Requests for Comment/Changes to the Dormancy Policy

The Dormancy Policy has been around since the beginning of 2016, and since then things have changed in the way that we implement it, so therefore we need to update the policy accordingly. You may vote for multiple proposals (since they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 17:00, 3 May 2019‎ (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * The current time periods for inactivity, closure and deletion remain the same as currently, with the only change being to the wording of the policy, as these things are now done automatically and not by "global staff".

a) Support

 * 1)  I am perfectly happy with the way these times are at the moment. They are lenient and allow for prolonged periods of inactivity. This has so far prevented my wiki (and others) from getting deleted before I got a bout of energy and activity again. -- Fritigern (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  I have the LWD Foundation, and some of my wikis are inactive for almost a month, but per the comment above, it is also fair. LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 01:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Wikis with no contributions / bureaucrats may still be read and of use Figurehigh (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Seems fair for me. Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  I see no reason why not --Examknow (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) -- 03:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  Asapo (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  Ucronistaw (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 10)  Vilt  18:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 11)  I think it should stay the way it is.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 13:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 12)  Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 13)  Paladox (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
A global comment up front: These proposals are fine for getting a "sense of the community," but they contemplate making edits to a Miraheze policy document, and seeing the actual edits would forestall complaints along the lines of, "This isn't what we voted for!" The following proposal suggests that policy changes will occur "after the closure of this RfC", suggesting that there is no follow-on vote on the wording. The current proposal especially is problematic: We are asked to endorse mere "change[s] to the wording of the policy" without seeing what the changes are. 19:48 3-May-2019 What is the current policy? I get so busy at work that I am unable to make edits to my wiki for 4 months straight, so I'm against having the wiki expire or be adopted after just 60 days of inactivity. Bulrush (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The changes of the wording policy are merely to account for minor changes due to the fact that some parts of the DP are now handled by a script instead of by system administrators manually. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 04:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * The "Wikis with no contributions" clause of the policy is removed from the Dormancy Policy and will no longer be applicable after the closure of this RfC. (This clause has not been used so far)

a) Support

 * A wiki with 0 contributions is not "dormant" but "unbegun". Using wmftools suggests that a large number of requests for wikis are abandoned soon after, by newbies who didn't understand the magnitude of work involved in making it look serious.  My support assumes there is some way to clear these away; it doesn't have to be in the Dormancy Policy.   19:51 3-May-2019
 * Please note that without the Dormancy Policy, there is no way that we can clear wikis away, this was the only way that allowed us to do so. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 04:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  As it is indicated above, has not been used. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  6 months total for a regular deletion seem fine enough to handle hypothetical 0 contribs cases since those wouldn't really waste much resources.--Wedhro (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  It would seem to me that removing the text from the dormancy policy will simplify the policy. Simpler is best IMHO. --Fritigern (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per the comment above. LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 01:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  per above. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Never used, not part of the software and will never be. I don’t know anyone who fancies going through all the wikis weekly to see which meet this criteria. Keeping this here is like keeping the UK law about carrying a wooden plank in London - it’s illegal but no one enforced it. Same with this, it may exist but it’s not been used in about 2 years and I never will be. John (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Per @John!. Paladox (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) Flip to Oppose.  If indeed this is the only policy authorizing deletion of dead-end wikis that were never developed, I would have it remain in the document.  If stewards want to keep them to pad the count, I can't stop them, but hundreds of wikis with no content at all diffuse people's attention even if they don't waste time/money/megabytes.   13:37 4-May-2019
 * 2)  I'd rather have this bit in there just in case of unforeseen circumstances. It also clearly differentiates wikis that have never been edited from wikis with substantial edits which should have different rules imo. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  I mean, if it's empty and no one is really doing anything about it, then why keep it up?  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 13:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Hackdown (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Wikis without contributions are just wasting our disk space, and they should be deleted sooner than the others.-- 03:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  for arguments Ucronistaw (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Flip to Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose. If indeed the Dormancy Policy did not exist, there will be numerous wikis without content, and the servers will be damaged. There would have been more than 10000 wikis on Miraheze, while 7000 of them are blank wikis. ShoutWiki, one of it's rivals, has more wikis than Miraheze for a lot, but it does not have a Dormancy policy. That is not good. Indeed. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 10:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn’t get rid of the policy? It removes a section we’ve never used and will absolutely never ever use. John (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  Wouldn't mind if this clause was removed, however keeping the clause is also fine with me. Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * The rules for exemptions remain the same as they are

