution, the intent is clear. I did not waive those rights, I created an alternate path to, indeed, immediate desysop, but it was not relevant. I did not use the tools after being told not to use the tools, which was the specific condition allowing immediate termination. I was not told that at all. --Abd 21:20, 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

• "The policy was not designed to allow for a new mentor" <-- According to policy, 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. In the case of Leighblackall, if the mentor was not willing to nominate for full custodianship then he could have said so and allowed Leighblackall to look for a new mentor. Otherwise, the probationary custodianship should have ended. --JWSchmidt 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• "During", not after. "During" refers to the "4 weeks". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/AFriedman there was a highly questionable situation where a bureaucrat (who was apparently the mentor) closed the community discussion of the probationary custodian with a decision to extend the probationary period. Again, the extension was a fait accompli. --JWSchmidt 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Diego Grez, if after a month of probation the mentor was not willing to nominate Diego Grez for full custodianship then the mentor could have said so and allowed Diego Grez to look for a new mentor. Otherwise, the probationary custodianship should have ended. --JWSchmidt 17:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd, if after a month of probation the mentor was not willing to nominate Abd for full custodianship then the mentor could have said so and allowed Abd to look for a new mentor. Otherwise, the probationary custodianship should have ended. --JWSchmidt 17:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, it seems that some options might be:

1. Retain current policy with no changes
2. Modify current policy to explicitly indicate that extensions to the probationary period aren't permitted
3. Modify current policy to explicitly indicate circumstances in which an extension to the probationary period are acceptable and how consensus about this should be established.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 17:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

We have a probationary custodian page that has no information and isn't ratified as a policy. That would probably be a good start. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikiversity:Probationary custodians page is linked to from the policy page for Custodianship. I agree that it would be helpful if probationary custodians were listed at Wikiversity:Probationary custodians during the time that they are probationary custodians. Having reviewed five past examples of extensions for probationary periods, I see no good reason to allow extensions of the probationary period. Probationary Custodians should be trusted members of the Wikiversity community at the start of their probationary custodianship....they should have nothing to prove during the probation. At the end of the one month probation period, the mentor should either nominate the probationary custodian for full custodianship or allow 48 hours for a new mentor to be found. Otherwise, the probation period simply ends and tools are taken away from the failed candidate. Also, Wikiversity:List of custodian mentors should be kept current. --JWSchmidt 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The termination procedure is correct, per policy. The requirement for nomination at a specific time is unwikian. People take breaks, need time to consider things, etc. Probationary Custodians should be trusted members of the Wikiversity community at the start of their probationary custodianship flies directly in the face of policy, which does not test for "trusted members of the community," but rather, in a way, allows every custodian to provisionally "promote" someone to help, without needing to obtain community support. That's an excellent policy, and only a problem if there is no community supervision of custodial actions. The mentor is responsible for supervision during the probationary period, so, in a way, the mentor is responsible for what that probationer does. Hence it is essential that the mentor be able to withdraw. I provided in my own candidacy for a greater safeguard, which possible might become policy, specifying that the mentor could revert any sysop actions of mine without it being wheel-warring, and could also direct me not to use tools, specifically or generally, with immediate desysop being permitted if I failed to respect the direction. That could become standard, allaying concerns about abuse during the 48 hour period. (I'd say that the mentor, for that purpose, continues to be the mentor until replaced, but I'd suggest that, pending a voluntary replacement, the old mentor could designate another custodian to act for such prohibitions if needed, pending official replacement.)

In a way, JWS is right about this should either nominate or allow 48 hours" clause, he has simply left out a condition: that the probationer wants to complete the process. I don't see it as a good thing if this is interpreted to mean that someone else can demand immediate approval or rejection or withdrawal, I see that as preventing the voluntary negotiation of relationships that is important to wikis. If, as a mentor, I need more time to decide, there is no reason not to allow me more time, as long as the person most directly affected, the probationer, consents to that. I think JWS may have in mind the spectre of some unrestrained troll given probationary custodianship that isn't supervised, and who goes on a rampage. Any examples of that happening? What was done? Let's not try to fix problems that don't exist, until we have a better understanding of their outlines and conditions. --Abd 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If a new mentor is found, then that would start a new mentorship period and thus be an extension. So, you either want an extension or not? The two contradict. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've always assumed that if someone got a new mentor that meant a new 4 week long probationary custodianship period would start. There is no limit to how often someone can be a probationary custodian. Having a new probationary period with a new mentor is not the same as extending an existing probationary period with the same mentor. --JWSchmidt 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

