Wikiversity talk:Bureaucratship

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

The roles for bureaucrats are not the same at all Wikimedia Foundation projects. For example, one of the key duties of bureaucrats is to turn wiki users into sysops (called custodians at Wikiversity). The Wikiversity community should decide if there is some set level of community support required for custodianship or if bureaucrats can exercise some discretion at the end of a community discussion about a candidate for custodianship. --JWSchmidt 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikinews has 5 bcrats, including Jimbo
  • Wikibooks has 6, also including Jimbo
  • Wiktionary has 5 bcrats
  • wikimedia Commons has 9
  • Wikiquote has 1 bureaucrat
  • Wikisource has 1 bureaucrat
  • Wikispecies has 9 bureaucrats
  • the wikimedia meta-wiki has 18 bureaucrats
  • englishh wikipedia has 24: "gray area" in bureaucrat judging of consensus in community discussion of sysop candidates
  • german wikipedia has 2; set rule: 2/3 approval in community discussion of sysop candidates

Contents

[edit] Responsibilities of bureaucrats

Well, before we can really begin drafting this policy, I think we first need to take a comprehensive look at the technical rights of bureaucrats, the "non-technical" rights of bureaucrats, and the responsibilities of bureaucrats on enwikiversity.

  • Technical rigts: To get the obvious out of the way: bureaucrats are the only local user group capable of granting a user SysOp rights--the policy of when this permission can be used is covered (to some extent) in Wikiversity:Custodianship, so I'm not sure this policy will need to elaborate much upon this. Bureaucrats are also the only local group capable of granting a user Bureaucrat status--the main purpose of this policy is to decide upon when they can and cannot do this. Among their other technical rights are the ability to rename local users and the ability to grant a user bot status. I think it very important that enwikiversity draft both a user renaming policy and a thorough bot policy, both of which we lack at the moment.
  • Non-technical rights: On enwiki, we regard Bureaucrats as the ultimate judges of consensus--I believe we should maintain this idea in our Bureaucratship policy. Only bureacrats should be able to close requests for adminship and bureaucratship, approve or reject requests for name changes, and I would also like to propose that they be final authority in requests for bot status. While our focus here isn't a bot approvals process, I would suggest that we use a process similar to RfA for bot status, where users are granted bot status based upon community consensus and where the bureaucrats are the judges of this consensus.
  • What crats can't do although it's logical to think that they could: Bureaucrats do not have the technically ability nor the authority to revoke any user status--crat, bot, or sysop. Requests for desysopping and the like must go through the m:Stewards. Note that this issue is truly not one that can be debated--'twas set in stone long ago due to a crat gone mad on enwiki.
  • Expectations of bureaucrats: First and foremost, bureacrats must be well-trusted members of the community. They must have exceptional understanding of the way things work on Wikiversity and must be excellent judges of consensus. They must demonstrate through their extensive contributions to Wikiversity that they are not rash in decision-making nor incivil nor incompetent. Also of primary importance is a bureaucrat's ability to thoroughly explain and defend the decisions or he or she makes as well the ability to admit fault.

