Requests for Comment/Changes to the Dormancy Policy (2)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * This RfC is closed in the following way:
 * Proposal 1: Pass.
 * Proposal 2.1: Fail in favour of 2.2.
 * Proposal 2.2: Pass.
 * Proposal 2.3: Separately closed.
 * Proposal 3: Pass.
 * Proposal 4: Pass.
 * Proposal 5: Fail.
 * Proposal 5A: Failed by virtue of 5 failing.
 * Proposal 5B: Separately closed.
 * Proposal 5.1: Fail.
 * Proposal 6: No transition needs to apply.
 * Proposal 7: Proposal 5 was not successful.
 * Proposal 8: Fail.
 * John (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The Dormancy Policy has been around for a long time, with the last changes to it made in May 2019. It may be one of the most controversial global policies on Miraheze, with many users not liking the fact that if they’re not active for 6 months their wiki will eventually be deleted. It may not be the 'nicest' policy, but it is necessary, as Miraheze doesn’t have the resources to keep all wikis online indefinitely if they’re just not being used anymore. In addition, the Dormancy Policy is already very generous to users and it’s very easy to avoid it altogether, all someone needs to do is have some sort of activity on their wiki, even one edit every few months will prevent the Dormancy Policy from taking effect. Exemptions are of course also granted quite regularly to users with a reason. Additionally, it is easy for users to backup their wikis with Special:DataDump. That being said, since May 2019, some issues have arisen that can be resolved with a new amendment of the policy. Here are some proposals to address them. Thanks to Dmehus for helping to draft this RfC and and to John for their suggestions.

The proposals below are not mutually exclusive unless indicated otherwise. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

General commentary
Do not vote in this section! Please give only commentary on the whole RfC in this section.


 * 1) First let me link to my feedback on the existing policy (posted at its talk page: Talk:Dormancy Policy ). Then: it really isn't "not active for 6 months" that is the crucial time limit, is it? If you don't modify your wiki in only 45 (or is it 60?) days, your wiki is marked inactive, and that is enough cause for nervousness. So whether the policy is "nice" or not, I think most visitors to your site will feel the timeout is far less than six months (which I would have considered generous). Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) One RCC I don't see below is a discussion of the actual time period before a Wiki is threatened with closure. Can I suggest it might actually be more productive to offer a more generous time window up-front, and then considerably shorten the various administrative windows before the wiki passes through each stage of inactivity, closure or deletion? The total time from last activity to obliteration can stay the same. Why have only two months and then spend twice as long as that "behind the scenes"? (As if it was a enjoyable game to shuffle wikis from one stage to the other...) Why not allow wikis to remain fully open for 4 months and then use the remaining two to step through the various stages? Put simply: Why put up a warning notice so quickly only to then do nothing for so long? Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to mind so I have added this as RFC #8 below. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I was seeing all the proposals and I thought it was good until 5, which is the only one I didn't agree with. Of course, a wiki is PROBLABLY never here on Miraheze forever, but having to wait two years to renew? And how will it look like, I won't be able to have a wiki with infinite exemption again? Apart from proposal 5, the changes will not be so bad. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 02:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) It seems to me that the overall gist of this RfC is accepted in its most major and non-altering forms, but controversy with strong takes primarily occurs in a) the reopening of manually closed public/nonpersonal wikis (even as a minority, I think there is a relatively decent argument to be had here and details could be ironed out) and b) exemptions as a whole as hotly divided. I think the optimal path here would be to take the unanimous supports in stride and implement them sooner than later, but reboot the discussion in one or two threads dedicated to two tangents either through this header or through a noticeboard before putting them through formal votes where even small changes require an entirely new header. Reasonable suggestions with clear intentions, clear writing and little need to be tweaked could then be put to formal vote. --Raidarr (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I (and I believe many other users that aren't generally active on meta) remain unconvinced of the necessity of the dormancy policy on a conceptual level. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On the topic of the Dormancy Policy, could someone please explain the reasoning behind wikis being made read-only (as in locked from editing) being part of the dormancy process? (please allow some time for me to react to your response) K599 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposals relating to this have been opened in this other RfC. Go ahead and make any comments. K599 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Adoption/Reopening)
The “Adoption” section is changed as follows (now referred to as "reopening," though given the historical usage of the term adoption, it may still be referred to as an adoption process): 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. 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 to reopen the wiki. While there is no minimum amount of wikis that one can request to reopen, a Steward may decline to reopen a wiki if the user has requested opening a large amount of wikis in a short period of time.

