Talk:Dormancy Policy

Good + Deletion

 * I think that this is a good policy, possibly better than the other one. The only issue I have is that the wikis that were never edited don't get deleted, because I don't see any use of them being adopted if they have absolutely no content on them. I am currently working on a list for all inactive wikis (and not edited ones). If possible when this policy gets implemented I would need global interface editor rights, and possible temporary access to private wikis so that I can also help there . Reception123  (talk) (  contribs  ) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusion

 * I don't really understand "If no user has requested the adoption of a wiki at least 120 days after the closing of a wiki (minimum 180 days/6 months inactivity)" Is it 120 days or 180 days? Reception123  (talk) (  contribs  ) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the chart that should help understand. It's 180 total days of inactivity, but about 120 days since the wiki was placed up for adoption. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 05:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks :) Reception123  (talk) (  contribs  ) 07:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A minor point
Most people will probably just look at the table so to make the article idiot proof, you should specify a measurement of time on the table as well, it's just a minor point but I thought it wouldn't hurt to at least suggest it. PlatinumYellow (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "a measurement of time"? That's what the table is about. Reception123  (talk) (  contribs  ) 05:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Adoption
Adopting users should not be able to remove the founding admin. The founding admin should be able to remove adopting admins if they come back. I don't think adopting admins should be able to remove any of the current admins that they don't already have the user rights to remove. At the very least the founder should be immune to being usurped. D4rkst4r (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the founder would come back he could just request permissions back. And the founding admin has 55 days to edit his/her wiki to prevent it becoming dormant, and anyways there is a small chance a wiki will be adopted. Reception123  (talk) (  contribs  ) 05:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I quote: the user will gain founder rights (administrator and bureaucrat) on the wiki, (..) and will have the option of removing rights from old users..
 * Founders already have the right to remove rights from old users (if that's not possible via the wiki interface because it are, for example, bureaucrat rights - they can ask the stewards anyway). The new founder should be treated as a founder, so we all agreed to this piece of text.
 * The old founder(s) must have been away for 67-180 days if the wiki was adopted. In 99% of those cases the founders forgot about Miraheze; this banner can be seen on all wikis until the 9th (so they had 7 days to be aware of our policy), and they have another 30 days (between notice and closure) to prevent the wiki from being closed/adopted. During those 30 days a wiki-wide notice is visible, so it's impossible any founder wouldn't see it (unless they are inactive). In short: we believe an adopter should be treated as a founder.
 * If you are an active wiki founder and don't want to give your foundership away, then you should request an exception to the policy imho. There should be at least one point you/your wiki meets (obviously), although if you donated, or you are an active volunteer at Miraheze, I won't really hesitate to make your wiki an exception to this policy as a 'thank you' (because I love everyone :-)). Southparkfan (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the wiki has enough stuff on it to be worth not deleting then the founder probably didn't forget about the wiki entirely. (Cases where a new user comes, requests a new wiki, adds a few pages for a week and then leaves.)  What I'm afraid is most people not knowing what the policies are.  If they miss the whole banner about inactivity then they wouldn't check up on the policy.  When they come back they might just assume that they can't request their user rights back and their wiki was given away.  They might just go away and complain about their wiki being given away.  If the old founder is inactive then I don't think it should be a problem to leave their user rights in place.  To me it seems like a red flag of bad faith if a new admin is afraid of sharing privileges.  D4rkst4r (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't really care whether the rights of the new founder are removed or not.
 * But, I think you have a fair point that everyone should know what the exact policy is.
 * D4rkst4r, feel free to propose a solution for that area. Southparkfan (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to propose alternatives but I believe the policy is alright as is. First of all wiki founders must be gone for a very long time for this to even be possible. Secondly, when a wiki is opened for adoption, anyone can request it's adoption, including current staff members or active users. Stewards will look at adoption requests on a case-by-case basis, and if possible, use local consensus to determine who gets what user rights. It's not like we will just give sysop and bureaucrat to a random user and allow them to do what they will :) If possible I believe that we'll work to make sure that the local community has a nice home in the absence of an owner. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Show days of dormancy for all pages in wiki
Can we have on each wiki's main page the days of dormancy for the whole wiki site? Each wiki site is composed of many pages. By looking at the history of each page we can see when we last made an edit, but there is not way to see the last edit date of ALL pages together. Bulrush (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Each wiki already has this on their main menu, called "Recent Changes", and the Wiki-wide changes are at https://WIKINAME.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges. Bulrush (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning email
Can Miraheze send a warning email to the owner if the wiki has been dormant for 30 days? Bulrush (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be a great idea. MacFan4000 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This was the initial plan, but it went aside. We could think about re-integrating it though, as it would be a good idea. Reception123 (talk) (  contribs  ) 18:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed for requests to reopen locked wikis
Can you ask for a wiki that is locked from editing due to the Dormancy policy to be reopened before the wiki is put for adoption? Matthew Cenance (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're a bureaucrat on the wiki you can just unlock it yourself on Special:ManageWiki. Otherwise, global staff can probably unlock it for you. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
I do believe that rather than "references", it should say footnotes, if possible. Thanks, -- Integer talk 04:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Se debería atenuar esta política / This policy should be relaxed
Hola. Estoy viendo la posibilidad de crear un wiki, pero esto me desalienta hacerlo aquí por esta política. No dudo que hay cientos de wikis con contenidos muy pobres y que su desaparición no afectaría el acceso al conocimiento. Pero, ¿las wikis de tipo cultural, como diccionarios, enciclopedias generales o temáticas también las eliminan? ¿Por qué? Además de desperdiciar el trabajo de miles de horas, se impide el acceso a otras enciclopedias alternativas a wikipedia.