Anyway this is just some random babbling/brainstorming. Please discuss :). AmiDaniel (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Subst:blabber-warning1-n|Wikiversity talk:Bureaucratship}}, Yes, I'd agree with all of what you just said, infact with some rewording I say we have our policy draft ;) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
At the end of community discussions about custodian candidates, should there be any room for judgment by bureaucrats or should they just just do what the community decides (for example, 2/3 approval from participants in the community discussion means automatic approval by the bureaucrats)? What happens if bureaucrats have a disagreement? Does Wikiversity need more than two bureaucrats? --JWSchmidt 02:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't want mindless drones as bureaucrats, so I think it's good to advise that (at least some) judgement should be used. But I do think that 2 thirds sounds good as a guide, (that's around 67%), which although not a strong consensus, reflects a good majority. If there is a dispute then you just cut out any sock votes, and see if it is above or below 2/3, otherwise we can just trust their judgement. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, there might be an advantage to keep this process entirely ambiguous. Suppose we declare a threshold of 50% promotion, but in practise, essentially near unanimous support is needed. No well meaning bureaucrat candidate would aim to get 50% support, because if they did, it would signify that they are not in tune with the public consciousness that oversees this site. --HappyCamper 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
2/3 makes sense only if the participants have agreed to disagree. If there is but one strong objection with reason, the discussion should continue.--Hillgentleman|User talk 11:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of having a minimum amount of votes, before a decision can be made. One of the problems on wikipedia is that the ones who create the articles are not the ones who make the decisions.--Daanschr 09:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Granted, Wikiversity isn't the place to fix the problems from Wikipedia though...but I do like the idea. One way to do this, is to set this threshold proportional to the number of active participants, and simply have the nomination open until it is met. There will be some technicalities involved, but might be worthwhile looking into. --HappyCamper 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) I personally am not a fan of hardcoding rules about what percent of the populus needs to support someone for him to be made an admin. In theory, all custodianship "elections" should actually be discussions where the goal is attaining consensus, in which case the bureaucrat should then be required to not just look at numbers of supporters vs. opposers, but rather to thoroughly read through the discussion and determine what the true consensus of the community is. Nonetheless, that is often an idealist concept, and it may be a methodology that we will not be able to maintain for long. In any case, however, I belive that, though adminship is truly not a big deal, if one third or more of the community has good reason to oppose handing someone the mop, that person should not be made an admin--I would personally favor a much higher level of needed support (75-80%) before a Bureaucrat even considers making a user an admin. Codifying consensus clearly has its benefits--it spares crats a lot of work if they just have to look at numbers and it gives them an easy way to respond to disputes that arise about their actions, by simply citing numbers. But it is not the wiki way, nor should the task of bureaucrats simply be to count votes. I rather believe the most important quality of a prospective bureaucrat to be the ability to reasonably judge consensus without counting votes, the ability to make tough decisions, and the ability to adequately to defend oneself when making such decisions. That, I belive, should be our focus, rather than deciding what percentage of support constitutes consensus in all situations. Do keep in mind that m:Polling is evil and should be avoided where possible. Now to address Daanschr's concerns that "the ones who create the articles are not the ones who make the decisions"--I personally believe it best so; the major article writers tend to be the ones least concerned with administrivia such as blocking policies and deletion policies and the tedious boring tasks of clearing categories such as w:CAT:NSD. The job of an administrator is to be well-versed in policy matters, to have excellent common sense, and to serve as diplomats in disputes--while writing featured articles is an excellent way to gain knowledge in how to deal with disputes, it is by far not the only way, and I find that the major article writers tend to be the least capable of maintaining neutrality. Note as well that administrative permissions provide you, in theory at least, with no higher status in the community, no more influence in policy matters, and certainly not any extra tools to help you write better articles. Administrators are just that--administrators; they deal with administrative issues. Similarly, Bureaucrats deal with bureaucratic issues such as renaming users, flagging bots, and processing requests for adminship. Neither admins nor bureaucrats nor checkusers nor any other user group should have any greater influence over individual articles nor the policies governing all users and articles than any other user. Okay, ending babbling now. :D AmiDaniel (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of always trying to get consensus. The result of this is unending discussions on policy and a conservative, defensive community. I would prefer to have a system which can be able to changed things. Such a system could be top-down with a clear leader, who can make tough decisions, a kind of democratic system where majorities can overrule minorities, or a corporate system where institutes within Wikiversity can have a say on policy. It depends on what Wikiversity will try to become. At the moment it is not clear at all what it will be.--Daanschr 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And contrarily, the concept of a top-down hierarchial power structure sends shivers up my spine, as no individual, or even group of individuals, can possibly have the best know-how in all situations. I find that, in a wiki structure, discussion seems to be the best way at attaining results, as it allows for people's opinions to be influenced, allows for more equality among membrs of the community, and helps to prevent narrow, dogmatic views on issues. Sure, it takes longer, but I find the results tend to be much more beneficial. Note as well that by consensus I don't mean that everyone has to agree upon something for it to be done, but rather that decisions should be made by the community as a whole rather than just a handful of individuals, or even a narrow majority of the community. