Wikiversity talk:Custodianship/Archive 2

Material changes to page
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)


 * I'm probably being a bit dense. Are you suggesting that changed policy be removed from the page? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 03:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. --AFriedman 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that the action I took today was proposed here way over a year ago! --Abd 23:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. At first you removed only the review template, not the changed policy template. Now you've removed both. If people support the changes I made, the changed policy template can go. I think the review template can go after there is consensus in support for the entire page as it currently is. Current practice suggests the entire page as-is isn't currently supported. -- dark lama  05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of Rollback for other than clear vandalism.
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note: This topic (proper use of rollback) is now the subject of a community review. --JWSchmidt 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Extending the probationary period
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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- dark lama  13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. -- dark lama  14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Looking through 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- dark lama  15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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:
 * 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);
 * A failure of the probationer to find approval in the final review, as determined by a 'crat.
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)


 * Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * "During", not after. "During" refers to the "4 weeks". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems that some options might be: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 17:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at 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)
 * Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at 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)
 * Continuing through the past examples of extensions; at 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * The 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 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, List of custodian mentors should be kept current. --JWSchmidt 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)!
 * Custodianship is not an award but it is also not something to be taken lightly. It requires complete community trust to gain it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Because?" <-- "Salmon of Doubt" never should have been made a probationary custodian because the main requirement for Custodianship is that the person be a trusted member of the Wikiversity community. "Salmon of Doubt" was a disruptive sockpuppet from Wikipedia on a self-declared mission to get a Wikiversity community member banned and he caused vast disruption of Wikiversity. "effective consensus of the custodians...."functional consensus"....inadmissible evidence...I can create a probationary custodian as an assistant" <-- Abd, I have no idea what you are talking about. "he proposes a non-existent rule" <-- Abd, please point to my edit where I proposed a non-existent rule. "I think that JWS perceives custodianship as some kind of reward." <-- Abd, please list my edits that suggest such a thing. "campus police force" <-- Abd, any custodian who imagines himself to be on a police force should be retired. --JWSchmidt 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a farrago of obviously bad arguments and confusion that I don't know where to start. Most of these have been answered before, but the answers have no impact on JWS. Yes, JWS has no idea what I'm talking about, but he's damn sure I'm wrong. Campus police force. What other analogy would fit, what role on campus is matched by a WV custodian? It's not janitor, because every member of the community is a janitor. The only members of a university community with the actual power to physically expel someone from the campus -- block -- are the campus police. They are not in charge, they can only function under relatively strict rules, but they also have discretion. If they are not supervised by the actual administration, they can and will run wild. My problem with your criticisms, JWS, is that, indeed, you clearly don't have the foggiest notion of what's going on, what's being said to you. You seem incapable of hearing the other side, which is why all your arguments are so ineffective. All you know is that something is wrong and so you keep tossing up fragments, but you don't know how to fix it, and when someone comes along who does and who will, you are opposed because you want to go back to the good old days. JWS, the good old days did not establish a WV community strong enough to resist the "invasion" you so much talk about. Get it: they were not adequate. You were living in an illusion, a temporary lull in what is much more common, wiki-controversy. Call it a honeymoon, a period where the love of working together was stronger than disagreements. Much of that can be re-established, I believe, but not without new structure and the establishment of clearer traditions, including policies and guidelines. --Abd 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * "Extension of time has been done many times, and there is no showing of any problem from it" <-- The problem is, as I explained above, if after a month of probation the mentor is not willing to nominate the candidate for full custodianship then the candidate should either get a new mentor or the probation should be terminated. The mentor should not be able to force upon the community for another month a probationary candidate that the mentor is unwilling to nominate for full custodianship. "the probationer should obviously be allowed to substitute a new mentor if dissatisfied" <-- At any time, a probationary custodian can ask a Steward to terminate the probationary custodianship and then a new request for probationary custodianship can be made. --JWSchmidt 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a typical problem with JWS arguments above. "Shoulds" with no consideration of the purposes which would define them. It's utterly ungrounded, based on ideas of how things "should" be without an understanding of the underlying structure and purposes. The existing policy is old, and if a sysop is "forcing" on the community something it is not willing to accept, the sysop is a problem and that is what could be addressed. Further, if a sysop makes abusive mentorships, the sysop could be prohibited from mentoring. That's not in policy, but it could easily be added. I'd question the wisdom of it, though.


 * I have yet to see one shred of harm shown from allowing a probationary period to continue, and the reality of my own sysop application is that I establish in my agreement something very much like continued, permanent, probation. JWS, your positions seem generally based on a very limited view of what Wikiversity could be, apparently based on nostalgia for the early years. But obviously you want stuff that wasn't there in that period, or you want to reject stuff that was there, and that didn't cause problems. Probationary custodian policy isn't new, it's old, and it's quite clear, and there is no example of problems caused by it, in itself.


 * I asked about Salmon of Doubt, about actual damage caused. JWS, you don't answer questions like that, you just repeat "shoulds" that aren't policy. There is no policy that probationary custodians must be trusted members of the community. The opposite. They must only be trusted, to the extent that they are trusted, by a single mentor. And even that trust can be absent, if the mentor feels capable of handling possible disruption. This is extremely clear, and the "trusted by the community" thing is Wikipedia policy, yet you blame me and others for bringing Wikipedia policy here.


 * Permanent custodians should be trusted by the community. Probationary custodians serve the wiki without having attained that trust, that's why they must have a mentor. It's very clear, but somehow you don't seem to understand that. --Abd 05:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Salmon of Doubt
Candidates for Custodianship/Salmon of Doubt This mentions Salmon of Doubt only for context. No criticism of SoD should be derived from this. Some of this could be read as criticism of JWS, justified by JWS' participation in the current discussion. But, in the end, that isn't terribly important.

This case demonstrates how well the process works. First of all, the request page really shouldn't become a huge discussion, the process really confines the process to a person volunteering and a custodian accepting, there is no community consensus involved or needed. What I see on the candidacy page is very extensive argument from JWS against the candidate, which is largely moot. Now I understand why JWS had a problem with SoD. I probably would, too, if SoD is who I've been told he is, but also from some of his comments and editorial actions here. But this isn't about SoD and the custodianship page really isn't either, not at first. Asking questions there is appropriate up to the point that a mentor volunteers, and it can still be relevant later, but, once a mentor appears and the tools are granted, propriety would suggest giving the person a chance, even if he is a complete jerk. It's the responsibility of the mentor to prevent damage. Looks like SBJ did a good job of that. Notice the condition that SBJohnny set. He may not have trusted SoD as far as he could throw him. So he was allowing SoD to do the grunt work he claimed he wanted to do, thus bypassing a lot of debate, without allowing him to run away with the place. That was finesse, brilliant. Now, custodial tools allow access to deleted pages and revisions. While there is an issue there, I'd really prefer to see *all registered users* except those who violate some policy about that content be able to do this, perhaps upon request. I think it might be possible in the software.

SBJohnny asks SoD for the "keys". Which was simply courtesy. He could have gone at any time to a steward and asked for immediate desysop if SoD had said "No." That's what the special agreement allowed. This was not an expression of community trust, it was AGF that didn't give away the farm.

SoD is not currently a probationary custodian, because he doesn't have the tools. If someone agreed to mentor him, he could certainly come back. Not without a mentor. He would re-enter the probationary period, and my judgment is that it must be at least the minimum time, which I'd interpret as "time possessing the tools," not as calendar time. It's really up to the mentor, bottom line. --Abd 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy really is brilliant. The key is mentor discretion. Could SBJ have given the tools back to SoD when SoD "returned"? My interpretation is, yes, representing a possible very long extension of the probationary period. But a mentor must be a custodian, and SBJ is not currently a custodian. For now, that path is dead. --Abd 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

History of the probationary period
I had a quick look over the Administrator process on Wikipedia and Wikibooks last night. It seems that one simply nominates a user of good standing and this is commented and voted upon, with no probationary period. Which has made me curious to learn more about the evolution of the probationary period at WV. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history, though it would be pretty easy to look up any discussion. But it has a very obvious purpose and a very obvious way that it helps the community. I'd recommend it to other wikis, in fact. The only objection I can see is if the community doesn't trust a mentor, which, in fact, is a problem in itself and should be addressed and not swept under the carpet. --Abd 03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a page about the history of Custodianship and probationary custodianship. See: History of Wikiversity/Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 03:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed statement of recusal policy
is a permanent link to a proposed change. Please review this. You may create new versions with edited versions of this, but, until we have consensus, please self-revert them. In the end, if it isn't obvious, we may show with permanent links a series of versions and pick the one we consider best. Quite a number of recent problems on Wikiversity, as well as some older ones, might have been averted if this policy were in place. It is simply a statement of wiki common law, relatively widely understood, but only rarely explicitly stated. On Wikipedia, violations of this as common law has occasioned the removal of admin bits, which is a bit unfair, given that the policy had never been explicitly stated, and violation of the common-law policy was quite routine, with some administrators even arguing against it, i.e., as some kind of field day for wikilawyers. Given that a fair fraction of highly active administrators were like this on Wikipedia, not wanting their own ability to act independently to be hampered, any proposal to make the policy clearer was quite naturally opposed with enough strength to prevent a consensus from forming. We are small enough, I believe, to avoid that impasse. Please do carefully consider this, and improve it if it does not accord with both what should be normative policy, and with actual practice in terms of what kinds of actions custodians take that cause problems.

The appearance of bias can do as much damage as actual bias. When a user comes into conflict with a custodian that the user considers biased, even if the custodian's action is confirmed by other custodians, the user may easily believe that "they are all biased, they are just friends of each other, and they circle the wagons." Good recusal policy reduces the appearance and the possible reality of this, by insuring fresh faces making decisions with regard to a particular user or particular content.

Contrary to the "wikilawyering" argument, good recusal policy simplifies the job of a custodian, who is advised, and to some extent required, to not become the Lone Ranger enforcing the custodian's own opinion on an issue, or the custodian's own opinion about consensus. It converts a dispute between and editor and a custodian, which could become entrenched and uncivil and tenacious, the "courageous user" "bravely defying" the "abusive custodian," into something that is resolved collectively, either through a series of individual independent custodial actions, or some discussion process providing further guidance to custodians and users.

"Recusal failure," itself, is not a reason for unblock, for example, it is a reason to question the propriety of a custodian's action, through proper feedback or community review. Process already provides for independent review of blocks; once a custodian has blocked an user, the individual custodian should generally recuse from further action adverse to that user, absent emergency. A reviewing custodian should give due credence to the blocking custodian, and may consider that there may be a valid reason for it that is not properly explained, or that exists in spite of possible bias, but should also look for and remediate, if possible, bias that has resulted in an improper block. Was the editor warned with sufficient specificity so that user would clearly know that violating action would likely be met with a block? Is there a likelihood of continuing disruptive action, causing a net negative impact on the wiki or the community if the editor is allowed to edit? A custodian considering unblock may also set conditions, and may reblock if the conditions are violated, in the judgment of that custodian. The user may, of course, appeal these conditions to the community or to another uninvolved custodian, who could set them aside (just as another uninvolved custodian could unblock; this principle will be discussed on a section on topic bans, a step short of blocking, which has also been neglected.) --Abd 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Recusal is an unacceptable standard, as we have 23 admin with only 7 active admin, and those like yourself and JWS purposefully go after anyone you can then claim that they must recuse when they side against you. The thing is, we started with our admin hats on, so we are not personally involved. Recusal in real life is only about monetary benefit. Claims of recusal is always adopted by those who are disrupting when they know they are about to be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above statement is quite worrisome, as Ottava is a very active custodian. There is no way for a disruptive user to use the proposed policy to avoid proper consequences for his or her action. Ottava has misstated what "recusal" means. The Wikipedia article, Recusal redirects to Judicial disqualification, which is a major form of recusal. That article refers to the originating condition for recusal as "conflict of interest," which refers to any condition which might create an appearance of bias. Actual bias is not a standard. Wikipedia arbitrators "recuse" when they are, for example, friends of a party to an arbitration, or sometimes when they have taken action against a party. The "only about monetary benefit" is preposterous. It appears that Ottava may not have read the proposed policy. It provides for emergency action even when there is a recusal requirement, and if there is no emergency, then there is time for discussion. Ottava is trying to assert what I've seen on Wikipedia when recusal requirements were discussed. There was a case where an administrator warned a user who then called his arguments "a steaming pile." The admin then blocked for incivility. This was considered recusal failure and the admin, who was unable to understand and acknowledge the problem, was desysopped. Basically, the admin blocked for an offense where he would be the aggrieved party, i.e, the one to whom the warned editor was allegedly uncivil. Had the editor disregarded the warning and gone ahead with the behavior that was the subject of the warning, there would have been no recusal failure for the admin to block, unless there were prior dispute. There was possible recusal failure in the warning itself, because it was a dispute over content, and the admin was involved with the content, but that didn't become the major issue.


