Wikiversity talk:Probationary custodians

Proposed
- Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed policy will inhibit custodianship, increase disruption.
This proposed policy is designed to inhibit probationary custodianship. Parts of it were already proposed, and in the discussion, I asked for examples of problem probationary custodians, actual damage done, as distinct from some theoretical idea that damage might be done. No examples were adduced.

Presently, becoming a permanent custodian requires only one discussion. The prior process is abbreviated and simple and non-adversarial. Basically, the form is that the candidate applies, a mentor accepts, and a 'crat sets the bit. The only defect there is the idea that the 'crat has no discretion, which is an error. All 'crat actions require discretion, if a 'crat is not satisfied that a mentorship agreement adequately protects the community, all things considered, the 'crat should probably state opposition and then allow another 'crat to review, and denial by all 'crats, or even just, say, two or three, would be enough to kill the application.

The change that Ottava proposed was this discussion period, which then requires a close, a finding, making the matter more adversarial. Many of our users with wiki experience, such as Ottava -- or myself -- have been involved in some level of conflict elsewhere. My recent candidacy attracted comment by a user with no Wikiversity edits, but very substantial history of active conflict with me on Wikipedia. Ottava's proposal invites more of this cross-wiki attack.

A 'crat may consider comment, and part of the 'crat decision should be deciding if the mentor is sufficiently available and responsible.

It isn't broken, this proposed policy simply complicates the process and produces increased opportunity for disruption, as was actually seen in the case of my probationary custodianship, which was an excuse for disruption from the beginning, starting with action against SBJ for daring to approve it. --Abd 03:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is probationary, not full custodianship. Although probationary can lead to custodianship, someone can run for custodianship and skip the whole probationary aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That's in contradiction to Custodianship, which requires a probationary period and, normally, approval of a mentor. So, Ottava, are you saying that I could just run for permanent custodianship without a mentor? What's that based on?
 * The proposal is badly written, clearly dashed off. There are some elements, a few, that could be incorporated in policy. Mostly, though, improvements at this point are lipstick on a pig. Talking about the color of the drapes, when there are piles of elephant dung on the floor. --Abd 03:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require one. It only gives a way to go through it but never says it is the only way. Futhermore, it doesn't say you couldn't run again after having a probationary period. And, if you notice, the "evaluation" section isn't actually part of the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware, Ottava, that you argued the exact opposite of this with respect to my own custodianship?


 * Are you aware, Ottava, that depending on what a policy does not say is fostering confusion? We have a custodianship procedure. So, you are suggesting, someone, anyone, could invent a new procedure, follow it, and then claim approval? Who would decide? Does the procedure say that only 'crats can decide? It says they do, but it doesn't say that nobody else could.


 * So, sure, you could go to meta and point to a discussion. But, oops! meta has a policy that they don't grant ops if there are local 'crats who can do it. However, I could do this: start a process in my own user space and gather support. Then move it to the candidates for custodianship page, with gathered approvals, and go to meta and claim that 'crats have snubbed it. Think it would work? It might, you know. Why not make it a 'crat candidacy?


 * I do intend, in fact, to run some processes in my user space, but I'd not dream of considering them capable of making a Wikiversity decision.


 * No, if we have a policy, we don't invent a new one unless we explicitly allow it as a replacement or as an alternate path. Indeed, we can deviate from policy through discussion, and that was done in the case of my first probationary custodianship. You were claiming that it was over, because you had withdrawn support (and you went to meta and yanked ops). But at the same time, you were claiming you were still my mentor. You were blatantly violating explicit procedure, right and left, while, at the same time, insisting on the most niggling letter of the law. The community decided to start !voting anyway. I considered it out of process, I did object, but then relented and allowed it to continue. Waste of time, really. There are reasons to keep the policy simple and clear. --Abd 18:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical
As of 2015, we were informed by WMF that we could not have anyone with deleterevision rights who didn't have explicit community support to do so. Probationary custodianship, as envisioned and documented, is no longer an option. Instead, users interested in custodianship should first see and apply for Curators status. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)