When a request to reopen is approved, no rights are automatically granted to the user who requested the reopening, these are instead granted on a case-by-case basis following a local election.

Note: The above does not preclude a contributing user from requesting from Stewards, usually via Stewards' noticeboard, for user groups below that of the  group that customarily do not require local permissions election (i.e., ,  ,  ,  , etc.), where local administrators are not recently active

"Rationale": The rationale for this change is that it, regarding the immediate adoption possibility it isn't easy for a Steward to know when a wiki has been actually closed, making it difficult for them to know when 14 days have passed. Therefore, since the user hasn't been active in 6 months anyway it would be fair to allow adoption immediately after closure. Additionally, adoption is changed to 'reopening' to better reflect that a user will no longer automatically become bureaucrat/administrator immediately upon reopening.

Support (1)

 * 1)  as proposer, per rationale given above. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I do like that it formally renames adoption to reopening and clarifies the timeframe.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  as collaborator on Reception123's draft RfC, and per the proposal's arguments. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  .WolfMan (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  makes sense for me --LilyLilyu - smile.svg talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 09:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I suppose some changes to the Dormancy Policy would be necessary to fulfill what has been missing for so long. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  makes sense. I wonder why was that 14 days gap in between closure and adoption. --Magogre (talk)  12:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  Formal version of what is already fact. However, I think it's an excellent opportunity to put a proper resource for what an election entails and an example template into the mainspace to minimize confusion for what that means. I'm not saying as 'you have to do this' rather a 'this is what it means' for those less familiar with wiki/Miraheze conventions. --Raidarr (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  --ShriekingSouls (Email me) 12:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  Useful for not making a closure definitive. --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11)   Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12)  -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13)  Ugochimobi (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 14)  --Mike9012 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 15)  Per above rationale. --Turtle84375 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 16)  as per above reasons. --Robkelk (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 17)  Per above. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 18)  per cited reasons above.  -- Looney Toons (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 19)  per nom. Firestar464 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 20)  Per above. --Soukupmi (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 21)  The rationale given by the proposer is logical. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 22)  Per above. TigerBlazer (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 23)  Per above. King Dice (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 24)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 25)  per what's already been said above.  17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 26)  for the reasons above. Tali64³ (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2.1 (Adoption/Reopening)
A wiki that was closed for reasons outside of the Dormancy Policy (i.e. by a local bureaucrat) may not be reopened/adopted following the Request for Adoption/Request for Reopening process described in this policy.

Note: This is a counter proposal to Proposal 2.2, meaning its passage depends on the other proposal failing or resulting in no consensus

Support (2.1)

 * 1)  If Proposal 2.2 does not pass, I prefer this one. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I too would like this to pass should 2.2 not pass.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  as an alternative to Proposal 2.1, though I think I do prefer Proposal 2.2, albeit a bit mildly. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  WolfMan (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I feel like if a bureaucrat of a wiki voluntarily chose to close a wiki it's for their own personal reasons whatever it is and it's not intended to just be left vacant and reopen again.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Local consensus must be considered at the highest degree for our wikis. If "local consensus" is for some reason a single user in some position of power, it may be a community responsibility to create a new, more collaborative community.  dross  (t • c • g) 19:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  I prefer 2.2, but this is an okay fallback, I suppose. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  Per my comments in 2.2 I would prefer that the issue of a person closing a wiki unilaterally is dealt separately from the Dormancy Policy but given that no one else has express such a view I will simply agree to 2.1 assuming 2.2 does not pass. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) --Soukupmi (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  in my opinion allowing wikis to be reopened if they were intentionally locally closed goes against our drive to give communities full control over their management and policies (of course granted they follow our global policies).  17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |

Oppose (2.1)

 * 1) I would rather have 2.2 over this proposal; if an active community was on a wiki and one of the local bureaucrats decided to close it, that community should be able to take that wiki back. -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) ^ --Firestar464 (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my response to 2.2. — Arcversin (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) This sounds a little bit vague, don't you think? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Waffledogefern. FatBurn0000 (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) While I think (as I have specified on proposal 2.3) that a minority of the community should be able to continue on a wiki and if other members want to leave it then they should not destroy it for the remainder, I think that it is absurd and against the principles Miraheze stands for that a minority should be able to destroy it for the majority. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 13:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Abstain (2.1)