 * There are 7 custodians on Wikiversity who are active, according to Ottava's statistic. Suppose I'm uncivil, violating civility policy. I can be warned by any editor, it doesn't have to be a custodian. However, which custodians could block without violating recusal policy? I've been involved in some extended disputes with two only, and they would be advised not to block me, though they could warn, but they should probably not "threaten" to block which is about equivalent to blocking. So what would one of these do if they think I'm violating policy, causing damage? They behave just like any other editor, they warn and then, if the warning is disregarded, they go to Request Custodian Action, seeking a neutral custodian, which would be any of the other five. But what if there is an emergency? Then, per the proposed policy, they may go ahead and act, but then they are required to go to Request Custodian Action, disclose the recusal requirement, state that they blocked because it was an emergency, which should be specified, and state the reason for the block and give adequate evidence (or simply ask for a review, if they trust that the evidence is sufficiently clear), and then allow any other custodian to unblock. If the action is later reviewed, both the block itself and the emergency claim would be considered. Bad blocks and claims of emergency when there is no urgency are improper and could lead to desysopping, but, as long as the sysop has reported the action and requested review, the error would have to be egregious or oft-repeated, my opinion, before desysop would be warranted.


 * Now, suppose the sysop has gone ahead and blocked me for repeating the action he or she warned against. I scream bloody murder, "recusal failure," etc. I don't assure the community that any legitimate aspects of the warning are not going to be again ignored. What will happen? I'm blocked. Will anyone unblock me because of a recusal failure? Maybe, it depends on how egregious it was, and if a reviewing custodian considers that there was no adequate reason for the block in the first place. More likely, if there was decent cause, I remain blocked until I calm down and am able to promise not to repeat the offense, or until the original block expires, not having been extended, or whatever reason there was to fear disruption for me has passed.


 * Because of the block, the original blocking custodian is now clearly under an ongoing recusal requirement. But the same conditions apply. Who else can I claim is "involved"? I don't see a basis. Further, my claim of recusal failure simply has no effect, in itself, on my block status. Recusal failure does not automatically equal unblock, period. It simply means and requires that a new decision be made by someone not involved.


 * Difficult conditions can arise where long-term dispute has been allowed to fester. I suspect, though, that even with JWS or Moulton, there are still some neutral custodians where there is no basis in prior conflict that would create an appearance of bias.


 * And if everyone must recuse, the judicial rule is that nobody must. If someone has gone so far as to create an appearance of bias in every custodian, that's probably the whole story right there! But in reality, where recusal policy is in place and is being maintained, by about the third attempt to get unblocked or to avoid block by claiming recusal failure, the editor would be indef blocked. Note that if a custodian under a recusal obligation goes to the community for review, as the policy requires, the community will make a decision, through discussion and a close by a neutral administrator, who becomes the representative of the community in blocking. My view is that this admin does have discretion to unblock, perhaps setting conditions that satisfy the needs expressed by the community. The goal is cooperation, not exclusion, and blocks are used only when participation becomes, overall, disruptive, resulting in net damage.


 * What if there is no neutral administrator? Then, my best suggestion is that the community approve an admin to handle the issue, one considered most likely to be able to be both firm and yet able to negotiate protective conditions. Consider this: a user is blocked, and nobody is willing to unblock. What if the user suggests an admin to be a mentor or "block supervisor"? The user has made the choice and cannot then claim "recusal failure," at least not for the first reblock!


 * One thing that should possibly be in the policy. It is not recusal failure, ever, to undo your own action. With blocks, if you have unblocked a user, you may reblock regardless of claims of recusal necessity. If you have blocked, we already have no problem thinking that you may unblock. If you have protected a page, you may unprotect. If you have unprotected, you may reprotect, as long as no other admin has undone your first action. Hence even though Ottava Rima, a current example, is involved in clear conflict with JWSschmidt, Ottava was the last admin to touch JWS's account, for an unblock. So Ottava could rescind that decision by blocking. If he wanted to, he'd merely be restoring the situation to what it was before his first action.


 * I'm not advocating this, note. It's merely that Ottava could do this without violating recusal policy. The original block by Adambro certainly violated the proposed policy. But when new text is added to policy, it should be assumed that it does not apply to prior actions. This new policy could not, by being policy, be used to sanction, say, Adambro. It's still possible that the community would decide that the actions were sufficiently egregious, that "he should have known..." But my strong recommendation is against this. Community, please take responsibility for making policy clear, so that custodians have clear guidance on what they can and cannot properly do. The existing situation, slowly but surely, leads them astray.


 * Recusal policy prevents disputes from becoming a personal vendetta or personal complaint. It requires that, where they are controversial, administrative decisions are spread out, not under the exclusive control of any individual. Most of the disruption I see on Wikiversity is the result of neglecting the basic common-law principle of recusal. --Abd 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This page documents the process by which people can become Custodians and go from probationary Custodians to full Custodians. Recusal isn't part of or unique to that process. Please propose it as a separate policy. You call it a Recusal policy yourself which should be a hint that it should be its own page. I suggest copying over to Recuse. -- dark lama  12:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Darklama. I placed the recusal policy in the section on "How are Custodians expected to act?" The page is not just about becoming a custodian, it also covers the expectations, and process if one has a complaint about a custodian. The stuff about recusal policy is fleshing out what the policy currently says about behaving "professionally." Professionals are generally aware of recusal policy for their field. It is an aspect of professional behavior. A judge, for example, would never properly hear an appeal from a case which the judge himself or herself decided (before, say, being appointed to an appeals court), at least in modern interpretations of judicial ethics.


 * What I picked to explain about recusal policy is a very simple part of it, it could certainly be fleshed out more. But as it is, it is brief enough, I think, to be here. The page, however, would be Recusal, though, covering the circumstances in detail under which a custodian or bureaucrat would recuse (or possibly other officer, sometimes just ordinary users. Revert warring is a kind of recusal failure.) It should be very clear. If it is vague and difficult to decide, I know from experience, it will not serve the purpose, for then there will be debate over interpretation and it becomes unenforceable. Wikipedia's policies cover what I've described here, in various ways. Note that these are restrictions on sysop behavior; we may wish to have tighter restrictions on such behavior here than Wikipedia has, not the reverse. Wikiversity, for example, has a much stronger aversion to blocks and to article deletion and to sanctions based on content opinion and position.


 * See w:Wikipedia:Administrators, w:Wikipedia:Administrators, w:Wikipedia:Administrators, w:Wikipedia:Administrators, w:Wikipedia:Administrators. Note that these are all on the "Administrators" page. We are not bound by that, but ... it's a precedent


 * At this point, do you think you could comment on the policy proposal itself?--Abd 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Recusal should be fleshed out in more detail to provide clear guidance for everyone. Reverting content that is disputed can be a form of recusal failure as you said. Some restrictions on reverting content may make since for contributors as well. I've heard Wikipedia has a 3 revert rule for example. Wikibooks doesn't really have a rule against reverting either, but some people at Wikibooks may have a stronger aversion to reverting than Wikipedia to the point that reverting a good faith contribution even once is too much. Maybe Wikiversity needs a rule or rules about reverting to help keep conflicts from becoming inflamed. I think if rules can be fleshed out that provide guidance for contributors to recuse and deal with conflict, expanding the rules to encompass custodians will be easy/easier. I suggest you begin to do that at Recusal. -- dark lama  00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of when recusal requirement kicks in
Suppose a custodian warns an editor, say it is for revert warring. The editor disagrees with the custodian, and is uncivil. The custodian may not block for incivility in that response. Another custodian might, though usually we understand that people don't like to be restricted and may respond intemperately on their own Talk page. (Not elsewhere!) However, if the editor proceeds to again revert, the custodian may block. In blocking, the custodian has discretion on block length, from short to indef. If the custodian chooses a lesser remedy, i.e., short, and in the absence of other custodial action, and for apparent cause, the custodian may reinstate the block for repeated violation after the original block expired. This is really all a part of an original action. Recusal applies to future disputes, either not related to this sequence, but which present an appearance of some prejudice by the custodian, i.e., some bias created by the first incident, possibly causing overreaction, or related after another custodian has intervened to unblock or reduce the block length.

How to apply recusal beyond a repetition of the same kind of action with the same editor can be a grey area, and the strong advice in the suggested policy is that custodians refrain from allowing any appearance of bias to be created. Howevfer, if an editor claims recusal applies, that a particular custodian should not block or threaten to block the editor, my position on Wikipedia was that the custodian should, absent emergency -- different rules! -- recuse, with or without referral to other custodians. What this does is assert a right of editors to independent review, and avoid the situation where an editor can reasonably believe their participation is being blocked by someone with a personal grudge. As long as there are at least a few custodians available, this creates no serious burden, and the value of this protection far exceeds the cost. (It's easy to recuse!) On Wikipedia, wise administrators recuse from addressing any topic with their tools where they have strong opinions. Some of them don't even edit there, much less use admin tools.

(And this, then, shows how recusal, more informally, applies to all editors. Conflict of interest rules on Wikipedia are an example of this. If one has a serious conflict of interest -- typically monetary, though sometimes not -- one is expected to refrain from any controversial editing of articles there, but, in theory, may make suggestions on Talk. In what I consider abusive, however, expert editors have been blocked because they made "fringe" arguments on Talk pages, which took recusal policy way beyond its intended and deliberated application.) --Abd 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this whole thing is it is so vague. It is impossible to define when a custodian, or someone else for that matter, is involved to such a degree that an action should be avoided for it might be perceived to be based upon a personal grudge or whatever. As we are currently, no sensible custodian would take an action if they thought there was a genuine risk of it appearing improper. I haven't but that doesn't stop anyone suggesting any action I've taken appears or might appear improper due to a prior involvement. I think it is better to focus on the action rather than who took it otherwise we just invite cheap accusations of improper behaviour. It is very easy to accuse someone of recusal failure but usually more difficult to engage in a debate of the merits of a particular action. My perception of some of the recent accusations of recusal failure is that it is being used as a way of trying to limit actions that are disagreed with, not necessarily actions which are improper due to a clear conflict of interests. If someone disagrees with an action than they should explain why and discuss it. Simply declaring "recusal failure" seems pretty lazy and doesn't contribute to promoting a pleasant atmosphere. Another problem is we can only judge by what we know. If, for example, a custodian had a real life relationship with a blocked user it might be inappropriate for that custodian to unblock them but of course the community might be unaware. We don't need some detailed and overly burdensome recusal policy. All we need is custodians to use common sense and not act when inappropriate. Adambro 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro is referring to "involvement" as a standard. That's not impossible to determine, as he claims, but, indeed, it can be "vague," and this has been used on Wikipedia to make it nearly impossible actually enforce the policy that exists there. I have elsewhere claimed "recusal failure" based on a common-law understanding of it, and there are two custodians who have been most likely to fail to recuse in this manner, and both have opposed this clarification of policy. Recusal failure creates a horrible atmosphere, in fact. It creates conditions where many sensible users will just go away. "Involvement" suggests recusal, but as a strict standard, easily enforced, it doesn't really work, in my experience. Therefore the proposed standard does not depend on involvement, except in a very specific way: prior action. Sure, RL involvement, the kind that can create bias, suggests recusal, and if this can be proven, recusal failure can be proven to exist. But recusal through prior action, as defined in the proposed policy, is far simpler to see and to understand. No example, real or anticipated, has been shown where this policy would cause a problem. The proposed policy deals with allegations of bias (the "involvement" kind of recusal failure) by considering this allegation alone as prima facie evidence that the custodian should then recuse. This will not result in a reversal of the action, a recused custodian has no obligation to undo anything, unless there was already clear recusal failure and damage from the action. Then undoing it might avoid sanctions from ensuing process. It would be an ineffective way for an abusive editor to prevent sanctions for it. And, remember, emergency action is always allowed, and even recusal failure is allowed in marginal situations if the custodian immediately consults the community and allows another custodian to reverse the action.
 * The resistance shown here would, on Wikipedia, be manifested by as many as a dozen administrators (out of many hundreds active) showing up and making arguments quite like Adambro is making here. That's almost always enough to prevent a consensus from forming there. I've argued that ArbComm should take note of this (recusal is policy, and arguing against making recusal failure clear, where it is clear to those who understand the common law of recusal, should create a reasonable fear of violation and thus a reason to suspend tool access until the community is assured of no danger), but ... ArbComm is entirely composed of administrators, who tend to "circle the wagons," thus the problem of rampant recusal failure there, with only occasional efforts to fix it (mostly when an admin blocks another admin or a very popular editor), remains unresolved. Here, there is more possibility of bringing this into policy. I'm hoping to see comment here from non-custodians, because we can expect, by default, any policy that restrains custodians may attract some custodian opposition. It's purely normal, to be expected, this is not a complaint about custodians. I'll note that Darklama has not opposed this and has implied some level of support. So we'll see. --Abd 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything. If I mean something I try to say so directly. I'm only attempting to encourage you to propose recusal on another page, where the proposal can be flushed out and a focused discussion can take place. I oppose having recusal as part of the Custodianship page, because I believe the purpose or intent of the Custodianship page is different from the purpose or intent of Rucusal. I can understand objections to proposing a recusal policy as well, but you should work on flushing out the details on another page as a separately proposed policy. One source of previous objections I have seen related to the current objections is about the use of disclosures. The objection I have seen to that is people cannot be expected to know their own biases, agree that they are biased, and be able to disclose their biases. The problem is similar because people cannot be expected to know not to act before they act, agree that they are too involved, and be able to refrain from using tools. The problem can be even worse when an appearance of being too involved is take into account. -- dark lama  11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Minimum Activity Requirement
This RfC is to propose an addition to the Custodianship policy that will apply to Custodians, Bureaucrats, Oversighters, and Check Users. Note, this proposal will be open for 10 days for discussion and determining opinions.