Nadie es eterno. Algún día, cada uno de nosotros dejaremos de editar. Por lo que, muy posiblemente, nada del trabajo quedará, ni podrá ser reutilizado por otras personas. Lo siento, pero en estas condiciones, prefiero crear un wiki en otra granja. Saludos cordiales. 181.46.167.73 19:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Translated with Google translator.


 * Hello. I am looking at creating a wiki, but am discouraged from doing so here because of this policy. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of wikis with very poor content and that their disappearance would not affect access to knowledge. But do wikis of a cultural nature, such as dictionaries, general or thematic encyclopedias, also eliminate them? Why? In addition to wasting the work of thousands of hours, access to other encyclopedias alternatives to wikipedia is prevented.


 * No one is eternal. Someday each of us will stop editing. So, quite possibly, none of the work will remain, nor can it be reused by other people. Sorry, but under these conditions, I prefer to create a wiki on another farm. Best regards. 181.46.167.73 19:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 181.46.167.73 If you are the only editor, or one of only a few editors, and your wiki is infrequently edited, you can request an exemption to Dormancy Policy at stewards' noticeboard, and it will generally be given for wikis intended to be read by real people and where there's sufficient content. You also have fully six months from your last edit or logged action to develop a sufficient number of content pages (it can vary based on the length of the pages and type of content, but generally 30-60 content pages is a good guide). Dmehus (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Muchas gracias Dmehus por la respuesta. No había leído las excepciones. El contenido de la wiki que deseo crear puede ajustarse a "Content on the wiki is read by people." o " The wiki does not expect many users to edit." Deseo crear una wiki de frases, alternativa a Wikiquote (de la que he participado).
 * Una tarea de recopilación de frases insume mucho tiempo como para que luego sea borrada por inactividad (espero no estar inactivo tanto tiempo como dice la política, aunque el destino no lo tenemos asegurado). Por eso pregunto antes de solicitar un wiki. Me agrada el entorno visual y las facilidades técnicas que disponen.
 * Si todo marchara bien, más adelante tengo pensado crear una enciclopedia escolar, con contenidos explicados de manera más sencilla que en wikipedia en español.
 * Gracias. Saludos cordiales. 186.18.60.31 23:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Translated with Google translator.
 * Dmehus: Thank you very much for the reply. She hadn't read the exceptions. The content of the wiki that I want to create can be set to "Content on the wiki is read by people." or "The wiki does not expect many users to edit." I want to create a wiki of phrases, alternative to Wikiquote (of which I have participated).
 * A phrase collection task takes a long time to be deleted later due to inactivity (I hope I am not inactive for as long as the policy says, although the destination is not assured). So I ask before requesting a wiki. I like the visual environment and the technical facilities they have.
 * If all goes well, later on I plan to create a school encyclopedia, with content explained in a simpler way than in wikipedia in Spanish.
 * Thanks. Best regards. 186.18.60.31 23:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 186.18.60.31 Yeah, a wiki similar to Wikiquote should be fine for an exemption for Dormancy Policy, once it has about 30-50 start-class content pages created and provided it is not strictly speaking a mirror of Wikiquote with little to no changes to the content pages. If it's essentially like Wikiquote, but with different content, that should be fine, yeah. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Gracias nuevamente por la respuesta, Dmehus. Sí, la idea es ofrecer contenido distinto y con referencias. Me registro y solicito un wiki. Saludos cordiales. 186.18.60.31 00:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus: Thanks again for the reply. Yes, the idea is to offer different content and with references. I register and request a wiki. Best regards. 186.18.60.31 00:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 186.18.60.31 Okay, sounds good. Feel free to mention my name in your wiki request's description, and also be sure to define a clear purpose and scope for your wiki in a sentence or two. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