 * 1)  in practice it seems to me this already happens; I'm not sure what would really change since 'invalid' requests not based on normal process are already being declined and it is possible that an exceptional case can be reviewed by a Steward. It seems to me the latter ability to review exceptional cases is already an informal rule, and at best this addition would make it harder to address them. But I could be misunderstanding, hence a mere abstain. --Raidarr (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is just making things clear and codifying it into policy to avoid any doubts. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly what I'm considering is the 'out' where a wiki subject to foul play - particularly, a wiki requestor getting bored and closing the wiki or just doing it out of nowhere without community consent, especially if the community has put in a lot of work and there are no policies locally to offer that authority. More egregiously if there are multiple engaged bureaucrats and one essentially goes rogue. That is the main reason I am in favor of 2.2, while it seems to me this (2.1) precludes that possibility. With the existing ambiguity, exceptions may be processed even if there is no clear expectation of reopening. I may be confused, though? --Raidarr (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (2.1)

 * How many wikis that were closed for reasons outside of the Dormancy Policy have or have not been reopened? How much controversy has this created? --Robkelk (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a great example, but there was recent drama with the reception wikis and a few lesser issues around them where users would use their ManageWiki rights to demote others and close the wiki, or simply close it on weak or nonexistent grounds despite a community existing. To appeal to the wider scale, I think the question lies on principle; if certain users with rights are able to close a wiki regardless of the will of other contributors, especially if the contributors individually or in sum have done more with the wiki's contents. If the wiki is recognized as a community product, then I think bureaucrats having a codified undisputed ability to shut it down and nothing can be done to be unreasonable, though if this proposal were to pass there is still another way given a forced closure with no negotiation fits the existing grounds to make a fork. --Raidarr (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For me this depends on the community, how many contributors are there? Has the wiki been closed by the only contributor or is there a large community? Why has the wiki been closed etc., and is this a great problem on Miraheze? --LilyLilyu - smile.svg talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2.2 (Adoption/Reopening)
A wiki that was closed for reasons outside of the Dormancy Policy (i.e. by a local bureaucrat) may be reopened following the Request for Adoption/Request for Reopening process described in this policy, unless there was a local public community consultation favouring closure, ideally on-wiki or in a public IRC channel/Discord server which any Steward can access without the need to request access to join.

Note: This is a counter proposal to Proposal 2.1, meaning its passage depends on the other proposal failing or resulting in no consensus

Support (2.2)

 * 1)  Anpang   Talk   Stuff  08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it makes sense to allow this in the narrow circumstances that are given here which basically means that a wiki can only be reopened this way either if it was closed because of inactivity or if a bureaucrat has closed it without local consensus. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) This would definitely help resolve issues like the ones we've seen recently where bureaucrats close wikis against community consensus and sets out a clearer path for how these sort of situations should be resolved.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) as the mildly preferred option to Proposal 2.1. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) no concerns.WolfMan (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) I like this especially on principle, where it's been proven that some users will close wikis specifically to preclude them from reopening when they personally don't wish to continue despite the wiki being 'bigger than them'. --Raidarr (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Offers possibility of redemption after a closure. --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) --Mike9012 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) The focus on community consensus is core IMO. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) ^ --Firestar464 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13) Additionally to wikis closed expressly because they were inactive as a general rule it is my opinion that it makes sense to also allow for users to request to have a wiki reopen that was closed one user without the consent of the community they serve. Miraheze is a community-led project so it is only logical that communities themselves must be ran as democracies and it is then not fair for a single person with the technical ability to close wikis and instead should only do that with a wider community vote. The reason for my support being weak is that I do not agree with the fact that this is integrated into the Dormancy Policy and in my opinion this should have simply been made a separate rule rather than it being mixed up with the Dormancy Policy because if it has nothing to do with dormancy which is to me and I am sure will be to other users confusing. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it may be worth noting here that Miraheze is not and does not embody the values of democracy, consensus does not necessitate democracy, and that other major wiki projects like Wikipedia, do not claim to be democracies. If a user were to create a project with the values of democracy, that would be perfectly acceptable, though such values would be confined to that project only, and outside intervention from functionaries may very well value consensus over that community's democratic values. dross  (t • c • g) 09:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above. TigerBlazer (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I prefer this over 2.1--Soukupmi (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Miraheze is a community-based website, not a founder-based website. While "founders" of wiki's possess bureaucrat access, this does not represent ownership, and in line with these principles, bureaucrats are responsible to their communities, not vice versa. — Arcversin (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Ideally, the Dormancy policy should allow up to 6 months with wikis that are closed within reason. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree that they should be in certain cases, however the thing is, it depends on the case. FatBurn0000 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (2.2)