Proposal: That Custodians, Bureaucrats, Oversighters, and Check Users must perform at least 5 administrator actions or make 20 edits every 6 months or have their privileges revoked and will only have them returned through community process. Some leniency is allowed, but users who will be inactive for a long term period of time should first go through community discussion regarding their levels of inactivity. A user who has had some activity will be given more positive consideration than users without any activity.

Proposed. - Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * What is the problem that this change is intended to address?
 * Is it automatic or is there discretion, and if there is discretion, who exercises it, according to what standards? (If it is automatic, then any editor could point to the policy and a record for a sysop and a steward would presumably remove the bit. But only a checkuser would know how many checkuser actions were taken, those logs are not public. A request from someone who doesn't know would be fishing....) --Abd 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that Abd has valid comments that need to be addressed first. There are some missing details. Devourer09  ( t · c ) 01:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no Checkusers on wv (they're handled by meta). --SB_Johnny talk 17:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is based on admin actions, not Check User actions. We currently have 22 custodians with only 2 active custodians (in terms of regular admin action and not editing rate). Other projects, Meta, Books, Source, etc, rely on the above policy to clean out inactive admin with little burden. The above policy is based on their policy with much lower activity standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list of admin that have little activity over the past 11 months (breakdown for 2010 only):
 * CQ - 4 edits (since July 2010), 0 admin action (since 2009)
 * Digitalme 0 edits (since 2007), 0 admin action (since 2008)
 * Draicone 0 edits (since 2008), 0 admin actions (since 2008)
 * HappyCamper 0 edits (since 2009), 0 admin actions (since 2009)
 * J.Steinbock 0 edits (since 2007), 0 admin actions (since 2007)
 * McCormack 0 edits (since 2008), 0 admin actions (since 2008)
 * MichaelBillington 0 edits (since 2008), 0 admin action (since 2008)
 * Robert Horning 0 edits (since 2007), 0 admin acttion (since 2006)
 * Sebmol 3 edits (since July 2010), 5 admin action (since July 2010)
 * WiseWoman 0 edits (since 2007), 0 admin action (ever)

Out of 26 admin, 9 have not meet the requirement giving them 11 months to meet the criteria with 1 a borderline (Sebmol). I would have no problem having a former admin list with those who were removed per this policy with emphasis on the positive if they return and reapply for a position. Many of these people retired/quit and probably wont be coming back. We don't need phantom admin laying about. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, this is not an addition to the criteria needed of someone new requesting custodianship, correct? Perhaps this should be clarified in your proposal as well as in the sitenotice.
 * Now, I'm not a stickler for numbers, and we shouldn't just let these keep their custodianship flag just because they make a few admin actions here and there and revert themselves twenty times, but I think that this criteria would be practical. I do suggest that the twenty edits made be spread over several days and not just rvvs or the like. TeleComNasSprVen 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I quite like the way it works on meta, and I've passed through books and source just about enough to say I quite like the way it works there too. The elephant in the room here really is that we're a bit of a wasteland in terms of project activity - I don't think this would impact negatively though, so yeah... why not. Privatemusings 05:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC) with some irony, I got an edit conflict ;-)


 * FYI, here's meta's version of it: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&oldid=2191127#For_bureaucrats.27_attention which points to meta:Meta:Administrators/Removal. Perhaps we should have a similar inactivity session started here. TeleComNasSprVen 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The activity requirement is less than meta's, which is why I didn't add an inactivity session. I would assume that people would poke and prod users if they see them inactive before the 6 months is up. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Wikibooks requires a reasonable attempt to notify the user either by email if they set one or on their user talk page, and the person is listed for 30 days for removal at the nomination page prior to removal. Wikiversity could do something similar, with the notification and listing started 30 days prior to the end of the 6 month period. Wikibooks doesn't require consensus for removal either. Wikibooks doesn't say what happens should the person object though so in that regard its ambiguous. I suggest if the person returns to objects a week be given to allow discussion and the Wikiversity community to decide what to do, and in the even there is no consensus the removal is still done. I like the idea of requiring edits to be spreed out over a period of time and being substantial edits to count. How about:
 * Users who have made fewer than 5 substantial contributions a month for 6 consecutive months 20 substantial contributions within 6 consecutive months will have all their privileges removed without further notice if a reasonable attempt to contact the user goes unchallenged by the effected user after 30 days.
 * Users who satisfy the previous criteria, will still have any privileges removed that have been used fewer than 5 times in the same 6 consecutive months if the effected user does not challenge the removal within 30 days after being notified on their local user talk page.
 * Users who challenge the removal of their privileges within the 30 day period will have 7 days to gain a favorable community consensus, otherwise the tools will be removed without further discussion. No consensus will be treated the same as a failure to gain a favorable community consensus.
 * Users will be nominated at Candidates for Custodianship as part of the removal process, with the reason being due to inactivity. The 30 day period begins once the user is listed and the user has been reasonably notified.
 * Users who lose their tools may regain the tools again later through community consensus without needing to be mentored again.
 * Substantial contributions for the purpose of this policy includes providing feedback on wiki and on the wikiversity-l mailing list, responding to requests for help on their user talk page, and adding meaningful educational contents to resources in the main space. Substantial contributions for the purpose of this policy does not include minor corrections, rolling back edits, undoing edits, or reverting edits.
 * -- dark lama  14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits being spread out - so, someone makes 20 edits one day. Since it is a 6 month period, they would wait 6 months to make 20 more? We do have some people who had such sporadic appearances - i.e. summertime or other things. Of course, we could discuss it as a community. Spread out editing wouldn't be able to adjust to some of the problems. Remember, this is to look at the minimum of activity - people who retired and forgot to tell us. The above additions would make it too complex. Meta's is streamlined. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "favorable community consensus" looks exactly like a Request for Custodianship, so isn't that just a tad unnecessary? Just desysop with a view that it wasn't done for anything objectionable that could get in the way of a reapplication. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I remember this is to look at minimal activity. I might of gotten a bit carried away though. The question is what is considered an acceptable level of minimal activity? How about at least 20 substantial contributions spread out over at least 5 different days? Yes some people might do 20 rollbacks or whatever in one day ever 6 months just to try keep the tools. BTW my first go was an attempt to mimic Wikibooks' requirements for gaining reviewer automatically, but with much lower requirements. The worst case I have ever seen of this personally is when I firsted started and an admin used some script to rollback all my contributions indiscriminately after being inactive for almost a year. They should of been desysoped for that, but they weren't so I guess I tend to feel strongly something needs to be done to prevent people from trying to game whatever inactivity rules are put in place, and to ensure people don't come back with an outdated view of what the community considered acceptable and use the tools inappropriately. -- dark lama  15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it - if it was 20, then those with 21 will have people complain about barely sliding by while those with 19 will have people saying "but they were so close". I would rather take someone working 1 day every 6 months than the current none for 3 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we should take out #5. It's not really necessary and mentorship depends on how the custodian behaves on his/her return. TeleComNasSprVen 17:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Better? -- dark lama  19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm of the view that custodianship is no big deal (let people be custodians if it causes no obvious harm), that if something isn't broken don't fix it, and that I'm keen to encourage custodian participation by being as flexible as possible with arrangements. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Its broken in that there are a lot of people listed as custodians that aren't available/around to help people. Do you really consider expecting some level of activity every 6 months too demanding/restrictive? If so why? -- dark lama  15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think it's really a big deal either way, but is the issue here something along the lines of that having so many custodians listed is somehow deceptive? --SB_Johnny talk 21:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution to the misleading list (which is a problem) is to classify sysops as inactive. Easy to do, no fuss required, and if a sysop protests, they can just change the classification back. What I don't see is any argument here for removing the bit. "Expecting some level of activity" seems to imagine that this standard proposed will encourage activity. It won't. We merely remove the bit from some users who might return and be useful. I'll also note that on occasion a user has been inactive, but responded to an email when some function was needed. This would make that approach useless. The argument that an admin will use the tools inappropriately can be dealt with if the admin uses the tools inappropriately!