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe very much in individualism. People are very conformistic regardless of rhetorics to promote individualism. I agree with you that the group of people who decide shouldn't be too small. The process of decision-making should be as inclusive as possible, but inclusiveness doesn't necessarily have to be individualistic.--Daanschr 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikiversity is a wiki, which means that it must work as a collaborative process. The best means to maintaining the motivation and participation of all involved in a wiki is to recognise that there is often a diversity of points of view, and that this diversity needs to be reflected in the consensus-of-the-time (which can itself be discussed and changed). We have to recognise that individuals bring particular viewpoints to the community, and that individuals have needs in terms of being heard, being valued etc. So we must place some value in individualism. But we are also here to create a collaborative project - which means we need to be able to listen to one another, discuss openly, and sometimes take criticism. All of this applies to anyone - including custodians and bureaucrats. But we can't give up our base of consensus - otherwise it would not be a truly collaborative project. Cormaggio talk 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, we should state that consensus has its limitations - it can be misused, and it can be misinterpreted. I think it's a risk that Wiki participants implicitly accept. --HappyCamper 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Polling is not evil. It is a concise way to evaluate a large group's weighted position. Anyone claiming to be able to accurately judge the "consensus" of a large group discussion without some kind of a straw poll .... Further, it is unlikely that a large fraction of participants at wikiversity will actually care enough about who operates the mops to participate repeatedly in "consensus" building. Sometimes, temporary closure can be a beautiful thing. I think initially most administrative functions, including bureaucrat status, should be fairly easily attained and moderately easily removed if people so trusted cannot learn to wield their priveleges/responsibilities effectively. This was the case when Wikipedia was a startup and helped grow the community and encyclopedia to critical mass. Of course, Wikipedia had a formal clearcut organizational structure that was fairly flat. There was the God King, the developers, everyone else. Adminship was essentially the result of having sufficient experience with the wiki and the community to be trusted to avoid really foolish blunders and trusted to be willing to help fix mistakes. At the moment Wikiversity is vertically taller than early Wikipedia was by approximately a Board of Directors, a committee, and possibly an informal subcommittee, stewards and bureaurcrats and custodians. Custodianship is not automatic after an initial introduction period. Anybody think this tall fuzzy infrastructure is helpful in retaining newcomers? How could we emulate the early structure of Wikipedia? Well perhaps once a year we could have a vote for an honorary "God King" who could occasionally decide tough issues for the community (those urgently requiring dramatic prompt action for the greater good or at least to avoid the greater bad ...) but usually keep quiet and let the community argue it out. Obviously our "God King" would not have the real authority that Jimbo started out with and has carefully preserved by stacking the Wikimedia Foundation board .... still I expect the Board (or a committee or a steward or a local bureaucrat or a local participant) might listen carefully when the honorary Wikiversity God King speaks regarding Wikiversity issues considering the position as a community spokesperson has been numerically substantiated by a majority of the votes cast determined legitimate and counted. Perhaps we should include term limits or restrict the candidates to former bureaucrats??? Notice that if you consider voting evil that can dramatically reduce the voting. One vote once a year and then the God King can help sort it all out by deciding the "consensus". No further straw polls required, unless of course the God King requests one. 71.161.11.162 07:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (Mirwin)
Hey, hold on there...what I wrote should not be interpreted as commentary on the voting process - that was not what I had in mind at all. --HappyCamper 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The structure of Wikiversity is no more hierarchical/vertical than any other Wikimedia project. What it seems you're confusing it with is the structure of Wikimedia - which is a quite separate sphere of activity to the running of this project. No project has created their own GodKing, and I believe it would be entirely inappropriate to create such a thing. Consensus isn't that hard to ascertain - if there is opposition, it will be clear on the relevant pages. If needs be, polls can certainly be used to gauge opinion. But I think you're misinterpreting the gist of the maxim "voting/polls is/are evil", which should really read something like: "Votes/polls can be divisive, and they should be used sparingly, with caution, and after substantial discussion, and their results should not be taken as necessarily indicating a majority or a consensus within the community". Cormaggio talk 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
voting. One of the bad things that happens with polls is that they are often started before there has been any serious discussion of a topic. In a wiki, votes do not constructively substitute for discussion, collaboration and compromise. I trust both custodians and bureaucrats to discount any votes that are not closely coupled to a an argument that explains the reasoning behind the vote. --JWSchmidt 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that this should be the decision of the custodians and bureaucrats. I am more in favour of a system of checks and balances. The rights and duties of all involved should be clearly defined.--Daanschr 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar and comfortable with w:Wikipedia:Consensus. I guess Wikiversity needs Wikiversity:Consensus in order to make clear how this project will deal with consensus and any proposed "system of checks and balances". --JWSchmidt 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] informed action by bureaucrats