How I can request a dormant wiki to be re-enabled?
I know, but there are a lot of wikis that were marked as deleted, due to inactivity. If you can tell me how I can request a dormant wiki to be re-enabled I'll thank you. --SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends on if you were a  or not, and, if it's a private wiki, additionally a  . Which wiki is it? Dmehus (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Inoffensive Reception Wikis Wiki. (NOTE: Feel free to deny it if it violates the Content Policy)SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mark this as ❌ as an existing  would need to request this. I see no reason to subvert the Dormancy Policy process to stave off a last-minute deletion. No one proposed to adopt the wiki in more than six months, so that suggests little to no interest in this wiki. Dmehus (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason to subvert is, is that I need to archive the wiki. It was closed due to inactivity. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was a public wiki at any point prior to being marked for deletion, there should an XML dump available by searching "miraheze" on The Internet Archive. Dmehus (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But, where is it? SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you go to here, search for the  database name (as Reception123 usually adds the database names of all the wikis in the wiki backups), you will find the latest backup version in this tarball. Note that this wiki database name currently exists, but aside from that, Miraheze would likely not be able to host a new iteration of this wiki in line with its Content Policy. You could, however, take this XML dump to Fandom or ShoutWiki and see if they will host it for you, or, most likely, end up having to self-host it due to potential liability concerns. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can't import backups to ShoutWiki because I'm not a  there. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shoutwiki is garbo doe. Why don't you sign up for a shared hosting and install Mediawiki there? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't because I don't know how to do it. SPEEDYBEAVER  ( talk ) 21:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback
I could swear I thought the dormancy policy specified one month, not two, but I must be misremembering...

Anyway:


 * 1) The page does not make clear the relationship between "closing" a wiki and "marking it as inactive". Basically the text uses "dormant" "inactive" and "closed" AND "locked" in a way which I feel is not stringent and exact enough for a formal policy. I would love it if an editor makes a pass at the document to stick to one and only one term for any given phase of a wiki's "death".
 * 2) does the wiki remain accessible to the public up until the moment it is actually deleted? Or is there a stage where it gets hidden (and not just set to read only). Edit: this is answered at the very end but should be stated earlier too.
 * 3) if the "set to read-only" step is identical to "mark as inactive", please say so (to make it clear that a wiki's creator/owner/bureaucrat can simply uncheck this in Manage settings once every two months to keep his or her wiki rolling). Note the above topics "Clarification needed for requests to reopen locked wikis" and "How I can request a dormant wiki to be re-enabled?" which to me indicate a lack of clarity in this regard
 * 4) almost the same topic: the text goes immediately from "Bureaucrats of the wiki will be notified" to talking about adoption, completely skipping the step where you explain what this notification says and how you can remedy it. Also more details about adoption is needed: I'm guessing there is a two week window to reenable/reopen/reactivate (PLEASE choose a single term) your wiki before "the rug can be pulled from under your feet" (i.e. you finding out it has been adopted), but what happens next is unclear. I am assuming that if nobody asks for adoption, you can simply reassert your ownership (by unchecking the Inactive checkbox) within the 120 days before "Eligible for Deletion" (or maybe even later than that before actual erasure?) but this needs to be stated explicitly for a formal policy.
 * 5) "Two weeks after that, it will become eligible for permanent deletion." Please clarify that the ACTUAL deletion only happens at the staff's discretion per the needs of the site (or something like that, or whatever actually gives). Just noting "Deleted (when required)" in the table is not sufficient. Also, per the previous point, clarify if and when there is a point before actual erasure where the wiki owner can no longer simply uncheck the Inactive checkbox to terminate the entire process. (Maybe once an adoption request has been filed?) Edit: this is answered at the very end but should be stated earlier too.
 * 6) "The time ... should increase if notices are not placed appropriately." This reads as an informal wish instead of formal policy.
 * 7) "Users will have a minimum time after each notice to fix the problem if they wish." This reads as an promise that might or may not be kept. It would be better if you commit to specifics. The simplest solution is to be firm: "If the Inactive Warning is not placed correctly, the countdown is stopped. If the deletion process proceeds to any further stage despite no correct Inactive Warning any actions are undone and the wiki is restored with no questions asked if any user points out the mistake, and then the process must start again from scratch."
 * 8) the table talks about "time" but never specifies that numbers listed are in days. Wikipedia-style tables should be self-sufficient as far as possible.
 * 9) The adoption section is unfortunately not stringent enough for a formal policy. The simplest fix would be to explicitly state that this is handled on a case-by-case basis and/or the formal policy only covers deletion. If you want to tighten up the language, here are a few questions the section needs to answer: 1) does a steward look at an adoption request twice or what happens after the request but before "After a week, a steward will look at the adoption request again." I THINK it means the window from request to decision is that single week, and after the decision has been made the ownership change is permanent and normally irrevocable (without going outside of normal procedure which I understand is always possible)? 2) can a single steward expedite the entire process or was the language meant to say "After a week, an uninvolved steward will look at the adoption request"? 3) What happens if the original site owner contests the adoption, assuming it is even possible, and if so, how is this done? 4) is the site owner notified when someone requests adoption of his or her site? 5) can the original site owner short-circuit an ongoing adoption request by simply reactivating his site?

To add to the last point about the adoption policy: Over at Requests for adoption, I see the phrase "After several weeks, your contributions to the wiki will be assessed by Stewards" used frequently. Maybe this is what was meant by the editor who wrote "After a week, a steward will look at the adoption request again"? It would be much clearer if the Adoption Policy said something along the lines of:


 * "The user must meet certain activity guidelines (on any wiki), have read-rights on the wiki (if the wiki is private) and provide a reason for requesting the adoption. Also, a user may not just request the adoption of every wiki. After several weeks, your local editing contributions to the wiki will be assessed by Stewards. If you are deemed sufficiently committed to the wiki's revival, the bureaucrat user group may be added to your account at that time, completing the adoption. If your level of activity do not satisfy the Stewards of your commitment level to continue contributing to the wiki and to serving as its custodian/caretaker, your adoption request will be denied."