 * Not having seen any reason given for removing the bit, no asserted problem, I'm going to oppose.--Abd 02:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that a far better alternative. All of the people listed above were either involved in setting the project up, or active in the heady days of 2006 and 2007 when there was a great spirit of hope and community (despite endless arguments about round corners (you had to be there)).
 * I've seen these sorts of policies go into effect on both WB and commons, and there were definitely a lot of hurt feelings, as well as a change in atmosphere that had the sense of MMPORG. Both of which strike me as both unnecessary and counterproductive. --SB_Johnny talk 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I can't think of anyone that has really objected to having the tools removed when they were too busy with real life to help out. In fact people that have responded were quiet willing to return the tools. The tools are suppose to be no big deal and so should not having them any more. What I proposed would require someone to attempt to email or contact the person in some other way and if they object give that person an importunity to explain why they should be allowed to keep the tools and give the community a chance to decide whether they still feel confident in allowing that person to have the tools despite not using them. I think any change in atmosphere was for the better. People can usually get in contact with a person with confidence that someone is around to help, while in other situations people leave the project because nobody was available to help them. Its similar to a person needing help at a library/university from a librarian/guidance-councilor, but no librarians/guidance-councilors are around to help them. I think that this could even be considered more important for Wikiversity than other projects, because people are actually expected to engage in learning, rather than just read whats available. -- dark lama  12:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the names offhand, but there were indeed a few on wb that were quite insulted, and many more on commons. There's just not enough to be gained here to justify burning the bridges (or the risk of doing so). I think Abd's suggestion achieves the same goal with less problems, and (again) there's nothing wrong with simply sending them an email and asking in a casual way rather than "we've changed our policy and are kicking you off the boat". --SB_Johnny talk 13:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if people are insulted they took the tools as a status symbol and as being a big deal which isn't good and I probably wouldn't support giving the tools back because of it, or a rude message was sent which has nothing to do with the process itself. Abd's suggestions doesn't achieve the same goals, because it assumes the people that would be seeking help would be aware that such statistics exist and know where to find it, rather than simply messaging the first few people listed at Special:ListAdmins, which is an autogenerated list. A nice email message can be sent even if this process exists like: "Hey. I see you haven't been actively lately. Do you plan on returning? The Wikiversity community would like to know if you have any objections to removing the tools granted you." -- dark lama  15:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In theory it's only a "badge of honor" in the sense that it says that the person is a trusted member of the community (which is one way that it can create awkward situations when revoked).
 * I doubt too many people would use the special page, but even if they do, the links are to the support staff page (where the active/inactive list would be) and their userpages (which can have a template at the top to make people aware of the situation). There is no direct links there to either their talk pages or to their emails. Presumably we could alter the mediawiki pages to point them to noticeboards or lists as well. An "assistance" link on the community part of the sidebar might make that all even easier, of course. --SB_Johnny talk 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about this. We have a list of custodians that is usually complete, at Support staff. Originally, I thought that the list should be sorted into active and inactive. If that's going to be done, though, it should be maintained by bot and sorted by last edit. For something much simpler, I realized that simply bolding the name of an active sysop, by some standard, would be trivial to maintain. All it takes is three apostrophes before the user link. And, for frosting on the cake, updating the note at the top with the timestamp for the change. There is no harm if it isn't fully up to date. I felt that anyone active in the last three months was probably available by email, and I'd hope that custodians would have email notification turned on for their user talk pages. K.I.S.S. Places on the wiki that tell where to get help should have a link to that list. Some already do. --Abd 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A trusted member of the community begs the question, "What does it mean to be a trusted member of the community?" Are they trusted to be active? Are they trusted to help people when they need assistance? Are they trusted to turn in the keys when they quit? Are they trusted to let people know when they plan to be gone for an extended period of time?
 * What good are links to a noticeboard or a assistance link, if most people that can offer assistance are inactive? When there are only a few people, its more likely for things to go unanswered/unresolved because the pages are overlooked for awhile, people are busy working on their own projects, or people have decided to take a few days off, and the people needing help may decide the project is dead and that contributing here is a waste of time. Even the people that are actively helping others might be discouraged by a decrease in other people pitching in to help with time, and that can steamroll into more people not getting the assistance they need. -- dark lama  19:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an argument for encouraging more people to become custodians, not an argument for getting rid of old ones. --SB_Johnny talk 21:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I intended it as an argument for encouraging more active people to become custodians, and as an argument for getting rid of custodians that aren't active any more though. If they've been gone long enough they aren't likely to return and even if they did someday there may be nobody left around who knows who they are and consequently the current community would have no reason or history/experience with which to trust them. -- dark lama  22:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you allow them to keep the bit, then it is a MMORPG. Why? Because you make the bit an award, not a duty/job. We need people who treat this as a job because there is very little admin activity and it is stressful on the minority that is active. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, SB Johnny, such an idea has always come up on places like WR as a way to keep people from treating the site as a game. So, if you don't believe me just open a thread there and ask for opinions. I do think it should concern people when 1/3 of our admin aren't active and many of them haven't touched a WMF project since 2008. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's nothing more than a mark of trust, then it's a fine reward to have around. I don't see it as a job so much as an opportunity to help when one has time and the urge to do so. If the workload is too high, maybe try emailing a request for assistance instead?
 * I don't agree with a lot of the "WR slate", including on this topic.
 * And not to be snippy, but you (Ottava) might have lost your tools under this policy too, which would mean even one fewer active custodians to share the load. There's no saying that some of the others might return as you have. --SB_Johnny talk 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)'
 * I had 5 admin actions in September 2009. 1. 17:36, 18 September 2009 deleted "How to use R" ‎2. 17:36, 18 September 2009 deleted "Power Protection-Fuses" ‎ 3. 17:36, 18 September 2009 deleted "Time" ‎  4. 17:35, 18 September 2009 deleted "Wayne Hammond" ‎ 5. 17:35, 18 September 2009 deleted "Unitedautoliquidators" ‎
 * The largest gap between my admin actions is 2 months. Please limit smartassery to claims that are properly vetted first. And we shouldn't have to resort to emails begging people to come back when they left 2 years ago and probably don't even respond to emails. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SB Johnny, as other sister projects and regular outcries on Wikipedia suggest, old accounts are easily compromised, especially those who were from 2006. It also suggests that people above did not take the position seriously enough to the point they just left without saying a thing. This would serve to encourage a minimum level of activity as it does at Source and Meta quite successfully. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a possible security risk from old unused accounts. That risk becomes high if there are many, many idle accounts. That is not the case at Wikiversity. If it ever becomes a problem we can fix it. It's the case at Meta, and a loose can do widespread harm affecting many wikis and editors, before detected. It's also the case at Wikipedia, but they still allow those accounts. Here, it's mostly just content or possibly a few blocked editors, very short-term, easily fixed, all recorded so that any sysop can fix it, and, believe me, if I saw clear signs of a vandal-admin, I'd be at meta in a flash, and they would desysop first and ask questions later. There is a reason why local 'crats are not normally allowed, at any of the small wikis, to desysop. It ain't broke, don't fix it. --Abd 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a more dynamic list of custodians - e.g., sortable by time of most recent edit. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Even better would be a dynamic list that tracked how recently they checked their watchlists. It's not hard to imagine some positive things about having uninvolved veterans around when there's conflict going on. --SB_Johnny talk 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any negatives that are actually negative, except for the "risk of compromise" argument, which is so small a negative under Wikiversity conditions to be negligible. --Abd 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Could we point to any equivalent policies on the sister projects - I'd be interested to have a look. And does this proposal also apply to inactive bureaucrat accounts? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a link to the Meta policy/procedure above. It can be found here: meta:Meta:Administrators/Removal. That is probably the easiest to look at. By the way, since crats are connected to admin it would be removed at the same time. Crat functions could count as admin actions but since they are rarely used it wouldn't be that good to just have any sort of time limit. There are always plenty of admin actions that could be found, though, to meet a 5 action per 6 months minimum. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also isn't WV:RCA and checking a user's contributions enough to get custodian attention and to assess the likelihood of a custodian's response?

indicate Special:Contributions should be

Procedural note Strictly speaking, shouldn't this proposal have been discussed before becoming an RfC? How a question is asked can highly influence the answer, and in standard deliberative process, no vote is taken until a community decides it is ready to vote. Now, this isn't a vote, but it can function similarly, and multiple RfCs on the same rough topic can exhaust the community. Ideally, we'd discuss a proposal, which might become a consensus without an RfC. If we always want an RfC for any policy, that's okay, though it has not been actual practice, i.e., policy changes are commonly made just through normal editing that is accepted because nobody takes it out.... In any case, there clearly is not consensus for this proposal at this point, and the problem here is that the proposal wasn't worked out, negotiated, before starting this process. I've made an alternate proposal below that I hope will enjoy broader consensus. I'd suggest that anyone who considers either of these proposals to be an improvement over the status quo, it's fine to support both of them, and we will sort it out if both obtain consensus. --Abd 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RfC's are discussions. It is in the name. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a real practical consequence, it is not merely a different name for a "discussion." RfCs are generally proposed to make a decision with a community consensus that is not merely assumed from successful changes with as few as one editor making the change and it sticking. This RfC was very clearly immature, not thought through in many details, not to mention the very purpose of it. Because of that, this discussion is tortuous and probably is consuming maybe ten times the editorial labor as would be necessary with a little preliminary discussion seeking consensus, or at least delineating the various issues. --Abd 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You lied about the supporters saying it was about honor when they said the opposite. You lied above about what RfC's are. If you continue to blatantly lie and try to justify the lies, you will be blocked. Your disruption is unacceptable. Wikiversity is not your personal toilet. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone wondering about Abd's long history of blatantly lying about what is proper at the WMF, here is a quote from WP:RFC - "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." By definition, RfC, aka Request for Comments, are discussion based. Not discussion before proposing policy changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My, my. I have posted my concerns about premature process here at the Colloquium. Threatening to block me over a disagreement is, itself, recusal failure. Above, Ottava simply said "No" to all attempts to make the meaning of recusal failure clear, so his continued failure is no surprise at all. And that does not even begin to address the gratuitous incivility. --Abd 18:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing this with Ottava on his talk, but please let's all stop waving the sticks, OK? --SB_Johnny talk 20:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SBJ, good luck. I don't have a stick to wave, though. I'm concerned about those who do, and who actually wave them. Those two positions are not equal. But, sure, "let's all stop waving the sticks." 'Nuff said for now, I hope. --Abd 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing inactive admins' tools, and I think the requirements for minimum activity are fairly reasonable. My problem with this policy is that it does not have a mechanism for warning inactive admins about their tools being revoked. Admins that don't check the site regularly shouldn't have their tools suddenly taken away, and if they decide to come back, be wondering why. If we gave admins multiple email reminders before we took away their tools, and e.g. gave them 3 months to edit the site so they could meet the activity requirement and keep their tools, I think this type of policy could be a very good way to give inactive admins a little reminder of their responsibilities. I am a supervisor on WikiAnswers, where I'm not as active as I am here. From time to time, I get reminders like the one I described from the other supervisors, which I appreciate. It makes me contribute more over there. Admins should also have a way to prevent their tools from going on probation for inactivity. E.g. if they're spending 9 months in the jungle and they know it, they should have a formal way of telling us so we don't take away their tools during that period of time. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notifying users about a potential upcoming removal for inactivity can happen at any time for any reason and wouldn't need the authority of a policy. The removal procedure would, as it deals with ops. That is why there is nothing above about notification - that can be put together by anyone with any standard. Multiple email reminders wont do anything as most left 2 years ago and probably don't even have the same email. By the way, the policy crafted does allow for someone to contact the community about going on leave and does allow someone to reapply without any problems (and probably no real worries by the community). If someone is in a jungle for 9 months, they should probably give up the ops with the expectation of having them back when they resume to ensure nothing happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, a discussion is a conversation or a debate. Is that not what we are having here, a debate about how or whether sysop bits should be removed? TeleComNasSprVen 07:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

SBJ sent me an email pointing to this page, so I figured I'd weigh in. I don't think removing tools simply for inactivity's sake is necessarily productive. TeleComNasSprVen, I believe, raises the good point that users seeking admin help may not be able to get through to an admin if they contact an inactive admin. I think that this is entirely reasonable but unfounded. Since 2007 I've gotten exactly one email asking me to do something. This was in May 2008 and I quickly popped by to make the desired change (my logs tell me it was the deletion of a category). I don't think that this is a big problem right now and I don't really see it becoming one.

The best solution, it seems to me, would be to email the relevant inactive admins (this could probably even be automated relatively simply) and ask if they still want to be part of the project. This avoids any issues with automatic removal (i.e. someone who is seasonally unavailable), keeps the list uncluttered, and makes sure that the only people with the tools are those who are interested in being part of the project.

For myself, my circumstances have changed such that I unfortunately don't have much time to devote to this project or others, so feel free to remove my bits. --digital_me (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above. My own thoughts are that I think that this should be a voluntary choice, which inactive custodians are asked to make after 12 months. Much like on en.wp, when the circumstances are uncontroversial, it shouldn't more than an email to get a bit back when it was revoked on request. I don't think that community trust expires, or that custodians should have to outline their circumstances (for basic privacy reasons). Personally I'd like to keep my bit, and would be happy to help out if there is a backlog of things to do. :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am similarly just coming to the conversation thanks to a heads up from SBJ and also agree with the above that simply removing the tools for inactivity is not particularly productive or all that collegial. I knew that I would be absent for a period while finishing my masters degree and said as much on my user page. It sort of smacks of the publish or die routines that are currently tarnishing the halls of many real world universities. I too would like to keep my custodial designation and this notice may have renewed my interest in participating in the project (although I read stuff all the time!) You gotta be heads up around Wikiversity man or they're after you for one thing or another! Countrymike 04:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Real universities fire you if you don't bother showing up for work. And saying it is unprofessional - so Meta, Wikisource, and Wikibooks are unprofessional? Professional groups have performance evaluations and fire people for not doing work. Not expecting people to be active is what amateur clubs do. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Michael sums it up best, and see also my comments below. Abd's implemented alternateive proposal seems to resolve the most pressing issue of being able to identify active custodians, and having read through the discussion here I'm not convinced we have a strong enough argument for the current enwv community to remove a custodian flag solely on grounds of inactivity. That said, I like the idea of occasionally reaching out to inactive custodians and offering the option to voluntarily remove their custodian flag, and restore it automatically should they return to the project. Ottava: real universities have a most unfortunate environment and structure in place, whereby what is taught is not always what should be taught, academics do not always have the option to teach in their area of expertise, students are restricted to the predefined curriculum, and above all a constant drive to publish looms. I hardly think we should be trying to emulate them. --Draicone (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Real universities are legitimate for a reason. It seems that your view is based on a dislike of academia as a whole. Your disrespect for credible, working real life policies plus your disrespect this community by abandoning it makes your comments appear rather inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * Ottava, Wikiversity is not Wikipedia. --Draicone (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Wikipedia doesn't try to adhere to any kind of academic credibility. Universities that keep faculty on the rolls who haven't been active in their term are not credible. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Countrymike, I have to say that being a Custodian doesn't just mean wielding admin actions. In the past, I helped out in IRC and by e-mail/talk pages. I cleaned up pages, I talked about Wikiversity "in real life" and was inspired and got people inspired about it. The whole benefit to the web and to a wiki is that it's available all the time, but you don't have to be there all the time. Throughout the discussion here I keep seeing a recurring question that I don't think is adequately answered -- "What problem does this solve?". If there was a software-imposed limit on the number of Custodians, I might see the reasoning. But the current software has no such limitation. I can't see any compelling reason to support such a policy. Historybuff 07:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If inactive custodians return, they can always request to retain the sysop bit back at Requests for Custodianship or even upon request through email; right now, though, removing sysop bits from inactive users to indicate to new users which custodians are available should be done first. Easily taken, easily given, no problems involved, no harm done, just a simple request can get the job done. TeleComNasSprVen 04:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TeleComNasSprVen, I do understand that bit-flipping isn't conceptually difficult to do. However, I haven't seen a compelling argument that it's necessary. What is the harm that is being addressed? I've seen well thought out alternatives that require no bit flipping (and no people with bit flipping abilities). A list of currently inactive custodians, either low-lighted or separated from the current list in some way, would allow people to see who is active and who currently isn't. Historybuff 11:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

More comments
Quite a few of the comments above (and below), particularly those by Ottava Rima (who started this out of the blue) are unnecessarily and inappropriately ill-toned. It was quite inappropriate to start this out as a policy process without the courtesy of sending out emails first to those who are affected, and the tone taken with those who responded to the emails has quickly turned the discussion in a toxic direction. The collegial, polite, and constructive tone of the "missing" custodians is in stark contrast to the tone taken by the custodian who is arguing for their "demotion".