  1. "we don't want mindless drones as bureaucrats"
  2. "the bureaucrat should read through the discussion and determine what the true consensus of the community is"
  3. "of primary importance is a bureaucrat's ability to thoroughly explain and defend the decisions or he or she makes as well the ability to admit fault"
  4. paraphrase: sometimes the search for community consensus can bog down and bureaucrats just need to "cut the knot" and act

I think the "logic" of the above line of reasoning (points 1-4) rests on one additional idea that should be made explicit. A wiki bureaucrat should have a good understanding of the mission of the wiki and a willingness to put the success of the project ahead of consensus. Bureaucrats are in a position to do so by not acting when they are asked to act. If a bureaucrat feels that a requested action would do more harm than good, the bureaucrat can discuss the requested action before acting. "Mob rule" is a potential danger in any human social system that is guided by consensus. Bureaucrats can function as a check on this danger. Bureaucrats should be experienced wiki users who are always watching for situations in which the community might be rushing into a poor decision that does not really serve the long-term interests of the project. Also, too close adherence to policy can create problems. For example, if on the last scheduled day of a community discussion some new evidence is provided, it might be wise to extend the discussion rather than close it at the scheduled time. When bureaucrats are willing to do what is best for the project and explain what they are doing it can allow the community to be thoughtful and possibly avoid rushing into a regrettable course of action. Item #4 in the list (acting without consensus, above) is a bit trickier than failure to act. When bureaucrats feel forced into taking action in the absence of community consensus there should at least be consensus among bureaucrats and a clear explanation to the community of why the action is being taken. It makes sense to me that any bureaucrat action that is not supported by prior community consensus should be open to critical evaluation by the community. There was an interesting case at the English Wikipedia in which bureaucrats "broke the rules" in deciding to grant adminship to a candidate who had an unusually low level of community support. I think the Wikiversity community needs to give some thought to the best way to deal with that kind of situation. --JWSchmidt 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If precedent needs to be made, the bureaucrat better be in a position to justify this rigorously. If they cannot do this, a decision to not take action should have been taken. There is no reason why things need to be rushed here. --HappyCamper 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that sometimes a bureaucrat needs to act when, for example, quick action is needed but the participants are still debating which course of action to take. I also understand that sometimes a bureaucrat may refuse to act. But I cannot accept a bureaucrat acting contrarily to community opinion. Even consensus amongst bureaucrats is not enough excuse.----Hillgentleman|Talk 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we could make a list of everything that can "trump" community consensus. For example, sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation central office makes a sudden decision (such as deleting a wiki page or placing an editing ban on an individual) based on the need to protect the Foundation from legal attack or threats of legal attack. Also, there are some standing Wikimedia Foundation policies that pertain to all Wikimedia Foundation projects. I do not think we can expect a bureaucrat to simply bow to community consensus if the bureaucrat knows that there is a good reason not to initiate an action called for by a community discussion. Simply put, it is possible for community consensus to fail to identify the best course of action and it is not reasonable to tell bureaucrats that they must always do what community consensus calls for. This is similar to saying that a soldier follows orders but does have to follow an order that involves doing something illegal. However, such situations where a bureaucrat might contradict community consensus are extraordinary. For the vast majority of bureaucrat actions there is no conflict with community consensus or likelihood that anyone would ever question the action. --JWSchmidt 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JWSchmidt that the interest of Wikiversity should be above the interest of single individuals who damage the whole project. However, too much autocratic power for bureaucrats can be damaging as well.--Daanschr 07:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Since bureaucrats are volunteers too, I think it should be obvious that a bureaucrat can always refuse to act. The community can always appeal the the higher hiearchy to activate some additional bureaucrats with diverse views if a cabal of consistently agreeing bureaucrats seem to consistently take action opposing the "consensus" of the rest of the Wikiversity community within the scope of discussion. (I assume literature students will not be interested in dictating how engineering sections implement local java labs for finite element analysis ... unless it effects their online response from Wikimedia servers.) Just as the rest of the community participants can bow out at will and go do something else. We probably should define what "consensus" means locally. Some people seem to mean a simple majority while others seem to hold out for unanimous and yet others prefer a fuzzy definition preserving the bureaucrats independence and ability to summarize and act as they see fit. Meanwhile, the "voting is evil" faction seems to prefer guessing while my own "voting is ok" faction prefers concise quantitative data summarizing the final instantaneous result of the discussions. 71.161.11.162 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this page about consensus makes no attempt to define a numerical measure of consensus. --JWSchmidt 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] should admins be good editors and contributors?

