Wikiversity talk:History of Wikiversity/Custodianship

IRC chat
This page has some old logs from the Freenode IRC #wikiversity-en chat channel that include discussion of the origins of the custodian mentoring system. --JWSchmidt 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

August 18, 2006
This IRC discussion (see below) was the origin of the Wikiversity system for probationary custodianship. The basic idea was to avoid "evil voting" by having an existing Custodian act as a mentor for each probationary custodian. Note: "RfA" means "requests for adminship" in the jargon of Wikipedia, the process by which new sysops are selected. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The following is more of the IRC chat session that is shown at: Wikiversity talk:Custodianship

cormaggio has joined channel #wikiversity-en sebmol: hi cormaggio cormaggio: what's up? sebmol: RfA cormaggio: hmmm.. sebmol: we've been talking about some of that here cormaggio: right sebmol: basically the question that comes is how RfAs will be handled, and how to demote cormaggio: how to demote? well, thats a bureaucrat action or to be taken up with a meta steward sebmol: actually, bureaucrats can't demote cormaggio: how to promote seems a n equally tricky situation cormaggio: ah, can't they? sebmol: no cormaggio: i thought they could - ok sebmol: there's an imbalance there cormaggio: on promotion - i take your point about votes being evil - i agree they often end in acrimony cormaggio: where's the imbalance? <BR>JWSchmidt: stewards will act in an emergency to remove admin status, but they normally listen to community consensus <BR>cormaggio: yes, that's true john (hi) <BR>JWSchmidt: hi <BR>sebmol: imbalance that you can promote, but can't demote <BR>cormaggio: well, i've personally no fundamental problem with that <BR>cormaggio: the most important thing is we choose our admins wisely <BR>sebmol: it's not. i'm just saying, it does make a difference <BR>sebmol: i agree <BR>JWSchmidt: admins are "trusted members of the community" <BR>guillom: i'm back <BR>guillom: hi cormaggio <BR>sebmol: re guillom <BR>cormaggio: i was wondering if we should have some sort of nomination system and not voting system for choosing admins? <BR>cormaggio: hi guillom <BR>guillom: voting is evil <BR>cormaggio: what i mean is: have peopel say who they *do8 trust, and not don't (?) <BR>cormaggio: would somethign like that work? <BR>JWSchmidt: the community should discuss admin candidates...votes might not be wise <BR>cormaggio: essentially people must trust their admins.. <BR>sebmol: i think they should self nominate, support would be good. at the same time, the committee that set it all up must have the ability to block candidates they don't feel <BR>sebmol: are committee to the goal of the project <BR>sebmol: *committed <BR>JWSchmidt: after community discussion, a bureaucrat has to decide to make the candidate an admin <BR>cormaggio: John - i suppose that's a potential buffer zone - but i don't want to necessarily personally stop someone from being an admin if they are trusted by others <BR>JWSchmidt: this is why bureaucrats get the big $$$$ <BR>JWSchmidt: adminship should be "no big deal" <BR>cormaggio: that's true john <BR>sebmol: it's a difference between what things should be and how they are perceived <BR>cormaggio: oh yeah - i had that page open - i just didn't see it <BR>sebmol: many people perceive adminship as a big deal, as a confirmation of their work, as a means to climb the ladder, as a special badge, etc. <BR>sebmol: that's why we talked about a different term earlier <BR>cormaggio: what did you come up with? <BR> <BR>snip <BR> <BR>JWSchmidt: "policy facilitator" <BR>sebmol: how does one facilitate a policy I would ask immediately. i thought facilitating is something you do with people <BR>cormaggio: i've no problem with the term admin, or whether people see it as a big deal or a way to climb a social ladder <BR>JWSchmidt: you seek community input then you act on policy <BR>cormaggio: what worries me is how someone might use their tools <BR>cormaggio: but on this: how could someone abuse admin tools anyway, John? <BR>sebmol: cormaggio: you don't think that many of the RfA's we have right now would disappear if "admin" wouldn't sound so privileged? <BR>cormaggio: dunno.. <BR>           guillom thinks back to housekeeper <BR>JWSchmidt: cormaggio: "how could someone abuse admin tools" about a dozen admins have been removed from en Wikipedia <BR>guillom: i'm sure few people would like to become housekeepers <BR>cormaggio: well, any of these other terms can be used on a page to explain what an admin is, what's expected of them etc.. <BR>sebmol: wheel wars with othre admins