I think it's important to keep in mind that maintaining a collegial, polite, and constructive atmosphere is far more important than who is a particular usergroup. --SB_Johnny talk 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All policies affect everyone. We don't send special emails to people. That is called "canvassing". It is highly inappropriate. As an admin on multiple WMF projects, you are expected to know and abide by such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a point of order: we don't have a policy on canvassing. --SB_Johnny talk 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have points of order, either. But if you want to talk about policy proposals not being discussed first which isn't standard anywhere, I can bring up canvassing which is on most of the WMF projects. You game the discussion, not I. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As another point of order: points of order, like canvassing, are not prohibited :-). Please just try to avoid continuing in the tone I mentioned at the top of this section. --SB_Johnny talk 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Points of order denote a principle of action not adopted here - i.e. a "Rules of Order". This is the same thing Abd is trying to claim many places that we have to abide by. It is odd that you are adopting and mimicking Abd's language. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Approve

 * 1) Privatemusings 05:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Ottava Rima (talk)  15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Most, if not all, of the concerns have been addressed. TeleComNasSprVen 21:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove
I am not in any power position, and will likely never want to be, but it seems to me that before making changes like the one proposed here we should be able to answer the question asked by Abd:


 * "What problem does this change address?"


 * There are inactive people who have been trusted with additional powers. Do we not trust them because they are inactive?  If so why?  Are there a limited number of slots to fill with some slots occupied by inactive people so that we need to clear out the inactive people in order to get active ones?  If so, what is the slot count?


 * EdEveridge 20:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, people looking for admins to block User:SomeVandal for example wouldn't want to email them and then find that because they are inactive they won't respond for some time now, would they? TeleComNasSprVen 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, his first and only edit is to this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose. per my comments above. Abd 02:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Ditto Abd, plus my own comments above. OTOH, there'd be nothing wrong with just asking them (via email) if they still want the bits. --SB_Johnny talk 11:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And when they don't respond? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an operational philosophy that effectively says, cut off your arm so you can't break it. In the absence of some specific risk, I see no loss from leaving admin bits in place. My opposition is to this proposal, not necessarily to any proposal that would establish a removal process from inactivity. I will note that any proposal that shuts out these older admins will increase the relative power of the existing active admins, there is less possibility of an older admin seeing a problem and returning to activity, as did actually happen with SB_Johhny, to Ottava's apparent displeasure. Combine that with an effective community structure that makes it difficult for anyone to become a new administrator if the bit is opposed by very few existing editors, and especially if it is opposed by some faction, as happened with User:Diego Grez, the proposal here adds to the entrenched effective power of the existing active admins, making it more difficult to balance it. These are general principles, I do not raise this as an attack on anyone.
 * I will say, however, that no reason, no problem other than how the list of admins is presented, has been given for why this is proposed. That could be telling. Why the concern now? What is the problem that could not be fixed by sorting the list of admins? And I see actual harm being possible, the loss of help that might appear when a formerly active admin returns, and the loss of balance and gravitas that these admins could occasionally represent.
 * To answer the question Ottava raised, if they don't respond, one notes on the custodian list that they did not respond to an inquiry. Anyone could change that by getting a response from them indicating that they wished to remain admins. That's it. Simple. No steward action required. Do people here realize that this proposal invites a process whereby anyone here could go to meta and take out certain admins by pointing out inactivity? Do people realize that we have already seen someone do that, asking for an admin bit to be lifted without providing actual policy or discussion? And it was granted. Stewards are not going to actually investigate a situation, and normally they just take what someone has said as if true, with minimal verification, assuming that the local wiki will throw the book at someone who misrepresents the situation. Doesn't necessarily happen!
 * The real problem that we occasionally have at Wikiversity is custodians who use tools while involved, having strong opinions that turn out to be different from those of the general community consensus, who use the tools to pursue their own agenda. Proposals have been made, above, to start to address this, but ... it's glacial. This proposal fixes a non-existent problem while, at the same time, pushing in a direction that could make a real problem worse. It's dangerous. --Abd 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Until you can justify keeping an admin who never made any admin actions and hasn't been active since 2006, all of you posts above are meaningless. You demand reasons, but you are just justifying the most absurd things of all. We should all be ashamed by the fact hat 1/3 of are admin haven't even bothered to be here for 2 years. They are gone. They left. Clean it up instead of keeping their names as some kind of sick memorial to our failure. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Custodianship is not a "badge of power" or a way to increase power; custodianship simply marks the trust the community has placed on an editor to carry out actions others would not normally be trusted to do. The actions of an admin are still decided by community consensus. The problem is how to trust an inactive sysop to, say block User:SomeVandal in emergencies when they happen, because it is most likely that the custodian will not respond. Referring back to my question above, it is a waste of time and resources on, for example, new vandalfighters who plan on contacting a sysop to report vandals find that most of the so-called custodians are absent. Removing the sysop bit solves the problem in places such as Special:ListAdmins and does not waste time having to update Category:Custodians or having to construct some other time-wasting activity just to keep track of which custodians are active. Custodians should not be here if they are simply collecting flags like some MMORPG. What would be wrong in having inactive sysops try to run through the seven-day process (it's just one week out of their months-long vacation) for custodianship again if they return to see if they are still trusted? And if they complain that "Why are you taking away MY tools?!" then they probably should not have the sysop bit in the first place. It isn't so hard! TeleComNasSprVen 09:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No benefit to the community has been asserted for removing the bit compared to simply sorting the list of custodians, at least roughly. Removal requires going outside the community to a steward, that's work, and it is also somewhat hazardous, i.e., if a removal process is enshrined in policy, it can be applied preferentially. But sorting the list can be done by anyone, and is easily fixed if incorrectly done or a sysop returns. That TCNSV thinks that the problem might be a sysop with a removed bit complaining means to me that the situation hasn't been understood. (There is no right to be a sysop.) Removing the bit of inactive sysops absolutely does not help with the problem asserted (vandals). When I needed a 'crat to implement the 'cratship for Jtneil, I did ping some existing 'crats. I checked how long it had been since they were active, this is very easy to do and could be made easier. It is far easier to sort the list of custodians, to place an inactive custodian in an inactive category, than to get a sysop bit removed, and, as I've mentioned, there is hazard involved in any process that does that. The 'crats did not respond, so, after a decent delay, I went to meta and reported that, pointed to the discussion, and requested ops for Jtneil, and it was very quickly done.
 * Behind this seems to be some idea that sysop status is some kind of honor, and that a sysop who isn't active no longer deserves the honor. While there is some level of honor expressed when the bit is awarded, there is no loss of honor involved in inactivity, there is merely no more cause of additional honor; but, simultaneously, there is no reason to mistrust, no dishonor. No pattern of inappropriate actions sufficient to justify the increased attention of stewards has been cited. As to resysopping, what could be "wrong" with this? There is a reason why Wikipedia doesn't have expiring sysop status: sysops typically make enemies, even when they act with complete propriety. This can make finding consensus for a sysop difficult, because people who are pissed are more motivated to pay attention than others. The problem at Wikipedia has been that it is difficult to remove the status, it has not been a problem with inactive sysops at all. That is, inactive sysops don't help, but they don't hurt, either.
 * If there is a vandal, there should be active and maintained community process of obtaining rapid sysop attention. Wikiversity uses IRC, which is probably inadequate, because IRC isn't push. A mailing list would be better. Frankly, a sysop who isn't watching Wikiversity for a day is just as much of a problem as one who hasn't watched it for a year, if the sysop can't be contacted and doesn't respond. It is merely more likely that the latter situation will persist. So, in order to avoid a situation where we have a sysop who is not available, we make sure that he or she is not available? We make it impossible? Why? I'm not seeing a reason, still. --Abd 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You claim no benefit was stated yet it was stated multiple times that 1. the accounts are inactive and have no purpose, 2. embarrassing to the community, 3. misleading, 4. prone to compromised action, and 5. an inactive user suggests they are not up to date with community norms. I find it troubling that you suggest things opposite of reality and even say that RfCs should have discussions first when that was never true on any project. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S., the only ones mentioning honor are the opposers. Your statement is almost disgraceful. I stated multiple times that it is a job, and if you don't do the job then you are fired from the job. The only justification for opposing the proposal is if it is an honor, which is as disgraceful as having 1/3 of the admin abandon the project 2 years ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, custodianship does not simply represent a symbol of honor, it is a mark of trust for a user that other members of the community depend on to carry out actions that other not-so-trusted users would not be assigned to. If we do remove sysop status from several users, we have a bureaucrat rather than a steward to carry that out for us. And removal does solve a particular problem; it tells the new vandalfighters which custodians to be trusted to stay active enough to turn to once vandalism happens; it updates Special:Statistics and Special:ListAdmins for example to let them know which sysops to contact to block vandals.


 * "It is merely more likely that the latter situation will persist." No, it is not merely more likely, it is certain that the latter situation will persist; the admin who is absent for one day more easily spots the recent vandalism and blocks the vandal much sooner than an inactive admin&mdash;vandalism removed, Wikiversity saves a year-long history of embarrassment.


 * "So, in order to avoid a situation where we have a sysop who is not available, we make sure that he or she is not available? We make it impossible?" No, like I said, they can always run for custodianship again on their return if they feel up to it, meaning they do not have to completely relinquish their tools for forever and ever. We are simply telling other vandalfighters that User:InactiveSysop is not trusted enough to do anymore admin actions even if you try to contact User:InactiveSysop, and that they might better take a look at User:ActiveSysop instead. TeleComNasSprVen 07:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Appose Leighblackall 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I came here a few days ago, saw little activity, and hoped this proposal would not gain attention. SB Johnny emailed me through WV today, and now I see an over whelming quantity of discussion. The proposal to remove custodianship is in my opinion, offensive (for many reasons), and yet another opportunity for people to be hurtful to the sense of community we need to rebuild and protect here. The only problem I can see with people holding custodianship, but rarely exercising the privilege, is that it could imply a more active or reliable administration than might be the case. A minor and insignificant problem, that could be addressed by simply displaying the level of each custodian's activity.
 * We have over 450 edits per day. That is high activity at the WMF. What are you talking about? If you had an account you didn't log in. That all seems highly suspicious. And if you bothered to read the above, you will see that many of the people haven't bothered to even -edit- for 2 years, so that contradicts your last claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry Ottava Rima, I often sign thinking I am logged in, and leave not realising I was not signed in. I wonder what % of those edits are from me and my colleagues here at UC - where some are asking their students to submit work here as assignments. Edit rate isn't a measure of community. You surely know what I am talking about, given your suspicions. I have witnessed 2 Wikiversity communities severely disrupted by motions similar to this one. Leighblackall 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - as a member of the subject matter of this discussion, I will not increment the counter of oppose votes. However, I am not satisfied with the background of this proposal: that a community at a given point in time should redefine and impose restrictions on the governance of a project with a four year history. Inactive custodians have expressed a willingness for voluntary removal of the custodian flag, and I think the key to this discussion is that the voluntary option would solve most of the concerns in this proposal. I also feel that removal of the custodian flag by the community should be restricted to those matters where failing to remove the flag has a clear negative consequence for the community. I am not convinced that such a consequence exists in the case of inactive custodians.--Draicone (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose Historybuff 07:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC) For many reasons. One not stated above is that some people take 1 year sabbaticals in real life, so a 6 month timespan feels far too short.