a) Support

 * 1)  I’m not going to allow the changing of the Policy, since I’ve been trying to work on the Crazybloxian Empire Wiki. It’s very inactive, after losing motivation to work on the project, but I don’t know when I regain motivation, and my wiki would have been deleted for up to years before I regained the motivation.
 * 2)  If they are changed then some events (e.g. elections, Olympics, etc.) will have to request more regularly than their period of activity. Equally wikis that will never go out of date and have large traffic numbers but low edit counts (e.g. a hypertext variant of the D&D 3e SRD) will end up being closed soon after creation. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While you do make a good point, the renewal process will be very simple, and all that has to be done is the bureaucrat answers an email from sysadmins saying "I would like to renew". So even if the wiki is only used rarely, I'm sure one of the bureaucrats would be able to answer an email. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 10:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that exemptions existed so that you didn't have to periodically log on and make a minor edit and instead could apply for a exemption on the grounds of a number of things that it is common sense to grant an exemption for. Having to periodically e-mail staff kind of defeats the whole point. Additionally a large number of complaints against ShoutWiki describe e-mails being lost in transit. I don't want that to start happening here. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 13:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  As above Figurehigh (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 11:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Indeed. The whole point of exemptions is that unusual cases happen, and should be processed differently. Periodically reviewing the list could make sense, but not making the mechanism itself half-assed. Besides, removal of permanent exemption would de facto amount to: insist on an arbitrary easy-to-circumvent minor obstacle (or, require a needlessly complicated keepalive signal, with useless growing logs as the only real effect) and pretend things are not what they were. Which would be a pointless hassle and waste of resources. --TBeholder (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  per above. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  We need to have permanent exemptions for good content. If it is good it is likely to stay good. There could be a review policy to check that the reason for the exemption still applies, but not automatic removal. Robertinventor (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) -- 03:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) For the sake of simplicity, the current exemption policy covers all our needs for exemptions from dormancy. Creating an expiry period will in a sense defeat the purpose of exemption and simply "extend" the dormancy policy rather than exempt wikis from it. Also, since this policy will likely deter some wiki creators from Miraheze (I myself hesitated to request a wiki for a period of time because of it), making the policy even more lengthy and byzantine than it already is is a big no-no for me. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 14:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  Ucronistaw (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  I dont like the idea of Bureaucrats or any other local group being named in golbal policy. Some wikis my choese to remove the Bureaucrat group and replace it with a diffrent system using managewiki. I also agree with the above statements that adding an expriy would make it less of an exemption and more of just an extension. Bonnedav (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * While I have no issue with whatever rules for expirations are set, I do have an issue with the current criteria for granting a dormancy policy exemption (see my proposal 6 below). Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * I manage Rfobasic wiki, an incomplete manual for an Android APK whose original authors have walked away from it. It was fun but further development will wait until someone asks for it, which might be never.  Even so, what's there is useful for reference.  I currently enjoy an exemption from Dormancy.  If stewards contacted me annually or less often to check, that wouldn't be burdensome.  I don't know what the right interval is.   19:56 3-May-2019