I hope and trust you don't consider this as an attack but as constructive feedback. Yes I can be blunt and direct, but I wrote this with the intention to help you improve. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, per the 5th Point, I think, at the very least (after the permanent deletion), There is a way to retrieve a wiki back even though deleted. It can still be recovered if the wiki is a public one and not a private one.
 * Except in cases where a backup of it can no longer be found, probably after a year and half or two. Ugochimobi (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of additional notes, but since nothing has changed since I wrote this, I probably won't bother. While I thank Ugochimobi for his response to one specific point, there has been zero response to my overall post. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * personally, per point 1, I agree with you, Cuz if a wiki is DORMANT, it simply means it's INACTIVE, (A dormant wiki is a wiki where no activity has been shown for a period of 60 days or longer), In fact, the INACTIVITY of a Wiki makes it DORMANT. They're just basic grammar, they're similar in meaning too. For CLOSED and LOCKED, I think there's pretty no difference on this one, as When a wiki is CLOSED, It's either it's closed due to DORMANCY or it's marked as CLOSED on ManageWiki, same with when it's LOCKED and ceteris paribus.
 * In a nutshell, a wiki has to be INACTIVE first before it becomes DORMANT, and when it's DORMANT it becomes eligible for LOCK (read-only), before total DELETION. TBH, I prefer the LOCK to CLOSE because a CLOSED wiki should no longer be accessed, It should return a WIKI NOT FOUND page. Ugochimobi (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LOCK is the technical term used when a Steward goes out of their way to address a problematic wiki, ie, 'set LOCKED', which has entirely different meaning in the scope of Miraheze terms from what I know; ideally it should be avoided in favor of the procedural term CLOSED used exclusively in this policy unless it is referring to that circumstance. While I don't think the current usages are unreasonable, I do think it may be reasonable to expand on this a little further since the words are more strongly interchanged above and I can see how there certainly may be confusion. Personally I'd welcome the additional notes, but I understand my admission to literally forgetting is probably just short of a snub and I apologize. --Raidarr (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, I noted this and then bogged down in other areas to essentially forget about it. Given its protection level I'm afraid the regular user can't do much and it may be that a proper referendum is needed to do too much, but I'll ask around and in the meantime consider alternate phrasing to suggest when I do find the proper method. --Raidarr (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, at least somebody is reading! TheDungeonMaster (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken you have an automatic "set to inactivity" mechanism in place after XX days (there was a template-ish thing on my page but no change by any editor, so I'm assuming some kind of auto-template-code-thingy?). And yes, unchecking this counts as an edit (that resets the clock). I had to experiment, 'cause this was not at all clear reading this document. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for minor edits of this policy
In 'Dormacy' section, the  should be.

Besides, the table should be translatable. --SolidBlock (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

May '22 Feedback
The policy language might have improved but I still have questions:


 * "Dormant wikis are considered inactive, and because they still use server resources (such as disk space for the wiki database), we have to close (or delete) them."

Sure, you reserve the right to eventually free up resources. That's okay. But why do you need to mark them as read-only already after 60 days, and put up a warning already after 45 days? You still don't mark them as eligible for deletion until after 180 days. Why not consider them active for longer, say twice as long (warning after 105 days, locked at 120 days) and everything else stays exactly the same? This would greatly extend the window where a wiki doesn't need to be touched just for purposes of not being slapped with a warning. In a year, you'd need to make only 3 to 4 edits (one edit every 105 days) instead of ~8 edits (one edit every 45 days)!


 * " reopening (see #Reopening) will be allowed two weeks after the closure."
 * "Immediately after a wiki has been automatically closed (minimum 60 days inactivity) it will be eligible to be reopened at the request of any good-faith user."

Can the stewards reopen right away or will they always wait 2 weeks? If the former, the first sentence is wrong. If the latter, the second sentence is wrong.

The policy still does not mention or link to the "inactive" core setting, that bureaucrats can uncheck to remove the inactivity warning from their wikis (and resetting the time counter).

Not sure what this means? Are you talking about the way I ask for an exemption? Or are you saying that to be eligible for exemption I must show signs of global activity? (If so, why?)
 * "And you must show some sign of activity globally"
 * "This can include a message to a global staffer on meta, a note on Stewards' noticeboard, or local contributions to the wiki in question"

Note: the Dormancy Policy/Exceptions is named "exceptions" but the policy is talking about "exemptions". Exceptions. Exemptions. I see zero need for this term confusion. Especially since the policy goes immediately on to discuss actual exceptions (such as "this meta is an exception").

TheDungeonMaster (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)