 * 1) While the data of such a closed wiki should be available, at the very least to previously active community members, there should be no presumption that a wiki closed due to any on-wiki circumstances will be available to any user who may satisfy general adoption requirements. If a wiki is to be reopened, it should be done with the respective local ManageWiki access. In other words, if a community member is interested in reopening a wiki, they should successfully reach consensus with the community for the attainment of bureaucrat permissions, as with any other wiki without an active bureaucrat. A wiki which does not adhere to such processes (such as those with "owners" or a structure which mandates a sole bureaucrat)  should simply be closed and later recreated with a relevant wiki request if there is interest.  dross  (t • c • g) 19:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) in my opinion allowing wikis to be reopened if they were intentionally locally closed goes against our drive to give communities full control over their management and policies (of course granted they follow our global policies).  17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * I think it should depend on the case. Some wikis are closed unfairly, some are not. FatBurn0000 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of cases with closures I see are done without input of the community (if it even existed), including all of them I've seen come to Meta. It's full control to the management in current conditions, not to 'the people' who are interested. Closure should only stand if it's done in line with properly placed local policies or with the vote of the local community itself. I always thought Miraheze usually encourages local staff as caretakers of the concept, rather than sole managers of a particular site - obviously excluding cases where wikis are made for one's private purpose or own content. --Raidarr (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (2.2)
A wiki that was closed by a bureaucrat should be reopened if only a local RfC is held. A bureaucrat that closes a wiki should have a reason for that and If there are enough users (2-3 at least) on the wiki, then it could get reopened following a local RfC or related discussion, either on a noticeboard or anywhere, even the closer's talk wouldn't be bad too. Ugochimobi (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I believe a local closure should only stand if it was done by local RfC in the first place. Bureaucrats by default do not have the right to unilaterally deprive a wiki of its existence when a good number of users have already participated on it, which does exclude wikis that never hit off, wikis with valid local policies offering certain users/bureaucrats discretion, or cases where the wiki was built for a private purpose. I will admit, perhaps these scenarios should be baked into the proposal. Wikis are collaborative, this gives it the wrong feel and puts the 'burden of proof' on the wrong party. --Raidarr (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2.3 forking a closed wiki

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * I wouldn't characterize this proposal as superfluous, as dross states, though they do articulate a strong argument in that Content Policy is the more appropriate policy here. As well, I would just add that regardless if Proposal 2.1 does not pass by virtue of Proposal 2.2 having a higher net support ratio, nothing in Proposal 2.2 precludes a wiki from being reopened, or not reopened, depending on the local consensus that may exist or not exist, by a Steward. As well, I think this may be a bit of a misunderstanding in terms of forking a wiki. Note that users do not generally have to request permission to fork a wiki. Rather, wiki creators will try and encourage wiki requestors to contribute to existing wikis that share a substantially similar purpose and scope to the wiki they're requesting. In terms of fork wikis, where Stewards are sometimes asked to become involved is in accordance with Content Policy when users have created a substantial content fork (i.e., a near carbon copy) of an existing wiki, with little to no changes or little attempt to do things differently than the existing wiki. So, in this way, nothing precludes users from requesting a new wiki, and if a wiki has been closed and/or deleted, the newly requested wiki wouldn't even really be seen as a fork wiki (since the previous wiki was closed/deleted). Dmehus (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If a substantial proportion of a wikis user base wishes to reopen a wiki that was closed with community consensus then they should attempt mediation. If the mediation fails then they may make a request to fork the wiki on the stewards' noticeboard. If substantial support from the userbase is demonstrated then stewards should reopen the wiki and hold elections amongst the forking group for new bureaucrats and administrators.

Note: if proposal 2.1 passes, this proposal automatically fails. This proposal is unaffected by the passage of proposal 2.2.

Note: stewards are advised that 'substantial support from the userbase' is larger for large wikis and smaller for small wikis but whether or not it is met is within their discretion.

Support (2.3)

 * Miraheze's long time content policy allows a smaller group of users to 'fork' a wiki if their differences with the majority cannot be resolved. This proposal seeks to clarify how the process of forking a wiki functions where the dispute is whether or not to keep the wiki open.
 * This was recently put to the test during the Qualitipedia/Character Wikis dispute when Qualipedia wished the disaffiliate with LCW and ICW and instead of merely doing that they chose to shut down the wikis despite a large number of users wishing them to remain open. While LCW and ICW were reopened this process took a long time and a lot of discussion in part due to a lack of clarity on how forking operates.
 * I believe that one of the wonderful things about the web is its ability for multiple groups who disagree with each other to simultaneously exist, and I think that it is good that Miraheze's content policy reflects that. I hope that the dormancy policy will reflect that too. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think this is a reasonable extension to what I've already supported. Though reading what DeeM commented above and if this passes, I can't help but wonder if the entire thing should be considered for a rename to 'closure policy' and adjusted that way, preferably in a later RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think this is a reasonable extension to what I've already supported. Though reading what DeeM commented above and if this passes, I can't help but wonder if the entire thing should be considered for a rename to 'closure policy' and adjusted that way, preferably in a later RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (2.3)