5. Oppose --WiseWoman 20:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC) (oooh, does this give me an edit? Only 20 more to go!). Yes, 6 months is far too short. I was part of the group trying to create a NEW university, one which was concerned with thinking - discussing - creating - teaching - learning, the way it should be, without hierarchies and open for all to see. Some people able to use an automatic script generator but not a spelling checker ran wild over all that was being built up and discussed and made a copy of a bricks and mortar school with faculties and programs and courses and instructors and students. There are great laundry lists of dead faculties that haven't seen an edit since 2007. Will they be removed, too, after 6 months of inactivity? I've morphed into a dean IRL and don't have time for hobbies anymore. In a Wikiversity we should not be concerned with roles except when they are misused. I don't think I have misused anything over here at the Wikiversity. But if you must insist on "cleaning up" then you should have a list of "honorary custodians", just like at a b&m school ;)
 * If you really wanted to make a new university, why did you leave it three years ago and not make one admin action? And not everyone deserves to gain emeritus status, only those who put effort. How can we say anyone who was around for only a few months then ran away after gaining the admin bit deserve any recognition? That is just a tad insulting. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose Countrymike 07:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Really dislike the language that has been used to argue this proposal. Custodianship is not a 'job' and I don't think people should be 'fired' without consultation.
 * The tone is actually even worse than the language, but otherwise agreed. --SB_Johnny talk 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Alternate proposal re sysop inactivity
Sysops who have edits in the last three months are bolded at Support_staff. Any user noticing that a sysop has not been active in the previous three months may update that bolding and the timestamp in the note above the list about activity.

Comments
Proposer. I've implemented this. I used three months. After three months of total inactivity, no edits, we might start to suspect that a sysop can't be contacted, if someone is looking for quick help, the yield there is likely to be lower. I prefer, greatly, to leave bits in place, and any recent activity probably indicates availability. Bolding was much simpler than sorting the list into categories. It's a quick edit, and it's easy to check, and relatively harmless if not recently updated, or if a mistake is made. I do not see why date of last use of tools has any relevance at all. Someone who hasn't used the tools for years could still block a vandal! --Abd 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, this has the same problem as the other proposed policy--it lacks a built-in procedure to communicate with the admins when we know they're inactive. This type of communication is important because the inactive admins need a little reminder to come back, and a way of knowing what is happening to their accounts.  Some of them might come back if we communicated with them.  --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, La comadrja. It's trivial to add notification of a sysop that their listing (which is all this proposal is about) has been reduced from active to inactive with the simple edit I proposed -- and showed on Staff. Indeed, if some harm from long term inactivity is shown, the measure I mention could be done for short-term inactivity, with removal after long-term inactivity. I set the time for the listing change at three months. But I've still seen no serious harm asserted that is not addressed by simply showing activity in the list.
 * I don't see recognition of the fact that it would only take a minute to check a sysop's activity and remove the bolding from in front of the name in that list, but to go to meta and request desysopping would take far more time than that. This is not something that can be done locally, and this is labor taken away from actual project work. And then there is the time of the steward, and the risks involved in setting up removal process. Balancing that is only the very low risk of account compromise, which, in fact, exists at all times for all sysops. Fixing the list so that time isn't wasted trying to contact probably unavailable sysops handles the basic problem that most have acknowledged.
 * Here is why I want those sysops to still have the bit. In an emergency, it may be possible to contact one of them. A sysop might not be interested in routinely maintaining Wikiversity any more, but, on request, by, say, email -- or perhaps one knows how to contact the sysop differently, has direct email even if it has changed -- they might, say, pop in and block a vandal on request. They might be active on another wiki. We make that potential assistance impossible by removing the bit. We are saying that we need more sysop help, but we are removing a possible source of a little of it. Why?
 * Behind some of the motive for this seems to be an idea that if we threaten to remove the bit, sysops will be motivated to help. I doubt it, rather I suspect that it might have a reverse effect. However, we could certainly ask sysops, after some period, if they want to keep the bit and letting them know that their participation is appreciated and welcome. If, with a repeated effort, which could easily be documented, we get no response, we might then request bit removal. But, remember, if a community discussion is needed for every action, it wastes user time. I proposed this visible sign of inactivity in the Staff list because any user can do it, so it doesn't place greater burden on custodians or stewards or those familiar with and comfortable at meta, and it does no significant harm even if an error is made. No offensive judgment or criticism is expressed by the application of a simple standard in the bolding. It can be fixed in a flash, either way.
 * I agree that some might come back if we communicated with them. I've done that with absent users, and some might come back. Eventually. But if we've dropped the bit, it may make it a little less likely that they will return. And for them to get the bit back, unless we give it automatically for removal not under a cloud, would take more wasted time. --Abd 21:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have sysops that have been inactive for over a year, not even counting admin actions and just based on editcounts alone. I believe that a custodian that hasn't edited in over three years is retired and not trusted to fulfill any requests, let alone urgent requests, for custodian action. You say that "But if we've dropped the bit, it may make it a little less likely that they will return." Why would they be less likely to return? If they complain that someone is taking away their tools, they should not be custodians (see my comment above) and if they return they can easily obtain the tools again on request of a bureaucrat after rerunning the seven day request for custodianship, without any further hassle. Besides sysops that have been inactive for over a year, should have the same opportunity to get their tools back, and be treated the same as any other non-sysop that has been inactive for years at a time. Both of them should have the same chance at custodianship, and inactivity just makes them less likely to be trusted to do requests. Why should we have the inactive sysops retain their tools and not just as well dole out to inactive users custodian status also? TeleComNasSprVen 23:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here agree that the Support staff page is better with the bolding to indicate activity? --Abd 00:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just break the table (one table for active, another for inactive). It's at least a stopgap while this discussion is going on. --SB_Johnny talk 13:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't exactly answer the question, but rather makes an alternate suggestion, which is fine.
 * Separate tables was indeed my first idea, I think I wrote that above. However, looking at the actual process involved, I concluded that there is far less work for each change with bolding, and the function is almost the same. That's why I asked how it actually looked. With separate tables, the listing needs to be changed to remove it from the active table and place it in the inactive, in alphabetical order there (if that order is to be maintained.) Takes far more time. Adding in and removing bolding takes seconds. I added the explanatory note at the top, and bolded it to improve visibility, to explain the significance of bold. I also thought of using smalltext, but looking at the bolding, I believe it is quite adequate, and every usage of smalltext leads to the possibility of improperly closing it. Seems to happen to me about a third of the time I use smalltext! With bolding, the unbolding triple apostrophe at the end isn't needed, because bold is cancelled by the new line. Obviously, if someone sorts the names into two tables, I wouldn't revert. I'd just ask them to be the one to maintain what they have created! But I do think it would be a setup to waste more time on something that is handled much more easily. --Abd 18:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Approve

 * 1) Support. My support of the project often goes in very intensive spurts; there have been several months when I've been listed as one of the most active contributors to the project, and several multiple-month streaks where I've not made any edits.  If the community would rather not have custodians like me around, that might be worth addressing, but it's not that I never contribute.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think that we would have tried to remove you. The 6 months and small amount of edits was proposed in consideration of your specific situation - the summer time can be a drag since classes aren't around. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove

 * 1) Oppose - silly. Inactive admin serve no purpose, and this just highlights the embarrassment. Nothing short of removing inactive admin makes any logical sense. Ottava Rima (talk)  22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This is exactly the sort of time-wasting editcount inventions that I expressed my stance against. TeleComNasSprVen 07:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) *Eh? The proposal does not involve counting edits at all! On the Staff page, on the right for each sysop in the table, there is a contributions link. It was trivial to open up tabs for a sysop and if the latest edit was less than three months ago, put in bold. Now that it's done, it will take much less time, probably a minute per change. Changes will be unusual. And they are not urgent. --Abd 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the problem with this proposal is that it wastes time and resources having to constantly update the table of admins in the long run. And who's going to look at Support staff the first time they want to contact a particular admin (note that I said admin, not custodian)?? (And support staff doesn't even mention checkusers or stewards.) TeleComNasSprVen 23:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Constantly update" is not the proposal. There is no rush and very little harm from transient errors, i.e., the bolding on the Staff page, compared to the labor involved in desysopping. I think TCNSV does not understand what is involved in desysopping, imagines that it is just a 'crat flipping a bit. Even if it were, that would be about the same effort as flipping a bolding, but it requires a crat whereas the bolding can be changed by any editor, thus it is more respectful of rarer resources. If you want to contact the specific admin, you want that, so I don't see the problem. You try to contact that admin! Whenever I want to do that, I check contributions anyway, and I'll use email if the admin is not active. But I also assume that most admins have their preferences set to email them when their user talk page is changed. Most requests for custodian action should go to the RCA page rather than to a specific sysop, because it's more neutral, less likely to be a biased action based on friendship. Really, the only time I've been concerned about activity was when I needed a 'crat, and the present state of the Staff page would have saved me a few minutes. --Abd 21:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Alternate inactivity proposal
Some of the comments above seem to be directed at Ottava's original proposal without considering the changes I proposed in the comments. I'm going to assume the reason it might of been overlooked is because the discussion has become too long to read. Here is what I proposed again:


 * 1) Users who have made fewer than 20 substantial contributions within 6 consecutive months will have all their privileges removed without further notice if a reasonable attempt to contact the user goes unchallenged by the effected user after 30 days.
 * 2) Users who satisfy the previous criteria, will still have any privileges removed that have been used fewer than 5 times in the same 6 consecutive months if the effected user does not challenge the removal within 30 days after being notified on their local user talk page.
 * 3) Users who challenge the removal of their privileges within the 30 day period will have 7 days to gain a favorable community consensus, otherwise the tools will be removed without further discussion. No consensus will be treated the same as a failure to gain a favorable community consensus.
 * 4) Users will be nominated at Candidates for Custodianship as part of the removal process, with the reason being due to inactivity. The 30 day period begins once the user is listed and the user has been reasonably notified.
 * 5) Substantial contributions for the purpose of this policy includes providing feedback on wiki and on the wikiversity-l mailing list, responding to requests for help on their user talk page, and adding meaningful educational contents to resources in the main space. Substantial contributions for the purpose of this policy does not include minor corrections, rolling back edits, undoing edits, or reverting edits.

The key differences with the original proposal are:


 * 1) A reasonable attempt must be made to notify/contact the person.
 * 2) The person is given 30 days to respond after being notified.
 * 3) The community can decide to allow the person to keep the tools despite inactivity if the person has any objections.
 * 4) Activity isn't limited to just wiki.

-- dark lama  14:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments
I think the issue is simple:


 * 1) Wikiversity needs enough active Custodians with the time to work on all the requests, vandalism, and questions people have.
 * 2) Custodians to many people represent the project. When many Custodians are inactive people will perceive Wikiversity management as uninterested in maintaining the project, uninterested in their users, uninterested in them, and people will see Wikiversity as not being worth their time.
 * 3) While being able to contact Custodians by email is good, there is no guarantee people will be helped when they email a person that is inactive. Email addresses may not be set. Email addresses may not be current. Email addresses could of been throw aways. People may be too busy with their real lives to respond to email. We have no way to know why a person is inactive unless they respond to email and we have no way to know they will. For all we know the reason a person is inactive is because they are dead.
 * 4) Wikiversity as a community is constantly changing with people leaving and new people starting. People that know and supported a Custodian's nomination may not be here tomorrow. People may not know who a person is when they return after a long time way. Policies, standards and acceptable behavior can change as the people that make up the community changes. What is considered obvious vandalism today may not be considered vandalism years from now. Custodians cannot be expected to act in the best interest of the current community when they don't know and haven't been an active part of the community for a long time.
 * 5) Anyone who contributed years ago can return at any time, contribute again, give advice, offer a historical perspective, and act as mediators. People don't need extra tools to do any of those things.
 * 6) Usually trusting and taking advice from people is easier when you know know they are from participating and having discussions with them, which takes time and requires being an active member of the community. I don't know about you, but I'd trust somebody whose been around more frequently and more recently to help me than somebody just returning after being gone a year or more.