comes to mind, or protecting pages for disputes oneself is involved in <BR>cormaggio: i know that John - but what damage specifically could be done in a wikiversity context (excepting obvious asshole behaviour)? <BR>JWSchmidt: admins can intimidate (bully) wiki participants by abusing their powers <BR>JWSchmidt: sometimes it is subtle <BR>cormaggio: ok, scratch that question i suppose - i'm just new to the whole game - thanks <BR>JWSchmidt: sometimes admins do not know or follow policy nor seek consensus of the community before acting <BR>sebmol: indeed <BR>guillom: indeed <BR>JWSchmidt: that is abuse, unless the admin was dealing with an emergency <BR>sebmol: most often they don't even ask anyone else of their opinion. it might not always be possible to seek consensus on something but asking other users about what one intends <BR>sebmol: would go a long way <BR>JWSchmidt: talk first, then act <BR>cormaggio: absolutely <BR>sebmol: ideally, but we're talking about abuse so that doesn't happen <BR>sebmol: if sysop status is no big deal, if it's really just a few more buttons that help maintain the project, then the title should reflect that role <BR>JWSchmidt: some admins do not know how to discuss <BR>JWSchmidt: I would like to see a new name <BR> <BR>snip <BR> <BR>JWSchmidt: we are acting with honest good intentions <BR>sebmol: <mother goose mode (please bear with me)> <BR>sebmol: de-WP doesn't have an arbcom. to decide whether users (not vandals) should be banned or not, we hold a vote <BR>sebmol: that has led to one user having 4 (!) votes to have him banned <BR>JWSchmidt: how mane people vote, usually <BR>sebmol: the talk pages for the last vote is over 400 KB long <BR>sebmol: *page <BR>     Rayc: don't you have a problem with socks and sleeper accounts in the banning process, or do you go by the wikipedia is not a democracy adage? <BR>sebmol: we do have that problem <BR>sebmol: the last vote was 203:87 for permanent ban <BR>sebmol: it requires 2/3 <BR>sebmol: it is the most awful institution german WP has, short after deletion review <BR>JWSchmidt: how long do the votes last <BR>sebmol: two weeks <BR>JWSchmidt: yikes <BR>sebmol: well, the last one lasted one week <BR>JWSchmidt: at en-Wikipedia there are several mechanisms for bans... <BR>JWSchmidt: Jimbo can ban... <BR>sebmol: if you don't know how much 400 kb text are, that's 62 printed pages <BR>JWSchmidt: the Arbcom... <BR>sebmol: right <BR>     Rayc: It's better to have admins make the choice, or arbacom, then banned users or rejected banned users will hate those <BR>JWSchmidt: and there is a "community ba"... <BR>sebmol: i'm just bringing this up as a reason why i'm wary of discussion on certain things <BR>JWSchmidt: "community ban" <BR>JWSchmidt: some "community bans" are done in a few hours <BR>sebmol: <BR>sebmol: having a discussion on the term admin is likely to create a lot of heated comments <BR>sebmol: it's just one of those things <BR>     Rayc: 'Nother large import request. <BR>cormaggio: well, there's nothing stopping us setting up an institution like an arbcom (though it's entirely premature yet, surely) <BR>sebmol: Rayc: put it up. i'm about to process the page <BR>     Rayc: Is there away for IRC to be imbedded into a wiki page? <BR>cormaggio: ok <BR>guillom: nice, roadrunner has just written on my userpage... <BR>sebmol: Rayc: no <BR>cormaggio: Rayc - no - you can just save a log <BR>cormaggio: (and uplaod it to the wiki) <BR>JWSchmidt: Rayc: we could make the logs of this channel public <BR>     Rayc: Well, I was just wondering, since no everyone who is going to take a wikiclass is going to have an IRC program, but I think it's Ron Horning said he is going to teach on IRc. <BR>sebmol: not retroactively <BR>sebmol: Rayc: there are web sites where you can log onto IRC for free (that's how I'm here right now) <BR>JWSchmidt: we could act to limit fears of a "cabaL" by making future logs of this channel public <BR>guillom: Rayc, i've sent a mail to the ML about this IRC teaching <BR>cormaggio: Logs of this channel made public - only with consent of the people who come in - i don't see it as a good idea - just take excerpts where appropriate <BR>cormaggio: yes, IRC teaching has its drawbacks <BR>sebmol: JWSchmidt: there's no cabal, says meta ;-) <BR>     Rayc: sembol - Could you add that link to the chat page?  Or is it there already? <BR>cormaggio: i agree with your point guillom - but I'm not going to oppose Robert's teaching methods <BR>JWSchmidt: we are dealing with fears of a cabal <BR>sebmol: you're suggesting we deal with it <BR>cormaggio: John - i'd say all policies etc discussed on this channel must be discussed on wiki or on mailing list <BR>JWSchmidt: okay