I think this is an important issue and I am glad it was raised during a discussion of how bureaucrats should function as part of the process of selecting new custodians. There is danger in having custodians who do not create Wikiversity content. Such custodians can be out of touch with the difficulties faced by wiki participants while they are learning how to contribute to the project. When dealing with edits that are not obvious vandalism and that seem not to fit into the project, all custodians have to try to Assume Good Faith. A custodian who does not participate in content creation might be more likely to just roll back a strange edit or delete an unusual page without taking the time to find out what the original contributor of that content was trying to accomplish. Sometimes new editors are trying to contribute and they need help to learn how, not a swift kick from a custodian. Sometimes people show up at Wikiversity and express a desire to fight vandalism while showing no particular interest in contributing to the project. Should bureaucrats simply refuse to grant custodianship to such a candidate? --JWSchmidt 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. --HappyCamper 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
But Wikipedia has been open to another type of administrator....folks who do very little work to create encyclopedia articles while doing a lot of work to revert vandalism. Should Wikiversity exclude this type of contributor from custodianship? (this might be relevant) --JWSchmidt 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. --HappyCamper 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I should not be using these qualifiers because they misrepresent the complexity of the situation that we're trying to address. --HappyCamper 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"folks doing very little course work..." -- Every custodian should have participated actively in at least one learning project.--Hillgentleman|Talk 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So it seems...

So, from what I gather so far, it seems that the direction we are headed is that someone that is a bureaucrat plays a significantly more important role than a custodian. Is this assessment correct? --HappyCamper 19:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is an unavoidable conclusion. However, the extent to which bureaucrats should have the power to, for example, carry through or block community decisions is not at all decided (it has only just been mentioned) - so the "significantly more important" part still needs to be qualified. Personally, I wouldn't like to exaggerate this importance - as I believe a bureaucrat's main role is to act as an implementer of due process (eg. making custodians, closing custodian discussions) - within a consensus model. Cormaggio talk 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that if we bothered to do a study of bureaucrat actions within Wikimedia Foundation projects we would find that the vast majority of bureaucrat actions are based on consensus and/or are never seriously questioned or discussed as being inappropriate. The excitement only comes on those rare occasions when something unusual happens. Can Wikiversity learn from what has happened in the past at other projects or do we just have to wait until our own conflicts arise? Alternatively, do we just reject the idea that "we don't want mindless drones as bureaucrats" and insist that bureaucrats function as drones who only throw the switches after enough votes have been cast? --JWSchmidt 20:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt if anyone would endorse a "mindless" flicking of the switch - the bureaucrat's actions (to carry out or oppose a community decision) need to be justified - particularly the latter (which I hope wouldn't arise). Cormaggio talk 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I think the rule has to be more than just "bureaucrats who act without first attaining the usual level of community consensus need to be ready to explain their action". The rule should be something like "an explanation for the action must be provided along with evidence that the action is based on consensus among a specified group of bureaucrats". I think the real problems have arisen at Wikipedia when bureaucrats have adopted a "bunker mentality", do not try to explain their actions until forced to do so, and call people who questions their actions "troll". This kind of behavior has been rare, but it is very destructive to a sense of community, even if the controversial bureaucrat action was correct. --JWSchmidt 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I started this thread because I feel uncomfortable with the emerging view of what a bureaucrat is on Wikiversity to date. I'm still thinking about this thread... --HappyCamper 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the idea that bureaucrats can be mindless drones. I guess that it will be impossible for bureaucrats to explain all actions to everyone when the organization grows into a huge moloch like Wikipedia. A friend of mine is admin on Wikipedia and he says that nothing will change there in how the organization is ruled. Well, that is very easy to maintain. But what if change can be considered as good. There needs to be a political system that can be open to change. Being open to change means having to deal with serious resentment, in which consensus and open discussion will not be possible anymore.
Before preceding, i would like to keep in mind the goal of Wikiversity and the organizations within it. How is this discussion going to relate to the establishment of schools and courses, advocating interlingual debates, establishing learning materials? The constitution of Wikiversity should be able to support the organization in its daily functioning. To cast an idea: A corporate system could be that decisions are taken by the schools and by groups who organize debates, thereby circumventing those who only take part in discussions at the top of the establishment as seems to be the practise at Wikipedia.--Daanschr 08:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
JWSchmidt: I agree that such a "bunker mentality" could be very destructive to this community. I would not like to have to make any decision which alienated a subset of this community. I furthermore think that hierarchical structures could undermine the whole process of seeking consensus, which is fundamental to our work. Any view of a bureaucrat's "power" must be embedded within this model, not somehow supplanting it.
HappyCamper: I'm worried. What emerging view of bureaucratship are you uncomfortable with? I really want you to feel free to express your thoughts openly. Does my above note address your fears at all?
Daanschr: I think change is fundamental to our entire modus operandi, even our raison d'etre (my second time using that phrase in two days!). I think it would be terrible to recreate a system that made participants feel they could make no lasting impact on the project - even if this belief was misguided. But, while I completely endorse the development of a whole system that would sustain this project, I'm a little confused by your idea here - what decisions would need to be taken at the school level that would require custodian or bureaucrat input? Cormaggio talk 14:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance how the policy of citing and verifying reliable sources can be implemented. But also how Learning to learn a wiki way, Scholarly Ethics or my idea of trying to gain the respect of the academic world can be implemented. This can also be decided for at school level, so each school can determine for itself on how to use it or by not using it at all.