 * 1) Superfluous. If a community expresses consensus for closure, it may reasonably be accepted as an indication of no interest to participate. If the community has been absorbed by another, it is already governed by existing content policy. In the case of unilateral or consensus closure, the wiki no longer exists by choice and as such, should no longer receive the protections of content policy.  dross  (t • c • g) 22:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand most of this response and the bit I can understand the meaning of seems so surprising that I feel I must have misunderstood it. I have never previously heard it suggested that the content policy can stop applying to a wiki under any circumstance and the terms of the content policy makes it clear to me that it was designed to apply under all circumstances - terms like "Miraheze does not host any content that is illegal in the United Kingdom". Does it suddenly become okay in Miraheze's eyes for a wiki to host illegal content in the UK if it votes to close? This seems a very odd belief to hold. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 11:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if it came off a bit harsh initially. What I mean is if the content no longer exists (i.e. the wiki is closed/deleted) and the content or community is not absorbed by another wiki, then the content and community loses its protection of "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis", simply because it no longer exists to create a problem. If a wiki is absorbed, that's a different story, in which recreating a wiki may create problems with the absorbing community. There is absolutely no reason to continue barring a certain kind of content—especially that of a particular wiki—if it no longer exists by some choice of the community. dross  (t • c • g) 05:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the Content Policy and after input on discord, I concur that this is redundant and the example I don't think holds up.
 * Qualitipedia had a confused process, and part of it was caused by the long term misconception I was pushing before it was amended by John with this edit to the DP. Essentially, I ran on the thinking that wikis must have willing management to remain open, while that is not necessarily required. I recommended closure to the network management because nobody was willing to take responsibility. This was a mistake largely driven by me, and the mistake was outside of issues with Miraheze policy. It was also pushed with the understanding that if users wanted to formally adopt the wiki and continue editing, they could do so at any time through the Miraheze request system or simply contacting the network leader. This process was borked and I will attempt to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 * Bottom line, the process was executed ignorantly and that was not a fault of proper Miraheze process, at worst only the fact there was nobody authoritative from Miraheze Meta observing it at the time. The Content Policy should stand for itself on the topic; addressing the same point twice with the DP is not necessary and wouldn't solve anything if the process lacks proper oversight in the first place. --Raidarr (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, and letting the CP stand for itself is a reasonable idea but I think granting further clarity on the issue would help address some of the issues of poor implementation. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, and letting the CP stand for itself is a reasonable idea but I think granting further clarity on the issue would help address some of the issues of poor implementation. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (2.3)
This is intended to clarify how the process for forking a wiki via the Content Policy functions when the forking group wishes to keep the wiki open. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Proposal 3 (Private wikis)
Private wikis may only be reopened at the request of a good-faith user who previously held   rights, as at the time of the wiki's closure, on that wiki, notwithstanding private personal wikis wholly or substantially about the originally requesting user where ruling by community consensus would be entirely inappropriate.

Support (3)