-- dark lama  15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Give them considerably longer than 30 days to respond to the warning, and why not try to contact them both by email and on their Talk page (i.e., in every way we'd be expected to know). Then I will approve. IMO, revocation of admin tools should be a last resort and should be viewed as undesirable for every party. In the policy as it stands, I think the inactive admins aren't being given quite enough chances. People can be busy or incapacitated for a whole month but still intend to come back. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objections with trying to contact them by every conceivable means possible. Why longer 30 days to respond though? They will have already had 5 to 6 months prior to the 30 days to have every chance to come back. -- dark lama  18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "reasonable attempt" is a subjective phrase allowing for problems. Meta's policy is much more straight forward. Giving anyone who has been inactive for 2 years more chances is ridiculous in any regard. It is their obligation, not ours, for them to participate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also forgot to ask. How much more time do you think people need to be given to respond to emails/talk pages/whatever after 5 to 6 months of inactivity? -- dark lama  18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2-3 months should do. It's not really that much longer, and it's not uncommon to respond to a letter after more than a month if you're busy. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Approve

 * 1)  TeleComNasSprVen 16:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree with the proposal in general. Wikiversity needs to be clear about the (wo)manpower it has. Some custodians are inactive for a long time, and most probably never return. For some this might be the "wake up call". Although I like the straightforward speech as in Ottava's proposal, you have to admit that the policy needs to take into account every aspect that might come up, when such a situation (in this case a status reclaim) arises. --Gbaor 19:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) ; I definitely support the concept of some minimal requirement, and of notifying editors when an admin is not active.  At the same time, a focus on outreach makes more sense to me.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove

 * Oppose - too much wiggle room, subjectivity, and not straight forward. Only a standard like Meta's could work. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Ottava, but also because this goes against the "no big deal" thing custodianship was supposed to avoid. --SB_Johnny talk 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Complicated and no reason, still, given for removal of the bit that isn't addressed by simply showing activity in the Staff list. If a sysop has edited even once recently, they are likely available. A much simpler system of standard notifications of inactive sysops -- and I mean totally inactive -- can be set up, and multiple failures to respond could lead to suspension of the bit (in practice, that's removal, pending a request to return the bit). It's a mess to try to decide multiple issues at the same time! --Abd 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that the custodians haven't "edited even once recently" and that leads to complications. Just email them, and if they don't respond within a reasonable amount of time, we can run for some desysopships. TeleComNasSprVen 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasons were given, 6 reasons in fact by just me alone. How does your solution resolve the issues in such a way as render each of the 6 reasons/issues no longer a problem? I think your solution completely fails to address each issue, because you haven't been forthcoming in explaining your reasoning yet as to why you think your solution addresses the specific concerns people have raised. How is this proposal an attempt to "decide multiple issues at the same time"? I think each issue shares a common theme and has a common solution. -- dark lama  13:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasons have been given that do not lead to the conclusion "desysop." Desysopping is an action that takes up steward time, as well as the time to request it. There should be commensurate benefit. I have seen no benefit asserted that is not handled by simply sorting or marking inactive sysops in some way, and that is a tiny amount of work that can be done by anyone. As to the six reasons proposed by Darklama, responding to them requires space. My apologies for the length.
 * 1. Wikiversity needs enough active Custodians with the time to work on all the requests, vandalism, and questions people have. Removing sysop bits for inactivity does not increase the number of active custodians, if anything it decreases it (slightly). As has been noted by an inactive sysop, he's available by email and is willing to help occasionally.
 * 2. Custodians to many people represent the project. When many Custodians are inactive people will perceive Wikiversity management as uninterested in maintaining the project, uninterested in their users, uninterested in them, and people will see Wikiversity as not being worth their time. I do not see desysopping as a benefit here, it simply makes the true situation less visible. It is far easier to maintain activity information on the Staff list, and if that list becomes heavily cluttered with inactive but unresigned sysops, either use a separate table or, then, address the issue. Sysops who, long-term, do not respond at all to communication, I'd agree, should be desysopped, but it should be a reversible action upon return. I'm concerned about the one sysop who doesn't have email enabled. But one problem with one sysop should not a rigid policy make. The disabling of email, if it persists, could be taken as a resignation if continued after notice (even if the sysop is active!).
 * 3. While being able to contact Custodians by email is good, there is no guarantee people will be helped when they email a person that is inactive. Email addresses may not be set. Email addresses may not be current. Email addresses could of been throw aways. People may be too busy with their real lives to respond to email. We have no way to know why a person is inactive unless they respond to email and we have no way to know they will. For all we know the reason a person is inactive is because they are dead. I see no problem here that is not more easily addressed, with desysopping being only appropriate under relatively extreme circumstances. Users would not email an inactive sysop, in preference to an active one, unless they know the person personally, in which case they might also contactby other means. I suggest that sysops should be reachable by email, period. So that is the one asserted reason that makes sense. However, sometimes email is lost, not seen, etc. Not having email enabled, that's a decent reason for going ahead with desysopping. Long term lack of response, also. Different proposal!
 * 4. Wikiversity as a community is constantly changing with people leaving and new people starting. People that know and supported a Custodian's nomination may not be here tomorrow. People may not know who a person is when they return after a long time way. Policies, standards and acceptable behavior can change as the people that make up the community changes. What is considered obvious vandalism today may not be considered vandalism years from now. Custodians cannot be expected to act in the best interest of the current community when they don't know and haven't been an active part of the community for a long time. I've seen no major changes in the time I've been watching Wikiversity. I see no relevance to "people who supported," unless there is a system requiring continuous support. Not a bad idea, necessarily, but we don't have it, and it would raise serious bureaucracy and maintenance issues. We should look at possible damage within the context in which it arises:
 * Inactive sysop returns, perhaps sees something thought to be vandalism.
 * Sysop deletes and blocks user.
 * This could perhaps be an error, but is unlikely to be. Therefore there is a net benefit, on average, from the sysop being able to act.
 * If it is an error, it can and will be fixed, and, if done collegially, a sysop may return to activity. Or not. If the sysop responds badly to correction, then there is an entirely different issue that could lead to desysopping. It's very unlikely.
 * 5. Anyone who contributed years ago can return at any time, contribute again, give advice, offer a historical perspective, and act as mediators. People don't need extra tools to do any of those things. I don't see this as an argument for desysopping, it is only an argument that the damage is not complete.
 * 6. Usually trusting and taking advice from people is easier when you know know they are from participating and having discussions with them, which takes time and requires being an active member of the community. I don't know about you, but I'd trust somebody whose been around more frequently and more recently to help me than somebody just returning after being gone a year or more. Above, Darklama, you just proposed returning users as sources of advice. Now you deprecate that. Sure, you feel more comfortable with someone you have worked with. But someone else may feel more comfortable with an early user. This is not an argument for removing the bit.
 * Also asserted has been the security risk. The number of inactive sysops is low, so the risk is low, and emergency desysop is easy to obtain at meta with clear evidence.
 * Six deficient reasons are no stronger than one deficient reason. I'm seeing no reason for desysopping here that is strong enough to worry one steward over.
 * How is this proposal an attempt to "decide multiple issues at the same time"? Because, before any decision that there is even a problem with inactive sysops, there is a proposal that sets up specific standards, with many details, and negotiating details is not well done in a mass-comment situation. Should there be a blanket policy removing the bit after X period of inactivity? I'm seeing that, with X being low, and with inactivity being defined by usage of the admin bit, as it was, there is little support and quite a bit of opposition, certainly not consensus. With X being high and inactivity including extended lack of response to email, or inavailability of email as an option, I'm seeing, probably, support -- but that hasn't even been formally proposed! This is a situation which can lead to far more discussion -- which is labor diverted from content -- than would be necessary for an incremental improvement in policy. Let's start with what we can agree on, and it should be done on a small scale, a few interested users, who then come up with a proposal for the community to approve, if there remains controversy. That's when an RfC should be proposed; it should be a mature proposal, not a half-baked one, or possibly a choice between mature alternatives, with the arguments already laid out.
 * It's not a complete waste, though. I think that, as an example, it develops that there is one situation where desysopping would be accepted by consensus: long term absence combined with no means of contact, or long-term lack of response. The question still remains whether or not the person should be able to retrieve the bit on request, as if they had resigned voluntarily and then returned. I can see arguments both ways in this case, because being unreachable more than for short periods is, in fact, a (slight) damage. This might be removal for cause, and it could be considered "under a cloud." Inactivity itself is not an offense.
 * We also can set up a procedure to periodically document contact with "absent" sysops. It should not be frequent, because that creates a burden both for the one sending email and the one receiving it. All this raises multiple questions that can better be addressed in an "editing" environment, where proposals are worked on, seeking consensus, informally. It's like committee work in any deliberative academic setting. A question like this presented to an academic assembly would be immediately tabled for study, if not immediately rejected. The study would produce a report, and *then* an actual implementation motion would be made.
 * As to my "solution" -- which is not a solution to every problem, just the most significant one, that people looking for a sysop for some needed action should not have to waste time trying to contact inactive sysop who may not be watching the project, may not even be responding to email -- it's obviously acceptable as an improvement. SB_Johnny proposed separate tables for active and inactive sysops, but that is, to me, more work than necessary to accomplish the goal, thus running afoul of the objections over creating red tape waste of time. (It is possible, even, that truly inactive sysops would be removed from the table, which would contain a note to that effect, i.e., see the MediaWiki user group listing for the full list.... the table would just list active sysops by some standard, so, there would be, efficiently presented, two layers of information and no clutter from inactive sysops, long term.) These are details, easily addressed on Wikiversity talk:Support staff.
 * So, I move that this discussion be tabled, for study and implementation consistent with consensus here or in ensuing process. There are various processes for implementing desysopping for cause, and it need not be a big deal, if it's not opposed. One of the reasons, by the way, for allowing return of the bit on request is to pull the rug out from under any need for disruption over a desysopping, since all the removed sysop has to do is request it back, and the removal is undone. Easily undone can mean easily done. A contested desysop is one of the most disruptive processes possible, and there should be very good reason for it.
 * What my motion means is that this RfC would be closed, particularly as to the site notice. If people want to continue discussing in these threads, fine, but ... anyone may start to write policy and go through the ordinary editorial process to put it on the policy page, hopefully consistently with the visible consensus here, or something close to that. If someone opposes a proposal, of course, it will be discussed on this Talk page. I'm seeing no chance that the proposal, as originally made, will find consensus. So let's move on, and find out what we can agree on, I think there is quite a lot. --Abd 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing inactive Custodians doesn't increase the number of active Custodians directly. However inactive Custodians inflates the true number of Custodians available to assist users. By removing inactive Custodians, the Wikiversity community can visibly tell when there is a real need to find people to be new Custodians. Maintaining activity information requires more work if it is to be kept current and useful.
 * Yes, Wikiversity has no requirement for continued support. However I see the issue as would a person that has been gone for some time be able to find a mentor and gain community support for full Custodianship again if they had to go through the whole process again from scratch. Past nominations suggest mentors and the people that participate in nomination discussions alike both want to see some community involvement/participation before they are willing to consider a candidate. Yet once a person is successful responsiveness and community involvement sometimes drops to none.
 * Some people seem to think desysop would somehow diminish a person's ability to offer advice, have their advice sought, and have their advice heard. I disagree with that concern from two different perspectives which is what 5 and 6 are about. A person's standing within the community makes little difference in the ability to give advice and have advice followed. However Custodians may unintentionally influence people, and somebody returning from a long absence can offer bad advice unintentionally because they don't know the current ways the community expects things to be done, and that can confuse new members, lead to community tension, and create extra work for the community.
 * I had originally thought to include help by email as counting for activity, but there are some problems with doing that. People can say they emailed a person and got a response even if they never emailed the person. People can say they emailed a person and didn't get a response even if they did get a response. People can say they emailed a person and didn't get a response, even if they never emailed a person. Any of those sceneries can be used to game the system. If the person responds to an email with some sort of response on the mailing list or the wiki the action is logged for all to see. I think email is an unreliable way to show responsiveness. I also thought to include Wikimedia conferences and meetups too, but it has a similar problem as with email as a show of responsiveness. -- dark lama  23:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe that Darklama's proposal is the best so far in addressing this problem. We have at least one bureaucrat, so desysopping and resysopping are easy tasks that don't waste anyone's time, as opposed to compiling a list of active and inactive admins in a separate table and having to constantly update and maintain it. And I don't see why it has to be an emergency to desysop someone. Why don't you first tell me why giving out sysop status freely to anyone contributing to the project with over a hundred edits, which is the same as doling out the bit to inactive admins, would be beneficial to the project? TeleComNasSprVen 04:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The small WMF projects, with very few 'crats, are not allowed to desysop, it requires a steward. Resysopping is easy, if the policy allows it on request. If not, it's disruptive. I'm opposed to a separate table, under present conditions, precisely because it requires more work. And if there is a problem that a returning sysop could address, having to get resysopped first would be an obstacle, so the removal can do actual damage. The rest of the comment was not intelligible to me. "Emergency" desysopping refers to a situation where an admin has gone rogue, or the account has been compromised, and is doing damage, that's not relevant to this proposal, except that it is the fix if a sysop account is compromised. Sysop bits are given to users who are trusted, after some considerable examination by the community. That is not the same as giving out bits to anyone with over one hundred edits. But Wikiversity does relatively easily give out the sysop bit, unless someone has become involved in controversy, which can raise enough opposition to prevent it. --Abd 21:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation isn't unique to people returning. If there is a problem, not having the tools to fix it is an obstacle for anyone that believes they can fix it. If not having access to the tools can cause actual damage than actual damage applies equally in everyone's case, not just to people returning. If removing the tools can do actual damage, than not having access to the tools in the first place can also do actual damage. The argument you seem to be making isn't unique to any particular group of people. Having to obtain the tools first is just as much of an obstacle or a nuisance for people that haven't had them before, as it would be for people returning if they had to get them again. I never suggested compromised accounts as a reason for removing inactive Custodians for this proposal because I doubt a compromised account would remain inactive and I think if a person intended to do harm with a compromised account that would become clear to the community rather quickly. People thinking of Custodianship as a lifetime membership, thinking of Custodianship as an exclusive club, or placing Custodians up on a pedestal, I think are far more likely outcomes than a compromised account. -- dark lama  22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, what I'm getting at is this question: why should inactive custodians be given more leeway and allowed to retain their bits more so than are regular users? To quote Darklama, "If removing the tools can do actual damage, than not having access to the tools in the first place can also do actual damage." Why not just give out sysop status to every Tom, Dick and Harry out there as easily as we do inactive custodians? TeleComNasSprVen 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm not careful, I'll get a bruise on my forehead. We do not remove user privileges for inactivity, this is no different with sysops. We are careful giving out sysop status. Leaving the bit with inactive custodians is not "giving sysop status" to them. It is merely leaving it in place. In addition to my forehead, there is the poor dead horse. 'Nuff said. I requested close here. Some elements of this discussion may become policy under normal process, it is not necessary to have an RfC in order to improve policy, it is what can be done if dispute remains after working on the issue and someone thinks it important enough to take it to the community. Frankly, I'd require prior discussion and at least a second for that, certifying that attempts to find consensus in direct discussion had failed, if we want to avoid more disruption in the future. Definitely I'd not allow a proposer to directly edit the protected site message page! That should be a neutral custodian, deciding that the RfC, which will consume editorial resources, should be presented. --Abd 00:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution for inactive staff
Regardless of whether any of the above solutions are adopted, there are 4 easy (and presumably non-controversial) steps that could be taken immediately: This would at least ameliorate some of the issues while discussion here continues. --SB_Johnny talk 13:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Contact all of the "missing" members via both email and their talk pages, inform them of the discussions and concerns here, and ask them if they want to retain their tools (and if not, ask them to please request removal on meta). If we haven't heard back from someone after a month, then perhaps some sort of policy will have been adopted by then.
 * 2) Split the table on the support staff page so that inactive members are in a separate table.
 * 3) Modify whichever mediawiki page controls Special:AdminList to alert people, with a link to the active staff list.
 * 4) Add a link to the community part of the sidebar to a page describing where and how to get assistance.
 * I believe that what I already did answers the "waste of time trying to contact absent sysops" issue, more efficiently, easier to maintain, practically trivial. The separate table format requires removal of a listing from on table to the next, putting the new listing in some sort of relevant order. I did consider that possibility, and rejected it for efficiency reasons. There are details which SB_Johnny mentions which are easily made by ordinary process. Users should be referred to the Staff page, because it can contain activity information, by whatever means, and the software list, which is necessarily complete, should be referenced as what it is: a list that includes many inactive sysops.
 * I agree with contacting. I do think that we should write a standard mail that obtains consensus. This should not be ad-hoc, because it should be carefully friendly, supportive, grateful for past contributions, and should represent the community, as well as presenting information about how the community will deal with inactive sysops, which we don't know yet. The implied suggestion below that individuals should send this mail, now, in the absence of any policy, is inappropriate, though, of course, anyone is free to solicit participation from any of these inactive sysops.
 * The problem of the alleged ignorance of current practice by inactive sysops is far less of a problem than that of currently active sysops who may, with some frequency, take actions that are not supported by the community, because rectifying this can be quite disruptive and difficult. I believe that this alleged ignorance of the formally active, is almost no problem at all, and it's easily fixed if it causes actual damage. --Abd 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you bothered to email them? And if someone who hasn't used their admin ops in over 2 years returns suddenly, are we to assume that they are still up to date with our current standards and still trusted? I have a feeling JWS wont think that is true regarding McCormack. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, but I'm not the one itching to desysop them ;-). Honestly not a lot has changed policy-wise since '08 anyway, but maybe a letter to the missing might provide a critical mass to get policy movement re-started. --SB_Johnny talk 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Community trust has. See: McCormack and JWS mentioned above. And there have been many changes following both instances of Jimbo appearing, something that did not happen in 07 or 06 for some of those above. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm reasonably sure James has absolutely no interest in returning, but feel free to email him to confirm that. JWS doesn't trust you or me either from what I gather. --SB_Johnny talk 09:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one saying we need to waste our time emailing people. As you said, James probably wont return as the others have gone and wont return. So lets just cut to the chase. We could make this simply a one time purge if people would prefer that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, but I don't think there's a consensus to do that right now, so I'm trying to find ways of satisfying your concerns without emulating uncle Josef :-). I'll probably have time later to send an email (since you're apparently not interested in the job), and I'll post a copy of it here. --SB_Johnny talk 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I found the mediawiki page for the Special:ListAdmins (etc.) page here: MediaWiki:Listusers-summary. Seems to be working, feel free to modify the text though because it's more or less just a copy-paste from the MW version. --SB_Johnny talk 10:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposal seems fine for now, but it looks like it won't work in the long run. Too much time and energy and bureaucracy would be wasted on managing a table or a MediaWiki page as they have to be constantly updated. TeleComNasSprVen 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SBJ apparently accepted my proposal for bolding, which is far simpler to maintain, because he improved how it is shown on the page (Staff). The MediaWiki page change, he also made, is only to point to the place to look to quickly get a hit on who has been active. It doesn't have to be authoritative, there could be small errors with little harm, and any sysop who comes back after an absence could replace removed bolding. --Abd 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Email sent, as follows: Hi,