Happycamper, i quess the stewarts of the Wikimedia Foundation are still in charge here. When a bureaucrat behaves in such a way that it damages the community considerably, then the stewarts can interphere isn't it? It would be funny if that is the case. The whole Wiki community would serve like a medieval monastic order.--Daanschr 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The stewards typically do not intervene unless requested by the community - in fact, I think they are instructed not to ever jump in. Daanschr, actually, you raise quite a good point, so maybe we should share some ideas on a different page regarding academics and such. I think I have a fairly good idea what your concerns are. Maybe after this bureaucrat thing is done we can talk more. I don't know if I can keep up with two different threads. Cormaggio - not to worry, I was happy to read your posts. --HappyCamper 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to start such a page.--Daanschr 10:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Such a page would be excellent to have. What about Wikiversity:Academic standards, Wikiversity:Methodology, or Wikiversity:Scholarly practice? Alternatively (or, perhaps, in parallel), we could develop Wikiversity:Scholarly ethics, Wikiversity:Academic freedom, Wikiversity:Verifiability, Wikiversity:Cite sources, Wikiversity:Reliable sources, Wikiversity:Wikiversity outreach, or others which I may have temporarily forgotten.. Cormaggio talk 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Academic standards sounds good, or what about 'academic expertise'?--Daanschr 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To give a little insight into why the model for RfA we have here was chosen: an experience I and others have made in other projects is that the process for attaining adminship can become exceedingly arduous and personal. More often than not it ends up consisting of an evaluation of a user's entire history of contributions rather than their fitness for adminship. This is partially due to the fact that at most other projects there's usually no concrete experience with the user exercising admin features prior to the RfA. So the community is forced to use other points of reference to evaluate the candidate.