 * 1)   Anpang   Talk   Stuff  08:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  as proposer. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  This proposal makes sense and helps set out a clearer protocol and guideline to follow in these sort of situations.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  as obvious and per above. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  It should've been quite obvious by the nature of this proposal. The Dormancy Policy does need a little bit of an upgrade. In short, an improvement is needed here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Magogre (talk)  12:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  --ShriekingSouls (Email me) 12:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  This seems partially in place already (the proposal makes it more explicit), but paired with other language in the proposal I think it's helpful. Not to mention I like the idea either way. --Raidarr (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  Obviously yes, that only those involved take care, not unknown randoms. --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  - A similar situation happened to me so I support.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11)  -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12)  --Mike9012 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13)  Seems fair & makes sense. --Turtle84375 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 14)  Private wikis should only be reopened on behalf of their previous editors, IMHO. This would ensure that. --Robkelk (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 15)  Reads as sensible to me, per above. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 16)  Fair enough --LilyLilyu - smile.svg talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 09:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 17)  It is once again a logical provision and one which I assume was already the case even if not explicitly mentioned in the policy. I find the last part of this proposal to be largely redundant and unnecessary however because if there is a "private personal wikis wholly or substantially about the originally requesting user" why should another user have been granted read access to it? If they were granted read access to it because the original user trusted them then it would be fair to allow them to adopt it. I concede that the issue I mention will very likely not happen so therefore I am supporting this proposal as it is. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 To respond to and clarify the latter portion of your comment, that verbiage was not redundant, as many users have added other users to their private personal, or similar, wikis, ostensibly to seek feedback on drafts of personal correspondence and other ephemera. I wouldn't want to suggest how prevalent it might be, but nonetheless, in such cases, as the proposal argues, it is one of those rare exceptions where it would be inappropriate to allow the local wiki community with  access to effectively decide the administration of the wiki that is substantially about the user to which the wiki is about. Dmehus (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Makes a lot of sense and is an obvious option. TigerBlazer (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  yep --Soukupmi (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Looks good. — Arcversin (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  per what's already been said above.  17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 6)  I think that this is a reasonable call but I think some of the wording here is making a meal of it. When this is written into the policy I would like to request "held read (Read pages) rights, as at the time of the wiki's closure" becomes "... rights, at the time" and "notwithstanding" becomes "except for". ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Revival (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  Yes, any private wiki should only be reopened by those already involved in that wiki, else wise few would likely open a private wiki here. FrozenPlum (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Public personal wikis)
Wikis created for as public personal e-portfolio, curriculum vitae (r&eacute;sum&eacute;), blog, or narrowly construed similar wikis of a single user are exempt from the adoption process of Dormancy Policy, as, similar to an aspect of Proposal 3 above, it does not make sense to allow a community of users to hold a local discussion to change the administration of someone's personal public e-portfolio or similar wiki.

Note: that this does not make them automatically exempt from closure due to inactivity; exemptions will still need to be requested from Stewards, which will be assessed by Stewards in terms of both need and content. Note that while this proposal is somewhat connected to Proposal 3, it is mutually exclusive of Proposal 3 and may pass regardless if Proposal 3 passes as Proposal 3 failing would just mean the status quo for Proposal 3 applies

Support (4)

 * 1)   Anpang   Talk   Stuff  08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  as proposer. It makes sense not to allow someone to request to reopen a wiki that was clearly meant to be something personal to one single user. If the user wishes to have the wiki URL, they will have to wait until the wiki is deleted to do so. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per Reception123 who summed it up perfectly.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agent Isai You wouldn't have known this, but it's worth noting that Proposals 3 and 4 have been personal priorities of mine with respect to Dormancy Policy amendments. So when Reception123 said he acknowledged the input of John and myself in drafting this RfC, these two proposals were largely the portions which I contributed. Dmehus (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  as obvious and per above. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Magogre (talk)  12:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  --ShriekingSouls (Email me) 12:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  especially for the reasons the proposal highlights. --Raidarr (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)   Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  per Reception123 -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  --Ugochimobi (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  --Mike9012 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  with similar comments to Proposal 3. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11)  --Soukupmi (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12)  Makes sense. — Arcversin (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 14)  per what's already been said above.  17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 15)  Is obvious and makes a lot of sense, as personal wikis ideally shouldn't be adopted by someone else entirely for a number of reasons, with the biggest being privacy. TigerBlazer (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 16)  --Revival (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 17)  Yes, a personal wiki is for the person who created the wiki, not for random other people. FrozenPlum (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (4)

