Wikiversity talk:Candidates for Custodianship/Archive 0

Communicating in advance of nominations
One problem which has surfaced recently (a number of times now) is the degree of communication required in advance of a new nomination. At least a couple of times, it has proven problematic when "an old hand" (different old hands) have suddenly rushed into putting someone forward without talking about it at all or telling anyone else before they do it. In a couple of cases that come to mind, controversy has occurred where the candidate in question wasn't very well known or hadn't contributed much. SB_Johnny has put forward the opinion that as this kind of thing results in controversy, one should cut out the controversy by cutting the discussion and jumping quickly to mentorship, saving the talk for later. I'm not sure this is good, as it just lets wounds fester for 30 days. I think that all of us (or at least those of us currently most involved with WV) basically need to communicate with each other in advance of a new nomination and ensure a minimum of consensus about it. Communication methods include: IRC, email. It's no excuse that someone isn't on IRC, because email also works. I'm thinking of brief communication such as "Hi, I'm thinking of nominating X for Y because of reasons A, B and C. What do you think?" and briefly testing the water. As I've said elsewhere, sometimes speed alone creates division; consensus moves s-l-o-w-l-y.. In one of the cases (Terra), I was initially rather taken aback by the speed at which a newcomer was nominated, but on closer inspection and communication with all concerned, I reckoned it could be good - but it required communication to get that far. --McCormack 12:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Communication is always good. I guess there is nothing against dropping a short msg in the Colloquium ? This could also seen by the candidate as a warm welcome, since perhaps some don't know all people around here. And the users who do not watch the recent changes get aware of this. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 13:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The colloquium might not always be the best place. Particularly if the advice coming from the community is "wait", this is sometimes better said privately than in public. On the other hand, I am, in general, also in favour of transparency: private communications should not be abused so that an invisible deal takes place; private or semi-private communications should be used to spare people's feelings. --McCormack 15:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A guide to self-nominations
Quite a lot of nominations for staff positions at Wikiversity occur through self-nomination (or what we now call "request" with custodians). So if you're thinking of doing a self-nomination, is it a good idea? Firstly, please distinguish two kinds of self-nomination. (1) Pseudo-self-nominations are nominations which look like they are self-nominations, but actually at least one other (probably experienced) person is behind it, such as the person who wants to mentor the candidate. (2) Real self-nominations, when someone really nominates themselves. In fact a lot of self-nominations are pseudo-self-nominations, which can give newcomers a false impression of what's going on. If a relative newcomer follows the apparent trend and really nominates themselves, then they might get squashed (see archive of failed nominations). On the whole I think we should try to avoid self-nominations except where it is essential. The reason for this is simple: being suggested by someone else shows clearly that communication has taken place in advance, so when commenting on the request or nomination, people may be a little kinder. Personally I'd suggest that when relative newcomers arrive here, they should communicate around the place first, and find both a potential mentor and a second person to nominate them before they put anything onto this page. --McCormack 15:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests and pointers
WV:RFA and WV:RfA both point to this page, but if we are to accept the title of "custodian", it should be WV:RfC (and/or WV:RFC). Side note: this might confuse people with "Request for Comment", but I'm not sure if that's a big deal. Cormaggio 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Candidates for Custodianship with appropriate shortcuts. -- sebmol ? 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, on the bright side, maybe we can do without requests for comment here :-) --HappyCamper 23:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Observations
Very, very interesting...I get this little inkling that this mentorship program will become part of the administrative process in the long term. That could be an interesting system which might work well for this project. --HappyCamper 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's my hope anyway. -- sebmol ? 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it doesn't encourage sect-ism. The whole mentor system was set up so that standards could be lowered, since someone would technically be keeping an eye on them.--Rayc 06:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by sect-ism? I like this mentorship idea for a few reasons - it alleviates the expectation that newly created custodians need to know exactly what they are doing. The system is more forgiving, and frankly, more human, and reflective of the sort of custodian we need on this project. It's not flawless, but I do hope it is "better" than what we are more familiar with. --HappyCamper 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason for starting custodian mentorship was to provide a way to increase the number of Wikiversity custodians. The problem is that mentorship potentially provides a way for existing custodians to have "extra" influence over the selection of new custodians. As Wikiversity ages, there will be participants who have enough of a record editing Wikiversity that they will not need mentorship. Also, more members of the community who are not custodians should become involved in selecting new custodians. --JWSchmidt 16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That "extra" influence may not be a bad thing, especially considering that it won't amount to much: any custodian with three months record can mentor a candidate. As the number of experienced custodians increases (which is purely a question of time), this influence will diminish fairly quickly I imagine. sebmol ? 22:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I really hope people don't head over to Wikiversity just to scoop up a sysop bit though. What else? Custodianship here is very different than anywhere else. It's much more relaxed, and admittingly, a bit more mature. From what I've seen so far, people seem more professional around here. --HappyCamper 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely agree on the sysop bit. I personally think having ops status on another wiki project is not in itself reason enough to become a custodian here. A concerted effort to contribute and establish Wikiversity is essential. Persons should be willing to put in a little bit of legwork as a regular user first. RichMac 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for CheckUser
Our page states: "A candidate needs at least 25 votes in total, of which at least about 20 should be support." See also: which states "After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80%) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval..." We should reword our page to align with wmf policy and link to the meta page. --mikeu talk 11:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, there needs to be 2 Check Users at minimum. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the recent edit to the the page, which now includes that. --mikeu talk 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename the Page?
Since this page now hosts the requests for Custodianship, Checkuser & also Bureaucratship shouldn't this page get renamed to something like Wikiversity:Request for permissions, the Candidates for Custodianship name doesn't sound right. DarkObsidian 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 00:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, there could be a better name. And perhaps reconciliation with Probationary custodians. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Premature removal of my candidate page by Ottava Rima
. Ottava prematurely removed my candidacy from this page, without adequate discussion. Policy provides clear guidance about the termination of mentorship:


 * At the end of your mentorship period, you will be evaluated based on how well you used your privileges and how you conducted yourself within Wikiversity. If your mentor evaluates you fit for permanent custodianship, a request for comments will be submitted at Candidates for Custodianship for a period of five days. During that period, other community members can comment on the request and express their support. 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 hour 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.

Ottava, on the candidacy page, was arguing that the 48 hour period does not apply, apparently because he "evaluated" me as unfit. However, the policy is explicit and, in fact, correct as to intention. The policy was designed to cover the situation that a mentor and probationary custodian have a falling out: the probationary custodian is given 48 hours to find a new mentor. The contingency of a finding of "unfit" is explicitly covered, and removal of the tools is conditioned upon not finding a mentor within 48 hours. Hence this candidacy is still active. In fact, by the policy, my tools should not have been removed. There was no danger of significant abuse, the record will not show more than rare controversial actions, plus I'd agreed to stop any use of tools on request. It just happened that one of my actions was blocking my mentor for violating civility policy.

Suppose there had been no extension of the probationary period. The policy provides explicitly for process if the mentor finds the candidate unfit, and it is not immediate closure of the candidacy and removal of tools. Ottava is arguing that the phrase "during your probationary period" means that the 48 hour provision does not apply. That interpretation leaves us with no policy regarding a finding by the mentor as "unfit" if it happens after the end of the "probationary period." Rather, it's quite clear: "the probationary period" continues until either withdrawn or the mentor finds the candidate unfit, or finds him or her fit and the page proceeds to vote, and only if it fails the vote would the tools be removed. Whether this happens during the "30 day period" -- which is often far longer than that for various reasons, or later, the candidate has 48 hours to find a new mentor if the mentor rejects or withdraws. This provides for a small measure of independence of the probationary custodian, who can, in fact, substitute a new mentor and not go through the process of a new application. If Ottava's interpretation holds, however, the same contingency -- finding a new mentor -- allows a new application. So, at best, Ottava's position is either the same as mine as to effect (i.e., if I don't find a mentor within 48 hours), or it is a waste of time; for, if accepted, a new candidacy would be required if I find a mentor. Not a problem for me, it's just more Stuff for no good reason.