At Wikiversity, we've created a process that's different from that. Candidates for custodianship are required to be mentored for four weeks, after which they are evaluated by their mentor. The point of this process is for a candidate to have the opportunity to exercise custodian tools and demonstrate the way in which they would conduct themselves as full custodians. If the mentor provides a favorable recommendation, the candidate can apply for full custodianship, subject to community discussion. The final decision in this matter lies with the bureaucrats who are expected to evaluate the mentorship period, the recommendation and community feedback. It's not so much a question of consensus but of informed decision-making considering the interests of Wikiversity as a collaborative project as the highest priority. For other issues, I would expect for bureaucrats to act in the same thoughtful and constructive manner. sebmol ? 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"trying to gain the respect of the academic world" <-- I think many people outside of the wiki world are baffled by how wikis function. It is natural for people to assume that wiki "support staff" somehow have special control over the content of Wikimedia Foundation project wikis. There is actually a more subtle and interesting relationship between the special tasks that can be performed only by "Support staff" and the "real work" that is done by all wiki participants to actually develop the project. The term "custodian" was selected as the Wikiversity term for "sysop" partly in an attempt to stress the idea that it is not a very exciting position to hold. Picture custodians who quietly sweep the floor when a school is closed at the end of the day. My hope is that if we can do a good job of engineering the Wikiversity rules for support staff then it will be possible for custodians and bureaucrats to be almost invisible to the bulk of the community. Most wikiversity participants should be able to get on with the "real work" of the wiki and all they need to know is how to do is call a custodian in case a toilet blocks up and some mopping is needed. While we can strive to make "support staff" invisible, every action taken by wiki "support staff" needs to be open to review; if there is ever a problem caused by "support staff" then the community needs to be able to correct it. At Wikipedia there are occasionally calls for some kind of formal oversight for "support staff" such as periodic performance reviews. The system that has developed to deal with "support staff" problems is more adversarial and crisis-oriented. If someone perceives a problem with Wikipedia "support staff" then in order to correct it seems like there often has to be a formal and legalistic case brought before the arbitration committee. One way that "support staff" can get in the "dog house" is by trying to use their special tools to take control of wiki content. The bottom line is, "support staff" can only indirectly influence "respect of the academic world" by keeping a clean house within Wikiversity (cleaning up vandalism, etc). It is really up to "regular" Wikiversity participants to gain the respect of the academic world. However, it may be useful for Wikiversity to create a new type of "functionary" that can specialize for "professional" contacts with the academic world. There are some ideas along this line here. --JWSchmidt 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If the scholarly ethics will be enforced by the support staff, then their roll will not be invisible. Do you mean with invisible that the support staff will only be concerned with fighting vandalism? The arbitration comittee has made decisions which are questionable. I wouldn't like to have such an institution on Wikiversity.--Daanschr 10:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that, on scholarly ethics and all other principles of good practice here, while they are vital to developing a high quality resource, I don't think they are of immediate relevance to this discussion on what bureaucrats/support staff should do. Bureaucrats and custodians should not get involved in their capacities as support staff in the implementation of such policies - they should get involved in discussing such policies and applying them as completely equal community members. As far as I can see it, the only policies that would be of direct relevance to a bureaucrat's or custodian's position would be those around civility - and even then, it is still a community issue, to perhaps be implemented by a member of the "support staff". What other types of policies could be enforceable by support staff? Cormaggio talk 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of a democratic system at the moment, something like the Germans have. A system that ensures that change is possible and at the same time makes it possible that as much of people as possible are directly included in making decisions.--Daanschr 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking generally, there are two types of actions taken by custodians and bureaucrats:
1) actions that are best taken after a group of people have thought about them and discussed the matter
2) actions that are so trivial that it would probably be a waste of time to hold a formal discussion before acting.
Under such a system, when someone feels that they want to be more involved in the decisions that are made by custodians and bureaucrats it is possible to increase the amount of discussion that is required before a particular type of action is taken. Also, custodian and bureaucrat actions are reversible. Even after an action has been made people can go back, question, discuss and correct. "a democratic system ..... something like the Germans have" <-- can you explain what you mean? --JWSchmidt 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
With the German system i mean what has been written at the start of this page german wikipedia has 2; set rule: 2/3 approval in community discussion of sysop candidates.
You wrote above We don't want mindless drones as bureaucrats. This sounds nice, but it is hard to determine who is mindless and who is not.
You wrote above When bureaucrats feel forced into taking action in the absence of community consensus there should at least be consensus among bureaucrats and a clear explanation to the community of why the action is being taken. It makes sense to me that any bureaucrat action that is not supported by prior community consensus should be open to critical evaluation by the community. Here the definition of community puzzles me. How is it possible that if a community can't reach consensus, and the bureacrats make the decision, that the same community is able to revert the decision, which will be hard if there is no consensus. In essence it means that the bureaucrats decide.--Daanschr 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I misread the line on the Germans. It deals with choosing sysops.--Daanschr 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
My attribution to this discussion was not very strong, so i will leave it up to others. It is an exiting moment in Dutch politics at the moment. There is a possibility that there will be no cabinet. (sorry, completely unrelated)--Daanschr 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"it is hard to determine who is mindless" <-- At the English language Wikipedia custodians and bureaucrats are expected to judged consensus by checking to see if votes are based on reasonable discussion and votes from accounts that look like puppet accounts created just to stack the vote do not have to be counted. Just counting votes without determining that the votes are reasonable and fair is "mindless"; you could have a bot do it. Sometimes action by a custodian or bureaucrat can attract much attention, so much so that an issue that previously did not come to consensus among a smaller group can be decided by the consensus of a larger group. --JWSchmidt 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Quiet on the Western Front...

Wikiversity:
For want of the bureaucrats -
Measured, yet subtle.

A bureaucracy:
Watching; not silent nor still -
But careful with grace.

--HappyCamper 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If bureaucrats try to be invisible and only deal with issues of civility, then that would be good for me. (I have read that book: very impressive)--Daanschr 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New draft - ideas and such

Great to see things moving along! I have a few ideas which might be handy. I think it would be a good idea to aim for a document which we can expect to remain stable for say, a year or so. Wikiversity is still reasonably young, and I think planning ahead with a time horizon of around 12-16 months in mind is not too unreasonable. This might help us focus on having this page meet Wikiversity's current needs, while leaving the door open to flexibility as the editing environment changes.

I think it might be easier to modify this draft if we discuss each section starting from top to bottom, with less emphasis between how the sections interrelate. Once we have done this, we can look at the resulting document as a whole to see if there are any inconsistencies between what is written and what our philosophies for the bureaucrat role should be. Roughly speaking, I think the discussions we had 4-5 months ago approached this page in the other direction, so it might be fruitful to try the another way.

What is written so far seems reasonable. The concerns I have at the moment are primarily "semantic" - I think we need to clarify certain things. For example, in the first section, what does "well-trusted" really mean? How about the word "consensus"? Or "civility"? Let me focus on trust in this thread.