 * 1)  We (or SRE) should consider a policy regarding server load/resources for mostly static websites hosted with Miraheze. High-load personal sites should perhaps not be considered for exemption, while the small, simple sites would cause nearly no load.  dross  (t • c • g) 19:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dross This seems like it was more of a comment related to Proposals 5.x and/or Proposal 6, no? Dmehus (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly could. I just stuck it here because there isn't a great place for general commentary. The comment mostly applies to those sites which don't get edited much anyway. dross  (t • c • g) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dross Thanks. I strongly suspect, though, that personal wikis do not cause much strain on Miraheze's servers. The wikis which tend to use the most resources are high trafficked wikis, and those tend not to be personal wikis. I would wager that the Qualitipedia wikis, AllTheTropes Wiki, and the Wikipedia encyclopedia fork wikis that tend to be spambot havens tend to create most of the user growth and traffic. Dmehus (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware we had any Wikipedia forks over here, let alone ones that poorly maintained. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Umbire the Phantom, there's quite a few, some which don't feature notability guidelines and others which do. Gyaanipedia, for example, features active administrators and content editors and is one of the better maintained ones, though in that case, one practice I don't particularly like is they really downplay the Miraheze involvement and local administration will invite users to host their wikis with them. They, in turn, will then request a wiki from Miraheze, with the requesting user becoming the primary bureaucrat on the wiki and acting as a sort of network bureaucrat across the Gyaanipedia network of wikis. That's all fine, but my issue there is the downplaying of the Miraheze involvement. There's other Wikipedia forks including this one, this one, this one, and others. Callipedia, in particular, requested multiple imports from English Wikipedia, in order to boost their article count into the hundreds of thousands. Thankfully, we don't host all the images, as they largely use Wikimedia Commons, but still, with one local administrator who is not active, it becomes very difficult to possibly wade through all of the articles and catch all the vandalism, spam, etc. I don't really know the fascination with requesting Wikipedia forks, but surmise people are attracted to it because (a) Wikipedia is well known, (b) they can't otherwise think of a more specialized topic in which they're interested to create a wiki, and, in some cases, (c) may be attracted to topping wiki leaderboards in terms of article counts. Since they're mostly text, these may not be too significant in terms of system resource usage, other than if they attract a high number of spambots and spambot user creations. If the Counter Vandalism Team observes high numbers of spam only account user creations relative to human user account creations on those wikis, where local administration is both in understaffed and not recently active, we can, and have, restricted local account creation on such wikis to logged in users. Anyway, I digress as this is getting a bit off-topic from this RfC. Nonetheless, I wanted to provide context and answer your question. Dmehus (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus, I'm inclined to think it's primarily C with a bit of A, alongside some (usually personal) antipathy towards Wikipedia as an 'institution' and/or their guidelines - I know a few sorts who're wonky about that type of thing. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Umbire the Phantom, yeah, that's pretty fair in terms of likelihood, I think. Dmehus (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Exemptions)
In addition to the current requirements, the following is added:

Exemptions to the Dormancy Policy are granted for a maximum period of two years. After two years, a it can be requested that the exemption is renewed if the reason why an exemption was originally requested still exists.

Support (5)