A problem I see with all the other options is that a bureaucrat is needed to keep the exemption but it's perfectly possible for a wiki to have no active bureaucrats. What happens if there's still users interested in keeping the wiki online but they're just regular users?--Wedhro (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, you are free to make new proposals or as in this case if you feel like one part of the proposal is not good, you can make an amendment to it that addresses that part. Also, if there is community consensus (or a demonstration that there is only one user active on a wiki) bureaucrat can be easily granted by a Steward if it is requested. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 04:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How does one request an exemption anyway? Maybe you should add a link somewhere in the warning in case someone wants to apply for one? Sir Intellegence (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't certain wikis be kept because the wiki is at that point is considered "complete" and at that point kept for archival purposes? Sapphire Williams (talk page • contributions) 13:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * Exemptions are no longer infinite, and will expire after a time period of 1 year starting with when the exemption was requested. After this time period, bureaucrats of a wiki are contacted by sysadmins, and they have a chance to renew their exemption. If they do not respond to the request in 30 days after the message by sysadmins, the wiki is removed from the exemption list and will be normally affected by the Dormancy Policy starting when the exemption is removed.

a) Support

 * 1)  Averak (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Seems reasonable. If a wiki community/initial creator is going to be inactive for more than one year, there's no reason why we can't ask them to reach out and request renewal, rather than just allowing their wiki to sit and idle indefinitely where it could be easily vandalized. However, I would also support keeping exemptions indefinite if that is the consensus. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Some wikis, per the discretion of Brent Laabs (User:Labster), who is the co-founder of AllTheTropes, manages donations to that wiki to keep it running and it already has a lot of users from a lot of countries, and they do not know Miraheze Dormancy Policy (some of the users ave not seen the wiki farm's meta wiki. So supporting this section will let that wiki be in big trouble. So I  LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 01:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You oppose time limited exemptions from a policy on the basis of large active wikis suffering from something they'll never use, need, request or ever fall foul of? John (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so ATT will keep running even there is inactivity. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 10:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opposition is based on a fallacy. Brent has assured me that donors do not receive the special privileges and donations go to Miraheze as a whole, not to maintain particular wikis. Fair disclosure: I am a bureaucrat on AllTheTropes and Poser and Daz Free Resources, and a donor to Miraheze. I get no special treatment. --Robkelk (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  If someone makes a good encyclopedia, then it may be read by many people who are not competent to edit it. If the articles are accurate and reasonably complete, or specialist and require a high degree of expertise, nobody might feel a need to change it. Suppose the author is in hospital, getting intensive treatment, unconscious, can be many reasons why they can't respond, or just miss the notification and don't visit their site for a while, it could then go off-line. Or they might die, but you are left with a valuable encyclopedia, whether or not someone else takes it on. If this needs to be reconsidered it shouldn't be automatic or yearly. Robertinventor (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  why add more tediousness to the policy Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * Exemptions are no longer infinite, and will expire after a time period of 2 years starting with when the exemption was requested. After this time period, bureaucrats of a wiki are contacted by sysadmins, and they have a chance to renew their exemption. If they do not respond to the request in 30 days after the message by sysadmins, the wiki is removed from the exemption list and will be normally affected by the Dormancy Policy starting when the exemption is removed.

a) Support

 * 1)  Having to renew the exemptions assures that the wiki is still needed by bureaucrats, rather than allowing anyone to request exemptions and then never need their wiki again. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  for arguments Ucronistaw (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Exceptions that never expire will eventually lead to clogged disc arrays; there needs to be some way to trim out any wiki that is no longer in use. And a two-year grace period is more than sufficient to archive an wiki on Miraheze into the Wayback Machine so that the data doesn't disappear, even if if the wiki is the (relative) monster that is All The Tropes. --Robkelk (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 13:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Some wikis, per the discretion of Brent Laabs (User:Labster), who is the co-founder of AllTheTropes, manages donations to that wiki to keep it running and it already has a lot of users from a lot of countries, and they do not know Miraheze Dormancy Policy (some of the users ave not seen the wiki farm's meta wiki. So supporting this section will let that wiki be in big trouble. So I  LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You oppose time limited exemptions from a policy on the basis of large active wikis suffering from something they'll never use, need, request or ever fall foul of? John (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  same as for one and three years. It would be reasonable to review to see if the reason for exemption still applies every year, two years or three years but not automatic removal. Robertinventor (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) see my reason for the similar proposal. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 14:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Procedural oppose as two years is simply too long for a single exemption with no futher communication, barring exceptional circumstances. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Procedural oppose as two years is simply too long for a single exemption with no futher communication, barring exceptional circumstances. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