I think there are two distinct notions here we should document - the first relates to bureaucratship, say, as an "administrative role", and the second relates to bureaucrat as a "representative role". In the former, the ideal bureaucrat is probably someone who generally interprets policy in such a way that maximizes consistency and minimizes surprise. That is, they act in a way which can be reasonably anticipated by the community. In the latter, the bureaucrat is someone who the community feels is a positive influence on Wikiversity, likely someone not particularly polarizing, with a well rounded knowledge of the site. The bureaucrat is someone who would be a good ambassador for Wikiversity.

However, even this brief sketch seems problematic as it seems to open the door to a policy where the bureaucrat bit can be granted relatively liberally. This in itself is not problematic - it is the fact that it seems inconsistent with what I think the bureaucrat role is intended to be (a little more selective) which makes it so. What's the best way to proceed? Perhaps this sketch is really a non-issue, but I thought it might be a good idea just to write this down. We should probably aim for policy which balances these concerns nicely, so that its consequences are manageable by the community. Enough writing for now! I will try shorter tidbits next time. --HappyCamper 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"planning ahead with a time horizon of around 12-16 months in mind is not too unreasonable" <-- In your thinking, is it likely that this "time horizon" will include a real Wikiversity crisis in which the project might benefit from having a good set of bcrat guidelines in place, rather than the alternative of the community struggling through a crisis without the aid of good guidelines and then getting around to making useful policy only after the crisis is over? By "good guidelines " I mean that we would be able to learn from challenges that have previously been faced by other wiki projects.--JWSchmidt 23:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Learning from previous challenges on other projects - this sounds like a learning project in its own right. :-) I think it would be great to pursue such a project - but there's also an inevitability about us having to learn through this process ourselves in this (local) context. We will never be able to learn everything in advance - nor prepare for every inevitability - but we should endeavour to have as much of the process as clearly defined as possible, always leaving room for fresh and critical thinking, judgement, and reflexivity. Part of this is working through what terms like "consensus" mean - and these policies should be as clear as possible while also leaving flexibility for rethinking them in new light. For example, the notion of "reasonability" is fundamental to most legal systems, but what being "reasonable" is is a very complex notion. I don't think we need to recreate an entire legal system, but rather develop a model of consensus that will work for as long as it needs to. Wikiversity's development over a timeframe of 12-16 months sounds good as a thought experiment to start off with, however. :-) Cormaggio talk 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, 12-16 months is arbitrary. Ideally, it would be nice if we could come up with something that would be workable for all time, but that does not seem achievable. So, I just picked a number that was less than infinity...something which seems manageable (at least to me). Basically, a neat concept to suggest that we should not try and solve all the possible problems that might crop up. I didn't think of the phrase "thought experiment", but actually, that's a very nice way of putting it :-) I didn't have a potential Wikiversity crisis in mind when I wrote my previous post. I'll have to think about it, but maybe I'll offer an idea that perhaps a "crisis" on a Wiki generally turns policy into a source of polarization.
Here's another metaphor which might be useful. Originally, I thought that policies here would develop sort of like growing plants from seeds. A little water and sunlight (ie. edits to the page) here and there...and obviously, watching the plant mature. But it seems this is developing more like a piece of artwork, say, chiseling a stone sculpture. Start with a rough draft, and work away at it to get something useful.
I feel like I am going in circles, so maybe let's sketch out a bureaucrat I think would be healthy for Wikiversity, and how they might work. Obviously, this isn't the only sort of bureaucrat that would be useful for Wikiversity, but I'll describe one which is easiest for me to do right now. So, let's see...the bureaucrat will be just a normal editor on almost all pages on Wikiversity, with the exception of those directly related to creating custodians. They will not see custodianship as a too much of a political process. Policies will tend to be seen as descriptive, not prescriptive. Possibly a wikignome by nature. They will incline on promoting liberally - particular, for those users who seem to be dedicated to generating content on Wikiversity. The custodial bit is seen as a source of convenience for users, not as a source of autonomy. Possibly see Wikiversity more in an "eventualist" light instead of "immediatist" one (or whatever the neologism is). Promotions don't need to happen on fixed schedules. Track record of dedication to the project. OK, so much for now. How does this sketch look? Is this a "good" bureaucrat for Wikiversity? --HappyCamper 04:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambassador

Is there a better designation than Bureacrat? Can this be changed to something like Ambassador at least for Wikiversity? CQ 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Bureaucratship"