Accordingly, I'm reverting Ottava's removal. He or someone else may remove it, with my consent, if no mentor has been found by 48 hours of 20:46, 1 August 2010. --Abd 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bold text states that probationary period lasts 4 weeks. It was over a month. The probationary period was over. You were told this multiple times. You are being disruptive as you know 100% that you are manipulating what it states and ignoring what it states to cause drama. This is your last warning on the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not have revert warred anyway (Ottava's revert warring would not justify mine, basic principle), but particularly because Ottava threatened to block me over this silly content issue, I have filed Custodian_feedback, regarding this and the events that led to it, for serious recusal failure is being regularly shown by Ottava now, and that is one of the most serious problems on a wiki, it poisons the community when privileged users use or threaten the use of their privileged tools to enforce their personal opinions and desires. The technical issues that Ottava raises, I assume, will be addressed at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship, but his interpretations are preposterous and are being contradicted by others as this continues. If Ottava is threatening me for merely discussing this ("disruptive" ... "to cause drama"), he'd better be explicit if he expects me to stop discussing. --Abd 06:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to "Requests for Permissions"?
Shouldn't this page be moved to Requests for permissions instead? IMO, this page currently covers more topics than just custodianship (e.g. bureaucratship and checkusership). TeleComNasSprVen 05:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks uses that name and so I won't deny that I have a personal fondness for it. Adrignola 17:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with TeleComNasSprVen, the name is slightly misleading as the scope goes beyond custodian rights. Adambro 17:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Adambro, besides I like the name as well. Thenub314 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets try to be original. How about Offers to mop up or Offers to help? -- dark lama  17:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The scope has definitely broadened beyond custodianship, but at the same time I wonder if term 'candidate' better conveys the purpose of this process. That said, most other English WMF wikis seem to use 'request', and that's fine with me. --Draicone (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a bit of reorganizing would be good, but I think it would be better to come up with a holistic plan for that rather than breaking things up piecemeal (and/or willy-nilly). There are quite a number of issues about the processes that need clarification, really. --SB_Johnny talk 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation hearings
The current Community Review on SB_Johnny was filed originally under Candidates for Custodianship, but was moved to Community Review because that is the process for removal of custodianship.

The attached project page is for candidacies, not for removals. The process for removal is very different. It requires a consensus to remove privileges, and probably 'crat verification that removal is for "egregious violations," whereas "confirmation" implies a "vote of confidence." The filer has been claiming that supermajority confirmation is required, thus turning, at user whim, a removal process, designed to be difficult, into a complete reconsideration, biased against the privilege.

That's a formula for discouraging custodians who do the difficult work needed to protect the community.

We have no process for a "confirmation hearing," but when I removed the section and the single process listed there, I was reverted by JWS, who has long been opposed to the custodian involved, and, indeed, the whole administrative structure of Wikiversity, and then, since, as a compromise, I noted that the page was out-of-process, I was reverted by a newly active user, only involved in current process. I do not believe that there is any consensus for this new process, and the section should be removed. Community Reviews are announced elsewhere and there is absolutely no precedent for announcing them here, featuring them on this page. If they are going to be mentioned, it should be under something like Discussions of Removals, with a note regarding our process. "Confirmation hearings" is prejudicial. Comments? --Abd 19:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My "comment" is to urge you (and everyone else) to just relax a bit. Our stewards aren't chomping at the bit to do anything in particular, and letting people have their say is a generally a better approach than is trying to prevent people from having their say. I'm still firmly in the "no big deal" camp when it comes to permissions. There's no emergency here. --SB_Johnny talk 20:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I thought there were an emergency, I'd not be discussing this here. The issue is not -- at all -- whether people may discuss things, but whether such discussions should be referenced, with a prejudicial section title, on this page. Simple. SBJ, "relax a bit" implies an emotional state that you infer. It's inaccurate. Please relax, yourself. You don't always see things deeply. Now, are you here to discuss the issue raised, or just to act like a dysfunctional dad who intervenes in the kids fighting? Been there, done that. It's really easy to get it wrong.
 * I commented at meta, briefly, and as a result, the steward closed the request. This isn't related to that. --Abd 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)