 * Exemptions are no longer infinite, and will expire after a time period of 3 years starting with when the exemption was requested. After this time period, bureaucrats of a wiki are contacted by sysadmins, and they have a chance to renew their exemption. If they do not respond to the request in 60 days after the message by sysadmins, the wiki is removed from the exemption list and will be normally affected by the Dormancy Policy starting when the exemption is removed.

a) Support

 * 1)  --Fritigern (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)   Second choice since three years is an awfully long time to be inactive (exemptions included). &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved from abstain because this more closely matches my opinion. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  I like this idea, however I do understand the concerns regarding the 'grace period'. 60 days seems enough, provided that multiple reminders are sent. Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Hackdown (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Some wikis, per the discretion of Brent Laabs (User:Labster), who is the co-founder of AllTheTropes, manages donations to that wiki to keep it running and it already has a lot of users from a lot of countries, and they do not know Miraheze Dormancy Policy (some of the users ave not seen the wiki farm's meta wiki. So supporting this section will let that wiki be in big trouble. So I  LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 03:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You oppose time limited exemptions from a policy on the basis of large active wikis suffering from something they'll never use, need, request or ever fall foul of? John (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to any automatic expirations of encyclopedias. Repeating my 1 year vote: if the articles are accurate and reasonably complete, or specialist and require a high degree of expertise, nobody might feel a need to change it. Suppose the author is in hospital, getting intensive treatment, unconscious, can be many reasons why they can't respond, or just miss the notification and don't visit their site for a while, it could then go off-line. Or they might die, but you are left with a valuable encyclopedia, whether or not someone else takes it on. What I am opposed to is automatic expiration. Someone needs to look at it, see if it is getting readers, if it is appearing in relevant Google search results, if there is some indication it is useful. Is there any reason why it needs to be deleted? Shortage of space or something? One suggestion, you could add a banner to it saying "click here if you find this useful and want to keep it" to alert regular users of it who do not edit it but only read it. Robertinventor (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * see reason for similar proposal. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 14:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Procedural oppose as three years is simply too long for a single exemption with no futher communication, barring exceptional circumstances. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

 * Wikis that are active and/or have 1000 articles or more will have their duration of exemption extended automatically. Only wikis with less than 1000 articles and at the same time inactive will face their exemption time period (1～3 years).

a) Support

 * Large wikis are more likely holding our best contents, and active wikis can prove their need for exemption by the very fact that they have been active. Thus, such wikis should be exempted from Dormancy indefinitely no matter what.-- 03:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sapphire Williams (talk page • contributions) 13:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * Just like the proposal at the very top of the page, the policy will be simpler if this was not added. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 12:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * see reason for similar proposal. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 14:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

 * The polices regarding expirations of dormancy policy excemptions remain the same (implementing proposal 1). However, the criteria for a dormancy policy exemption will be amended to add something along the lines of "Wikis can be exempted from the dormancy policy at the sole request of either the wiki community or, in the absence of a community, the initial requestor/creator the wiki, regardless of the status of the wiki regarding size or amount of content. The exemption would be granted under whatever expiration rules are in effect at the time."

a) Support

 * as proposer. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  if this clause is added, what is the point in the whole policy if anyone can go "yeah, this policy doesn't apply to me" - cases have to be demonstrated and if no case is demonstrated then there is no reason to exempt from the policy on the basis of the wiki adds no value. John (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * it's not about anyone able to say "this doesn't apply to me" - obviously if the wiki is active, any requests for exemption would be unnecessary/redundant/frivolous and should be declined. However, if a wiki is experiencing an extended period of inactivity, but the community and/or the initial creator knows that eventually the wiki will be active again, but they are unsure exactly when (which was my situation), this clause would be helpful in preventing closures/adoptions/deletions in these circumstances. Amanda Catherine (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * This is a clause that would've been very useful for my wiki when I was inactive due to personal issues for the last several months. I requested an exemption solely on the basis of "original creator request" given that I don't have an active community, however it was declined because there wasn't enough article content on the wiki. As a result, I was still concerned that my wiki would be closed/deleted at some point before I could return, since I didn't know when I would be able to return. A clause like this would've helped mitigate those uncertainties. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * A wiki will be eligible under the adoption policy 7 days after it has been closed.

a) Support

 * 1) More votes on the section below. It does not even in fact count as a vote.LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 03:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) only if 14 day does not pass. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 11:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  7 days is hardly enough time between a wiki being closed and being eligible for adoption. We need to allow an adequate amount of time for the original community/creator to reclaim their closed wiki(s) before allowing them to be adopted by others whom the community/creator may not even know. 7 days IMHO does not consist of an adequate amount of time. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  No preference between 7 or 14 days. Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * A wiki will be eligible under the adoption policy 14 days after it has been closed.

a) Support

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Wedhro (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  seems fair enough to me.-- 04:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Sound good Asapo (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ucronistaw (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  I think that if a wiki has been closed and other users have an interested in opening it again, it should be supported.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  No reason to let a perfectly good wiki go to waste --Examknow (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  however make sure the original creator of the wiki is properly notified of closure. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 11:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  Same as above, 14 days is still a little too quick to allow a closed wiki to be adopted by a third party. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  No preference between 7 or 14 days. Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * The user requesting adoption must have shown activity on the wiki prior to it's closure.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  This is effectively just a blocker for anyone who just found the newly-closed wiki and would like to edit. I don't think we should have such restrictions. --  Void  Whispers 02:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per the comment above. LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 03:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  As this will make it more of a take over rather than adoption. The chance of adoption should be open to anyone who's active on Miraheze.-- 04:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  for argumentsUcronistaw (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  If a wiki had even one active user, then the wiki would not have been closed to begin with. Better to pass the torch to another editor than let the data disappear from the live web; the Wayback Machine can only do so much. --Robkelk (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)   Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 13:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

 * The user requesting adoption must have shown activity on another Miraheze wiki.

a) Support

 * 1)  This rule will ensure that the wiki would be in the hands of someone who at least knows how to edit articles. --Fritigern (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per the comment above. LegoMaster (talk - contribs - Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 03:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  if the wording is changed from "another" to "a". Otherwise it will block people who are familiar with the wiki but does not edit elsewhere. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 10:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  per above. It should be more like "on any Miraheze wiki," but basically, I think it's fair enough.-- 04:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  I think if a person is looking to run a wiki with complete admin and bureaucrat rights, I think that the user should have some experience with editing and managing wikis.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I fail to see a distinction between proposal 3 and 4. This is not a very popular site. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting this on the grounds that editing your user page on meta will qualify. Am I wrong? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 08:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  For same reason it's not like Wikipedia, most people won't have Miraheze accounts and won't have edited other wikis here. The other wikis here tend to be specialist, and this would restrict it to people who happen to have had an interest in one of the other wikis here, and found it and edited it. Few of those who would be good adopters would have done this. Robertinventor (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 14:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1)  Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ucronistaw (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 11:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

 * Staying inline with Miraheze's community centric purpose, adoption is solely the request for a wiki to be re-opened by anyone not holding "managewiki" locally on the wiki. Users must submit a local request to gain permissions which will be handled by a steward in line with standard practise (applying this pages' notes criteria).