So two months of custodian status not granted by community consensus is different then two sets of one month of custodian status not granted by community consensus? By the way, do you support Salmon of Doubt being brought back and granted temporary custodianship? He is still around, you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If, after a month of probation, a mentor can't confidently nominate the probationary custodian for full custodianship then that means the candidate went from being trusted to not being trusted during the past month. If another Custodian does trust the candidate and is willing to mentor and start a new probationary period with that candidate, then that is different than the original mentor saying, "I don't trust this candidate, but I'll force the candidate on the community for another month by extending the probation". "Salmon of Doubt" was a disruptive sockpuppet from Wikipedia on a self-declared mission to get a Wikiversity community member banned and "Salmon of Doubt" never should have been made a probationary custodian. --JWSchmidt 04:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because? Can you point to an example of use of custodial tools by Salmon of Doubt that were policy violations? Policy on probationary custodianship is quite clear and actually quite safe, if the mentor is available to supervise. If a probationary custodian takes any action that offends a user, the user can complain, not only on the probationary custodian's Talk page, but on the mentor's page as well, and can, in fact, if there is no response within a reasonable time, go to Requests for custodian action and request reversal. Wikiversity has an open custodianship policy that is very well designed and difficult to abuse. JWS disagrees, it appears, with the effective consensus of the custodians which is an entirely different problem. Sock puppets are allowed to be custodians here, as long as they are not disruptively socking on Wikiversity. I wish JWS would actually be consistent: either promote following policy exactly, or promote "functional consensus" or "cogency of argument" as the basis. Here, he proposes a non-existent rule: no sockpuppet custodians. Perhaps he wants real names, but that certainly is not policy. He also seems to want to use what may be shaky or inadmissible evidence of intent to deny custodianship, when policy doesn't allow that, it is entirely up to the custodian who agrees to mentor. I would build a few more protections into the policy, but not much! The basic principle is very sound, and should be more widely understood. If I'm a permanent custodian, and I need help using custodial tools, I can create a probationary custodian as an assistant. That's scalable structure, and really does not extend trust any further. (If a permanent custodian creates a probationary custodian who misbehaves and the regular custodian does not restrain that, this is a violation of the trust of the community in the permanent custodian, and could be grounds for either removal of ops or a special finding that a particular custodian cannot be a mentor in this way.

I think that JWS perceives custodianship as some kind of reward. It isn't. With probationary or permanent custodianship and 25 cents, at one time I could have gotten a ride on the subway. It's like handing someone a broom and saying, "we have decided to give you a reward for all your work for our university, so much so that here is a broom and you may sweep out the hallways, or get a low-paying job with the campus police force. Right. JWS mistakes the problem. Lack of supervision by the community is the problem, which leaves the custodians to run the place. Bad Idea. Sets up a conflict of interest, and invites abuse. Really, I would not blame any custodian personally for becoming abusive in this environment, hence my proposal. Set up good and efficient and effective structure for reviewing and, if necessary, restricting custodial actions, structure that doesn't unduly hamper the custodians but that detects and restrains abuse, and everything that came before should be forgiven. And further abuse would be met with graduated and careful response. Custodians are volunteers, doing mostly thankless work. We need to respect that. They are allow to make mistakes, and it is only if the cost of the mistakes outweighs the value of their work that they should be completely desysopped. --Abd 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)!Reply

This is all getting pretty weird. The existing policy is actually beautiful, and changes are being proposed here without any necessity or problem at all. Extension of time has been done many times, and there is no showing of any problem from it, as long as it is simply considered that: an extension of time. I haven't reviewed a pile of custodianship applications, but Ottava has pointed to his. There was a change of mentor during the probationary period, it seems. The period was not extended. (But the time of transition wasn't clear to me.) When my probationary period was extended by Ottava's request (which, without objection, stands as consensus until there is some sustained objection), part of the idea was that I was quite busy with certain matters. In my view, whether or not to restart the probationary period (which could simply mean extending it for a stated time, like four more weeks) or to hold a vote at the end of the original period, is a matter generally for agreement between the mentor and probationer. The community can interfere if it wants to, but there is hardly ever any reason to do that. The probationer has a right, if he or she insists, I'd say, on some kind of a decision by the mentor, but if the mentor does not provide that, it cannot be forced, and the probationer should obviously be allowed to substitute a new mentor if dissatisfied, and whether or not that new mentor wants an extended period or wants to go ahead with a recommendation and vote is up to the new mentor and probationer. This is all consistent with policy and common practice. If a probationary custodian is causing problems, there are many remedies. If a mentor is absent, that could be considered, by a 'crat, "withdrawal," thus giving the probationer 48 hours to find a mew mentor. Really, it's very well written, and good procedure follows quite easily from it. --Abd 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply