Wikiversity:Community Review/Custodianship process

As of 14 March 2011, this community review is enacted to seek and determine a clarification of the stance and opinions of the community and to develop a consensus about the current Candidates for Custodianship process that is employed here on Wikiversity, which is commonly used to grant well-established users the abilities of a wiki system operator. These abilities often include protecting pages from vandalism, deleting/removing pages from the wiki and especially blocking users from modifying or accessing certain parts of the system.

Questions

 * 1. Is the current RFC system on this project any better or worse than other wiki's WP:RFA systems?
 * 2. If it is worse, what changes should be brought about to improve it?
 * 3. What do you think about the proposal to split the six custodial tools plus one bureaucrat tool so that rights can be gained for each separately?
 * 4. What do you think about changing RFC to require that a bureaucrat cannot switch on permissions for a probationary custodian that s/he is mentoring?

Comments of TeleComNasSprVen
Currently, other wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation have a similar system employed on their respective sites, and the most common name for that can be found on the English Wikipedia located under the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. There is also a common belief that among many processes that allow users to become system operators among the various wikis, the English Wikipedia included, that the processes are inefficient or not affective enough, and that there were many discussions enacted to try to fix this but they have always ended with inconclusive results. There also has been two similar threads regarding this system for this project, with one found in the Colloquium archives and one found on a prominent user's talkpage, that of SB Johnny's.

These can be further broken down into four stances on the process:
 * 1) Keep as-is. (same abilities, same process)
 * 2) Keep it, but make substantial changes to ensure that it works, such as creating a new user right of pre-custodians without the ability to block. (different abilities, same process)
 * No, scrap it and make an entirely new system with the same key principles in mind. (different abilities, different process)
 * 1) Use the English Wikipedia's system. (same abilities, different process)

Comments of SB_Johnny
The mentorship system was created in order to provide a better way of orienting new custodians, and to give people a chance to "prove themselves" before going through the "RFA" process. This was in some part due to what was happening on Wikipedia at the time, where RfA and other processes were becoming far more negative than they had been in WPs earlier years. However, we never actually ratified the process and it's never been discussed as thoroughly as it should be.

The mentorship would work a whole lot better (IMO, at least) if it were a separate usergroup. For example, it could be set so that any "regular" custodian could remove the tools if there is any concern. This would be a lot better than the recent experience we had where a probationary custodianship was ended by a "CR" which only served to increase the tensions. A separate (and easily removed) usergroup would provide a bit more of a "comfort zone" to recapture the "no big deal" feeling that mentorship was originally providing.

To avoid repeating things that don't bear repeating, I think that initial requests should be open a few days (5?) for comment, and if there are serious objections, perhaps a consensus among the 'crats should be required to start the mentorship. It would also make sense to allow volunteers to go around the formal mentorship process and simply request probationary custodianship using the RfA system, since the mentoring system could also be seen as creating a sort of "old boys club" if it's the only path available.

Finally, I think it would be helpful if probationary custodians kept a log of their actions with reasons behind them so that their mentor (and others) could comment on them, and also so that the mentoring process itself is kept open for the community to observe before the confirmation vote.

@TeleComNasSprVen: Moved your comments around a bit, see Community Review Policy for details on that.

Comments of Moulton
Mentorship means the mentor is assuming the responsibility to ensure that his or her mentee will learn how to properly discharge the duties of an Administrative Custodian in accordance with generally accepted guidelines for Administrative Custodians of WMF-sponsored projects, per the overarching Mission and Policy of the Wikimedia Foundation. See also this extended list of WMF Policies, as well. In particular, note the WMF Whistleblower Policy, which systematically applies generally recognized ethical principles to the treatment of those who legitimately call fouls on WMF functionaries who have demonstrably overstepped their legitimate authority. —Moulton 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Abd
It ain't broke, don't fix it. There is no need to make the process more complicated. No bureaucrat should automatically grant tools if opposed, but a consensus of 'crats should not be required. A 'crat may state reasons for opposition, as can anyone. I've suggested a standard stop agreement that sets up speedy process for dealing with problems and alleged problems with a probationary custodian. This allows the entire existing custodial community to serve as an extended mentor.