a) Support

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Wedhro (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  I actually think that wiki adoption needs the adopter to have rights (including autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed) on this meta wiki. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 11:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  The thing that absolutely makes Miraheze unique is the community centric focus. We are a community, we give the community a say, we are accountable. Pushing people to make a local request is so much more than “hoops”, it ensures a fair equal process, it ensures everyone has a say and it ensure if 2 or more people also want to adopt the wiki, it’s a shared say and a not a steward deciding who has the ability to delete a page over the others. I’ve always hated the adoption process as it doesn’t reflect the Miraheze model and looking at the current trend of this RfC, it’ll go even further away from the core values of Miraheze. I do not handle adoption requests currently for this reason and if the below proposal passes I guess I will never handle adoption requests. John (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Per John, the option should be there to treat this from a community perspective. Even if no vote actually happens, we would still be providing other users the ability to decide who they think the next admin(s) should be, regardless as to who first requested the adoption. --  Void  Whispers 15:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Per John and Void. Paladox (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I don't what this adds besides more hoops and less flexibility. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't think this "local request" will work successfully; the wiki in question should be eligible for adoption because it's dead, with no one remaining to vote.-- 04:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Flip to . Per the comment above. The wiki is already dead, and no one is voting, and I also do not think that that will work successfully. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] Abstain  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
I don't see why anyone can open a wiki and automatically get bureaucrat/sysop status, no questions asked, but if someone adopts a dead wiki he has to get steward's approval. --Wedhro (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, because a dead wiki has content, albeit no active users. It is fine that stewards generally defer to the wiki's community, but in the case that there is none, there is no reason for stewards not to approve.


 * Should it be stated that stewards take a snapshot of the wiki before handing it over, in case the old-timers reappear and agree that the new bureaucrat has made a mess of things?  20:00 3-May-2019


 * To me it looks like this should be handled case-by-case because there's also wikis with little to no content, so not giving away right automatically it's the closest option.--Wedhro (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of this, is to avoid this. No one is a dictator, if there's been the chance for someone to oppose or contest, then whether someone has made a mess or not is irrelevant for a steward's view point. Only a steward intervenes of there is a request for the revocation of the rights. John (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * People get these rights automatically at the start to not hinder but to encourage the creation of what is a new idea. An existing wiki has had this opportunity and if someone wishes to reboot an idea, they have the necessary tools there already. John (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about this, as in a situation where the user requesting adoption is the only user who has edited the wiki in the time since it was opened, it may prohibit them from being able to have a successful request. Barring, of course, handling requests by steward discretion instead of number of votes. -- Void  Whispers 02:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Steward discretion always applies. We don't do things on votes, we do it on arguments and due consideration. John (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

 * Upon adoption, users will be given sysop and bureaucrat rights on the wiki by a Steward.

a) Support

 * 1)  When a user adopts a wiki, they should have the same rights on that wiki as when they had requested and been granted a wiki. --Fritigern (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Making requests (even if they are simple) can be a daunting task, especially for relatively new users. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 10:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  This really only makes sense. If no one has been active on this wiki, and no one cares about it... then why shouldn't the user who bothered requesting adoption not be given bureaucrat rights? The wiki would likely be left with no sysops, so this user is just going to have to make all the requests directly to the Stewards. Finally, since content can always be imported, I see no difference between starting a new wiki and adopting an old one. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per Fritigern's comment. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Hackdown (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Let's say upon "successful" adoption, to be clear. Otherwise, who will manage this "adopted" wiki?-- 04:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  for arguments and a trial period could be added as you said in your comments Ucronistaw (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  I agree with @Ucronistaw's statement.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And besides, isn't the point of adopting a wiki is for a user to gain administrative control of a page when the original administration no longer has interests? It's not adoption if the adoptee doesn't get adminship and bureaucrat rights because they'll still be regular users. Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 03:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope the point is to reopen a wiki - allowing people to contribute to it. John (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I don't think rights should given before the user really demonstrates a need for said rights, and therefore I support proposal 5 for that. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  As Reception123 has said above. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  13:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  The supports set up arguments but seem to be ones of not being bothered to make a request to the local community - a core value of Miraheze. I think this alone forms my oppose. John (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) per Reception Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Reception and John, I feel as though there should be at least an attempt at a community interaction before assigning a new user administrative privileges. -- Void  Whispers 15:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  per John, Reception and void Paladox (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

 * 1) This, too, has a risk (such as take overs by hat collectors), I, personally speaking, am not against this idea, but now I'm no longer an active supporter of this idea either.-- 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
This is more or less how Wikia does it for wiki adoptions. If you successfully adopt the wiki, you get both sysop and crat on the wiki. I can see why people would be opposed to it, however. If there's doubt as to whether or not the adopter will mess up the wiki, stewards can give them sysop and bureaucrat for a trial period, and at the end of it can decide whether or not the user was genuinely trying to adopt the wiki for its betterment or was simply a power-hungry individual wanting to take over the wiki. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement. Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that the way to do this would be to keep things rather similar to the way that they are done now, except that we provide the user who made the request one week of temporary admin and crat. If they actively work on the wiki (even if they don't really use the tools), then they will get to keep them. If not, then their access to the tools will expire. Although I imagine that they should be given the opportunity to regain the permissions if they suddenly pick up activity at the two week mark, instead of immediately. -- Void  Whispers 15:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I no longer feel like that is a good idea. -- Void  Whispers 15:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7

 * The requester will be given a temporary admin and bureaucrat permissions upon reopening. There must be a local request for admin/bureaucrat permissions when and only when there are actually other active users contributing on the wiki in question during the trial period. Otherwise, the requester's administrator and bureaucrat permissions will automatically be extended indefinitely when the adoption succeeds.

a) Support

 * 1) This is a hybrid proposal of proposals 5 and 6. When community is capable of having a vote, then they can (and Miraheze can remain community-centric). Otherwise, permissions will be granted automatically to adopters (so that s/he can run and reboot the dead community, and which is practically a rational solution for most cases).-- 03:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  a dead vote says a lot to a steward - it is not within the person's ability to judge whether a community exists. A request should always be made and if it comes up blank, it gives an accurate view of the situation. John (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We do have clear evidences to judge whether a community is alive - contributions and logs (the same data as the data we use to judge whether a wiki is dormant and/or eligible for deletion). If there aren't any apart from those by the requester, the old community is clearly dead, and the requester him/herself is the community until anyone else takes part in his/her wiki (and they can make decisions after they form a new community; they can even de-op the requester if necessary). And here's my question; if "it is not within the person's ability to judge whether a community exists", why can you ever delete a wiki? I think the reason we delete wikis is because we judge the community of the target wiki is dead at some point.-- 14:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Community centric is more than whether a community exists. It’s about giving the opportunity. Say two people see a wiki is closed but one notices a day before, is that person entitled to be a sysop over the other? The request allows early development or collective efforts. We delete wikis based on a policy of opportunity and wiki activity not on community. John (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but the answer to your example is simple; the other can contribute on the wiki so that there will be a vote (or, perhaps, regard both of them as adopters if they reach an agreement). The point of this proposal lies here. There will be an opportunity whenever there should be. I do understand about the deletion if you mean "to provide opportunities to new comers by providing disk space." However, a wiki and a community is IMO not separable. A community on Miraheze will always be on wiki, and a wiki can exist only when a community to support it exists (we do have IRC or Discord, but people who use them are not exactly the same as people who use the wiki, making them a (strongly-related but a) different community). If the wiki is dead, the community is also dead, and vice versa.-- 16:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 02:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 8

 * No conclusion regarding permissions (proposals 5 to 7) will be drawn immediately, but should be discussed on the community noticeboard so that we can seek for a solution that both supporters of proposal 5 and proposal 6 can accept.

a) Support

 * 1) We need more discussion to reach an acceptable solution regarding this topic. Now, the community is divided into two, and voting to draw a conclusion immediately on this RfC is not the best idea to solve it.-- 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * After 6 months total following inactivity and closure notices, a wiki is marked as deleted. For 7 days following that, users have the chance to reinstate their wiki again by contacting sysadmins. If after that time there is no request, the wiki is eligible to be deleted by sysadmins permanently.

b) Oppose

 * 1) LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 04:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) In favor of Proposal 2 below. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I think 7 days is too short for a period for users to decide.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Agree that 7 days is far too little time for a user/community to make a determation on a permanent issue like wiki deletion. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * After 6 months total following inactivity and closure notices, a wiki is marked as deleted. For 14 days following that, users have the chance to reinstate their wiki again by contacting sysadmins. If after that time there is no request, the wiki is eligible to be deleted by sysadmins permanently.

a) Support

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Wedhro (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  IMO, after 6 months of notices, 14 days is a much more realistic time period before final deletion --Fritigern (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  I concur with the above statement. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 13:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  14 days is more reasonable than 7 days because people's real life schedules can interfere with their ability to edit. Of course, 14 days isn't ideal for everyone as there are people who do disappear for weeks at a time. However, I understand, with the current state of affairs, why Miraheze would at least want to cull wikis that have clearly died to save on server resources. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 13:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Sure, why not? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 8)  I have changed from oppose to support after reading the whole sentence above. LegoMaster (talk Account information: [ block log] – contribs – logs – [ abuse log] – CentralAuth ) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) -- 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 10)  Asapo (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 11)  for arguments Ucronistaw (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 12)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 13)  I think 14 days is still a short time, I would say a month's an adequate length, but it's somewhat reasonable.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 14)  Reasonable. Amanda Catherine (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments
I have no divine wisdom to support 14 days and oppose 7 days, especially as this is a waiting period at the end of a waiting period (which sounds like what I went through to change my user name).

I presume a "closed wiki" is one that is still on-line but has been rendered un-retrievable, while a "deleted wiki" is one that is physically deleted (or precisely, according to Dormancy Policy, deleted at stewards' option, such as whenever they need the space). Is there a way to save the information for eventual recovery (like "writing it to the mag-tapes")?

Shouldn't Dormancy Policy mention that an RfC on it is active? 20:07 3-May-2019
 * A closed wiki is one which remains online but is not changeable except by those with "managewiki" permissions. A wiki "marked as deleted" is a wiki which appears as to not exist (produces a 404). A deleted wiki is one where the live copy is gone but information may or may not exist in backups. There is a way to store data but as an open source, donation funded project - we have no gains from storing the data, nor realistically the want to invest money in long term data storage when we are constantly fighting for funds to sustain live data storage. John (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to email a zipped data dump to the bureaucrat? I guess this is size dependent... Figurehigh (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats can always have a data dump themselves by going to Special:DataDump on their wikis, but if the wiki were to be deleted before that we do keep backups of wikis so that would be possible (and has already been done). Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 09:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiveteam
I don't know much about the relationship between Miraheze and Archiveteam, but I wonder if there is an option of sorts for wikis that are about to be deleted to be archived into the Wayback Machine by the Archiveteam, either by bots or by dedicated volunteers? Wikis that contain no content whatsoever (which I'm guessing are the primary reasons why this policy exists in the first place—to get rid of wikis that are created and abandoned soon after creation) probably don't need to be archived, but for wikis with more substantial content, there might be a benefit to at least having its contents archived into the Internet Archive prior to deletion, so that not all is lost in case the community returns and wants to revive it. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 13:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From a system administrator view, I would be in favor for this, and wouldn't mind providing my assistance to be sure archives are created and uploaded before we permanently delete a wiki, but ideally this would be done by providing ArchiveTeam with dumps created server-side and not by ArchiveTeam scraping all articles and thus overloading our servers. Southparkfan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)