Length of probationary custodianship
Thanks for your efforts in gathering this history about custodianship, probationary custodianship and mentorship together, John. I am finding it particularly helpful to see the evolution of the ideas and policy. From what I can see (so far) there was never really any discussion about the length of probationary custodianship - it just became 4 weeks? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the next page section. I think Sebmol had previously proposed a similar mentoring system on a German wiki project. As shown below, in chat on 18 August 2006, after the chat shown above, Sebmol first said, "adminship is on probation for x weeks" and then there was no further discussion. I believe he just selected the 4 weeks as a reasonable time period and nobody ever objected to that. --JWSchmidt 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

More chat - length of probation
cormaggio: it's true the admin-makign process ahs been pretty arbitrary so far <BR> JWSchmidt: we might set up an administrator mentoring system <BR>JWSchmidt: anyone who does not have past admin experience must be mentored <BR>JWSchmidt: training new admns is good for the project <BR>   sebmol: JWSchmidt: i've suggested something like that as an alternative to admin elections on de-WP <BR> JWSchmidt: I have also suggested it at en-Wikipedia <BR>JWSchmidt: anyhow, the mentoring idea should happen evn if it is not policy <BR>   sebmol: agreed <BR>sebmol: the only opposition I got was that it'd be too much work since we're short admins as it is <BR> cormaggio: right <BR> JWSchmidt: yes, I think that is the main objection <BR>sebmol: because you need other admins to monitor the "newbies" which then don't have time for other important things <BR>cormaggio: ok, well, maybe it will work <BR>sebmol: how about this: anybody who requests can become admin provided x months participation on wikimedia projects. adminship is on probation for x weeks through which time the new admin will be mentored by an experienced admin <BR>   sebmol: if there are incidents during said time or objections from the community, a regular concensus vote is held <BR> JWSchmidt: cool <BR> cormaggio: are you prepared to mentor *everyone* who applies? <BR>   sebmol: we can limit the number of new admins per timeframe <BR> JWSchmidt: mentoring means watching and suggesting corrections <BR>Rayc: How about an aprentaship program <BR>sebmol: Rayc: that'd be basically like that. sounds better than probation <BR> cormaggio: :-) <BR>Rayc: All admins take on an apprentace, and after a certain amount of time the graduate and take on their own apprentaces <BR>   sebmol: temporary adminship <BR>    sebmol: or custodian in training <BR>      Rayc: I'm thinking star wars jedi knights for some reason <BR>sebmol is working on a document for all of this <BR> cormaggio: great sebmol <BR>sebmol: what's the definition of a major edit? <BR>    sebmol: it's something I've seen on en-WP that doesn't exist on de-WP <BR> JWSchmidt: back <BR>*** You are no longer marked as being away <BR> JWSchmidt: definition of a major edit? <BR> JWSchmidt: good question <BR>    sebmol: JWSchmidt: what's a major edit? is that just whether somebody checks that box before hitting save? <BR> JWSchmidt: typos <BR> JWSchmidt: spelling <BR>SB_Johnny|: Hi Rayc! <BR> JWSchmidt: trivial formatting <BR>SB_Johnny|: Not really here... just logging another channel for a css hack <BR>sebmol: JWSchmidt: i'm writing something right now about the custodian in training thing <BR> JWSchmidt: good <BR> JWSchmidt: do you like the term "mentoring" <BR>   sebmol: i do <BR>    sebmol: that's what i'm calling it <BR>    sebmol: actualyl <BR>   sebmol: *actually <BR> JWSchmidt: okay <BR>JWSchmidt: "trained user" is a bit of a shock <BR> JWSchmidt: roll over <BR> JWSchmidt: speak <BR> JWSchmidt: sit up <BR>   sebmol: lol <BR>   sebmol: you can change it back to trusted <BR> JWSchmidt: "experienced and trusted"? <BR>   sebmol: sure <BR> JWSchmidt: what do you think of this: <BR> JWSchmidt: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ARequests_for_Adminship&diff=7688&oldid=7625 <BR>   sebmol: we could incorporate that on the page <BR> JWSchmidt: okay <BR>   sebmol: although i'm not sure i would call custodians leaders <BR> JWSchmidt: no <BR> JWSchmidt: you are right <BR>   sebmol: give me a sec <BR> JWSchmidt: that is the point <BR> SB_Johnny: do you consider leader and admin to be synonymous? <BR>   sebmol: no <BR> JWSchmidt: no <BR>    sebmol: not at all <BR> JWSchmidt: I changed it <BR>   sebmol: there are plenty of leaders on wikis that aren't admins <BR> SB_Johnny: and probably admins who aren't leaders... <BR>   sebmol: indeed <BR>JWSchmidt: "You must request"..... or can others nominate you? <BR> JWSchmidt: at en-Wikipedia many people are nominated <BR>   sebmol: yeah <BR>   sebmol: just added that <BR>   sebmol: check now <BR> SB_Johnny: I know... was reading the RFA page. going there now <BR> JWSchmidt: got it <BR>JWSchmidt: "If a mentor you accept is available" <-- do we need a list of available mentors <BR>   sebmol: yeah <BR>   sebmol: we probably would <BR>sebmol: maybe as part of the Candidates for Custodianship page <BR> SB_Johnny: nice... and now that I see it on the page, custodian does seem nice <BR>   sebmol: :) <BR> JWSchmidt: "permanent custodian" sounds too...permanent <BR>    sebmol: i put a disclaimer about it at the bottom <BR>    sebmol: it's mostly to distinguish from temporary <BR> JWSchmidt: i c <BR>    sebmol: any more things we want to do to the custodian page before listing it on policies? <BR> JWSchmidt: I'm almost through reading/changing <BR> JWSchmidt: spelling: Custodians can blocks users <BR> JWSchmidt: okay, I'm done with the custodian page