To answer the question, the Wikiversity process is far better than anything done elsewhere, but the process was brought into question by a desysopped custodian with an axe to grind, who attracted canvassed comments to support his CRs and made quite a fuss before retiring. --Abd 15:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jtneill, Item 3: While granular permissions could be useful, there is little real problem requiring the complication. Before going to the trouble of increasing process complexity (two or three processes instead of one), we should see if there is a need based on real difficulties being caused by the singleness of the package. We may then design better solutions if there is a problem! Given that, there are tools that are not serious problems, such as rollback, and these could be assigned to a special user group and easily given and removed, taking only a single custodian to set/reset, if it is set up that way.

@Jtneill, Item 4: ''The implementing bureaucrat shall not be an only mentor. If an additional custodial mentor is found, a mentor-bureaucrat may implement. Notwithstanding the restriction, a sole mentor-bureaucrat may begin a discussion on the probationary custodianship, on the Candidacy page, announcing it in the Colloqium, and may, with community consent (absence of consensus to the contrary), implement.''

The purpose of this proposal is to handle a situation where there is inadequate available participation by both custodians and 'crats. Requiring supermajority support could, then create a situation where a single 'crat could dominate by refusing to approve any mentored custodianships not personally approved. (This is a general problem with supermajority rules in communities. They can become a dictatorship of the minority, whenever the status quo favors that minority.) The point of probationary custodianship was to move away from a need to prove the satisfaction of a supermajority before allowing a user to help out. That's been valuable to Wikiversity, and was not the source of problems. --Abd 19:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sj. Thanks. Problems with custodians mostly arise in the permanent custodianship period, and making suspension of permanent custodianship easier could address the real problem. Probationary custodianship should, indeed, be easy to gain and easy to lose, as is presently the case. There is a simple middle ground. I've proposed a Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement that would allow any custodian to quickly intervene to prevent harm from a wayward probationary custodian, and the agreement has teeth easy to use. With such an agreement, and with an understanding (corresponding to reality on the wiki) that the probationary period may, by consent of the probationary custodian and mentor -- or new mentor --, be extended indefinitely, we have a complete solution that could allow even possibly problematic users to help out. Individual admin tools are not that dangerous, if the community is watching and people can quickly do something effective about problems that come up. The Wikipedia Problem has been that, if an ordinary user on Wikipedia challenges an admin, they are taking their wiki-life in their hands, and admins who see the problem have themselves often felt powerless to do anything, I've seen many expressions of disgust and despair, as well as resignations. No probationary custodian, under the Standard stop agreement, could create such a problem here, as long as there was one custodian left willing to stand up and say "Stop!" --Abd 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jtneill
For the current questions: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC) -- Jtneill - Talk - c 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (updated)
 * 1) No opinion because I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia request for adminship process WP:RFA.
 * 2) As per 1.
 * 3) Permissions should be made more granular. Currently, access to permissions is too chunky and this causes unnecessary sticking points. Access to each of the current custodian permissions (Rollback, Protect, Import, Delete, Block, Editing MW namespace) should be separated out. Users can then self- or other-nominate for access to each. The community can then decide whether to grant full access, probationary access, or no access.
 * 4) Bureaucrats (who can currently add custodian rights) and mentors should be different people. Currently, a bureaucrat can nominate, mentor and switch the tools on for a probationary custodian in one step without community approval. Instead, a bureaucrat should be required to be a different person to the mentor.

Comment by Leigh
Q 1 and 2 are not relevant in my response, because I am only interested in the suggestion in Q 3. Splitting up the tools/permissions so that people with specific needs (and not say, wanting larger responsibilities) can use them. For example, wanting the permission to deleting pages that you yourself have created in error, or have since moved etc. I think breaking up the tools, with a simple application process, probation period, or even self determined time period for each, would be a good way to circuit break many of the power dynamics that are observable and extremely well documented across Wikiversity. Leighblackall 05:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sj
I would keep this process as simple as possible (and make a "decustodian" process similarly simple).

Regarding splitting up rights, I have often thought that it would be valuable to have a "protector" flag separate from the "admin" flag - where protectors get import/protection/mw-editing/rollback, and admins get delete/block capabilities.

Rather than a probation period, I would make it "no big deal" to gain or lose the custodian flag. [probation periods are easy to sit through even if one has an itchy delete- or block-finger.] Custodians should be people trusted to carry out admin tasks the community needs; if they stop doing that, or stop being trusted to do that, the flag shouldn't be a status symbol that lets them ignore community needs. –SJ + > 18:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)