A few Wikiversity contributors have expressed some concern about inactive Custodians. Are you still interested in being part of the staff? Please let us know either way :-).

The discussion is here:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#RfC_-_Minimum_Activity_Requirement

-John. I sent to all of the custodians who haven't weighed in yet except for HappyCamper, who does not have email enabled. --SB_Johnny talk 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me. I don't have much of an opinion; however, I don't feel a "purge" is necessary, nor that if this were done, it would be a one-off. I understand that the problem relates to people finding a custodian who is likely to help (i.e. is active), and so if this could be addressed via a list which was sorted by last edit, that sounds like a good plan. If previously active custodians return after a period of inactivity, their actions should be viewed in light of that fact: I don't think it's necessary to desysop that person, but it seems as if some equivalent to the probationary period might be appropriate. (Not that I'm advocating adding a bureaucratic procedure here; simply for the community to keep such activity under review.) Cormaggio talk 16:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and to answer the question, I'm happy to help out as and when needed. However, I'm not around often enough these days to take care of things like user rename requests that come my way - this should probably be done by a more active bureaucrat (e.g. Jtneill). Cormaggio talk 17:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cormaggio - you are quite active on the mailing list, and Darklama and I discussed possibly considering that as activity. I originally said no since it is hard to measure. But it was a possibility that was up in the air. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping John. Just weighing in as an inactive custodian here -
 * I am happy to be listed as 'inactive', and I don't need the tools, but I'm available for emergencies and I have email enabled.
 * I visit enwv about once every year, and check the usual suspects for custodian requests, but I haven't found anything pending. I just commented on an RfD, but I won't definitively comment on it as I'm unfamiliar with the current interpretation of deletion policy and I can see arguments on both sides of the RfD.
 * I've enjoyed contributing to enwv in the past, and if the community feels a minimum activity requirement is required to maintain a custodian flag, I would simply make sure I meet this requirement. However, owing to changes in my activities, I no longer have the time to take an active role in the core of enwv; perhaps just the administrative side.
 * --Draicone (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, you get far more with honey than vinegar. Yeah, a simply response like "hey, where have you been?" goes a long, long ways. When I was de-sysoped on en.wikibooks, I have essentially considered that banishment from that project and being told I was in permanent exile. I know that as a practical matter that isn't necessarily true, but it was something that certainly seemed to give me the cold shoulder and it has been very difficult to get back into the swing of things. I do apologize for not being much more active in Wikiversity, as I think it is an amazing project and something worthy of more attention. I got the sysop privileges in part because somebody had to do the job and I was one of the "co-founders" of this project, as much as anybody could be credited with that in terms of making it a separate project. I was also involved with Wikiversity while it was on Wikibooks as well, and know full well the growing pains that have been on this project. I don't have any problem at all being listed as "inactive" until I start to have some activity. I will state here for the record that I did not seek sysop status on Wikiversity as some way to merely gain some extra status, but rather to be genuinely beneficial to the project, and I hope that I was able to prove to the users on this wiki that I certainly didn't abuse the privilege of using those custodian tools. I thought the choice of the term "custodian" was an excellent term and I'm glad you've stuck with that term too.

For those projects that put the sysop into "inactive" status, I have never seen it be abused. There have been a couple of problems on Wikipedia with inactive admins and some other projects on Wikia where I have seen some admins do some absolutely horrible things (one admin essentially killed a project at Wikia forcing it to be reloaded from the archives... it really was that bad). Those were all admins that had an axe to grind as a result of community actions and should have telegraphed warning signs well before those bad actions happened. I've only heard of exactly one case of a former admin's account (on Wikipedia) which was supposedly compromised by "hackers" to perform trollish actions. I really don't see where the problem would come.

I leave the decision to the very capable hands of this community to decide what exactly you want to do, and I'm not going to hold ill feelings towards Wikiveristy if you decide to remove Custodian status from this account. I just hope that if the opportunity arises where I can be an active participant on this wiki again (and it wouldn't be that hard to convince me to come back) that I could once again serve in this capacity. --Robert Horning 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe anyone considers a desysop for long term inactivity the equivalent of a banishment, especially when the individual left and was not blocked. Regardless, I think there are other examples besides Cool3 - as Cool3 was just one done by a well known user and was supposedly done through being bought. Furthermore, there would be no prohibition to a quick reinstatement of an editor, but it would have the community respond to a user coming back. It would make many weary of a user who suddenly returns after 4 years without being heard from. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of this RfC, a few of the custodians have chosen to resign their sysop bits. Would it be alright if we remove theirs for the moment and leave the others' intact? TeleComNasSprVen 02:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Robert: I hope you have found my recent attempt to learn form your experience and understanding of wikibooks history a welcoming back to the project. Thenub314 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it has been a healthy practice at wikibooks to remove administrators that are very inactive. Overall the fact is that policies change, community standards move on. They grow, change, and adapt. I think it is about more then maintaining an updated list of who is active. I think it is more about making sure the people who speedy delete know what the speedy delete criteria are. People who block know that the reasons they block are supported by the current community. Etc. Overall, I would support a similar policy here at WV. Thenub314 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There might be some sense to keeping in touch with community standards and such, but tools such as blocks should be transparent and apparent to _all_, not just to the "current community". I haven't been as active as late, but custodians should be both agents of outreach and models of the community -- and blocking shouldn't be the most used tool or approach to situations. Just my 0.02 Historybuff 14:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)