Wikiversity talk:Support staff

Support staff | talk | Archive (2007) | Archive (2008)

Categories
Why are all the categories red links? CQ 16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They have apparently not been used much yet. Feel free to remedy this situation.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Inactive custodians
Well, maybe I should say "active custodians." There are levels of activity. I decided to look to see who is active. First of all, categorizing custodians by activity levels; please correct errors if you find any:

Edit in the last month before 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * 1) Contributions/Adambro
 * 2) Contributions/Darklama
 * 3) Contributions/Cormaggio(but only edited own user page, twice)
 * 4) Contributions/Geoff Plourde (probationary)
 * 5) Contributions/Historybuff
 * 6) Contributions/Jade Knight
 * 7) Contributions/Jtneill
 * 8) Contributions/Juan de Vojníkov
 * 9) Contributions/La comadreja
 * 10) Contributions/Leighblackall
 * 11) Contributions/Mu301
 * 12) Contributions/Ottava_Rima
 * 13) Contributions/SB Johnny
 * 14) Contributions/Trinity507

Use of sysop tools (not patrol) in two months ending 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * 1) Log/Adambro
 * 2) Log/Darklama
 * 3) Log/Geoff Plourde (probationary)
 * 4) Log/Jtneill
 * 5) Log/Juan de Vojníkov
 * 6) Log/Leighblackall
 * 7) Log/Mu301
 * 8) Log/Ottava_Rima
 * 9) Log/SB Johnny
 * 10) Log/Sebmol

None of the above

 * 1) Special:Contributions/CQ, log
 * 2) Contributions/Countrymike, log
 * 3) Contributions/Digitalme, log
 * 4) Contributions/Draicone, log
 * 5) Contributions/HappyCamper, log
 * 6) Contributions/J.Steinbock, log
 * 7) Contributions/McCormack, log
 * 8) Contributions/MichaelBillington, log
 * 9) Contributions/Rayc, log
 * 10) Contributions/Robert_Horning, log
 * 11) Contributions/WiseWoman, log

What do to with this information
The list of support staff would primarily exist as a place for users to look for someone to assist them. That almost half of those listed aren't currently active will result in users wasting time asking for help; alternatively, as I did in the past, looking for an active 'crat, the user has to wade through contributions, looking for someone who is active. I suggest a "response test." [Ducks!]

Basically, I'd place a talk page request to each of the inactive custodians, if it's agreed on some standard of inactivity, asking them if they are available to help users. If no response appears in a reasonable time, then perhaps an email asking the same question can be sent. I'm not suggesting desysopping for inactivity, that is a separate question. I'm only asking about who is to be listed on the support staff page. Perhaps there would be a section for those who are inactive, or even a subpage. Or, of course, we could desysop, which is sometimes done for security reasons; I'd assume that anyone dropped for reasons of inactivity could get the tools back on request. We'd have to set policy for that. I think we actually want experienced sysops, and the argument that they wouldn't know the "present culture" seems a shallow one to me. --Abd 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And another possibility
People move on, and that someone becomes inactive doesn't necessarily mean much. Or it might. When did these people become active? Is there some correlation between that and what was happening on the wiki at the time as to disruption or other possible cause of dissatisfaction? Loss of sysops represents a loss of those who are often the most knowledgeable and dedicated volunteers. This might be worth studying. The sample size is small, though, so I don't know how useful the information would be. --Abd 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Date order
I transcluded some stuff from W: to enable the dates to be ordered chronologically rather than alpha-numerically.Leutha 10:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)