 * 1)  maybe make the 2 year period a bit longer  Anpang   Talk   Stuff  08:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  as proposer. I think given the generous provisions already in place that it's fair to ask bureaucrats to have to renew their exemptions every two years, which is a long time. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  We run on limited resources so it makes sense to ask wikis every so often whether they still require their exemption or not. We don't want literal zombie wikis which were abandoned 5 years ago to still be roaming and eating up server space with viewership that does not justify it's existence.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as there are differences between dog and cat, there are differences between a zombie wiki (with few pages, small content, or main page that hasn't moved yet) and a database wiki (even with no edits, or with few visits is important). So I thought the term 'zombie wiki' was a bit heavy. Of course also, I understand that Miraheze needs to delete some wikis as maintenance is paid. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 01:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about database wikis and about zombie wikis but I would like to say that requesting an renewal of an inactivity exemption is not very hard. My understanding is that users would be alerted when the time arrives for them to request a renewal. They'd be given an ample amount of time to ensure they respond and if they re-request an exemption, they'd most likely be given another 2 year extension. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * However with this change, it's no longer just a forever exemption (or indefinite as User:Dmehus says), and it's just a "renewal voucher" to the dormancy policy. And people who want an infinite (forever) exemption will be able to? That's why I voted Oppose. I don't know if I can have wikis that will stay forever even if no have edits. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 02:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Agent. --Magogre (talk)  12:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) ; I think TheDungeonMaster raises a reasonable point, but I think that 2 years is fairly reasonable as well. I also think it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to make a workflow where exemptions are sorted by date and Stewards can check it out every so often, presuming that workflow isn't forgotten of course. --Raidarr (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your post is phrased as if I objected to the 2 year time period. I have not done so. I have merely asked: is it worth all the rigamarole if all you save is 24 months divided by 6 months number of interactions. Note how everybody just takes "we have limited resources" at face value. Nobody is asking the question: do our hardware limitation require us to set 2 years? Why no have 3 years, or 5 years? Having a (relatively) short duration for the exemption should not be a goal in of itself. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I take the 'limited resources' situation quite seriously, as quite a bit of raw information is available regarding Miraheze's financial and technical situation, and neither are optimistic for sustained growth. Why 2 years, well, why any number at all; the bar needs to be set somewhere and I don't think 2 years is unreasonable given the current structure, while many wikis follow the timeline quite evenly (usually through wikis that are started, briefly attended to and then die off). I can't offer an objective, mathematical reason why it is suitable (I'm sure it's possible but would need to be dynamic to make sense), but it seems reasonable to me. I do like the idea of pushing outright closure later in the timeline. I apologize if I've misconstrued your point, though. --Raidarr (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Why not, gives some time which could be useful for some contexts. --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  How much work is it to ask for an exemption every two years? Not asking for the exemption would be a sign that the wiki had been abandoned. --Robkelk (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's what the exemption is for. The person does not have time with the wiki or will leave the wiki in read mode forever. And this proposal is a problem. If it is accepted, there will have to be two ways to request exemption, one indefinitely and the other with a 2-year renewal! YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 21:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Back in the time in South Korea (until mid-2020, yes, that is last year.), during the time you are conscripted, you had very limited internet access (other than the max 15-20 days of holiday per year) and that means it is very possible that you will leave your wiki dormant for two years (or more), depending on the situation. &mdash; <tt>revi</tt>  12:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per Robkelk above - TDM isn't necessarily wrong, but honestly that isn't asking for very much more than currently, and the other reasons to oppose aren't remotely compelling in the slightest. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's what the exemption is for. The person does not have time with the wiki or will leave the wiki in read mode forever. And this proposal is a problem. If it is accepted, there will have to be two ways to request exemption, one indefinitely and the other with a 2-year renewal! YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 21:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is accepted, what is the reason for the existence of "exemption". It will all be useless now. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 23:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And they can plan matters accordingly around whichever option they prefer. I fail to see how this renders the existing process "useless" considering how little ends up changing in practice, nor how this copypasted comment qualifies as a compelling reason to withdraw support. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, one mightt argue that this seems to be personally motivated somehow. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with someone having a "limited brain". This more or less means "lack of subject knowledge". I don't see any problem with having a limited brain. I put it in a joking form as well, but I removed it because for people not to stay angry, but that's not the point. The objective is to talk about this subject of this proposal. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 00:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to make another decision. I'm just warning you that this will make the exemption useless. But for you it won't change anything/you won't feel anything because you don't have a wiki, and instead you edit a wiki that is currently the largest in Miraheze (in number of articles) and benefits from an exemption. I'm not forcing you not to vote, but think before you vote, as this won't just be for you, but for everyone. Understood? <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 23:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Said as you then proceed to imply that I didn't put any thought into my vote, or that I am only doing this for myself, on the sole basis that I disagree with your perspective. If you call yourself trying to discuss this matter, I highly suggest you give further consideration to your tone and the honesty (or lack of) communicated in your comments, recognize that ownership is by no means necessary or required to have a "stake" in matters concerning the entire community, and work on your own awareness before commenting on someone else's. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * YellowFrogger, it's good that you removed this phrase. I get what you're trying to say, but I think this is one of those situations of the subtleties of the English language where context matters. It comes off as calling other users mentally challenged merely because they don't agree with you, which might rightly be perceived in derogatory terms. I assume good faith here that this was likely a language barrier issue, so perhaps it'd be best if everyone just dropped the discussion. To correct something in your earlier comment, though, that's one of the misunderstandings of Dormancy Policy exemptions; they were never granted permanently. They were granted without defined time duration, subject to revision based on need (assessed in terms of active editing community and content made to be read by real people, most commonly). While I'm not strongly in favour of a maximum two-year Dormancy Policy exemption, the reality is that regular reviews of the indefinitely exempted wikis are precluded by other priorities. That's likely the reason that wiki you identified appears to not exist. There's likely a few of those that just need updating, simply because they've requested a subdomain/database name change. I will aim to review those over the near-term. Dmehus (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. What a nice rebuke you gave me. But you forgot to mention that my way of talking just sounds 'ignorant', which it really isn't, but it does. The purpose of this word was just a mini joke, but I thought people wouldn't like it. If no one liked it, just regret it because I can't reverse your emotion. I understand the proposal, which seems to limit the exemption to two years. After two years and no one has edited/requested another exemption the wiki can be deleted within a few days, is that it? I'm against the proposal, not the people who vote for it. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could've fooled me. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * YellowFrogger No, that's not the proposal at all. If an exemption is removed and not extended, the wiki would continue as normal as if it had no exemption. If the wiki has activity, nothing happens. If the wiki has no activity in a further six months, then it would be marked as deleted. Proposal 6 outlines existing wikis being given a one year timeframe from the opening of this RfC by which they'd continue to have their previously granted indefinite exemption, to give them time to request a justified exemption renewal. As an administrative point regarding removal of previously granted exemptions, Stewards would likely need to either (a) remove the exemption on Meta Wiki and make a local edit to the wiki, to prevent the wiki from potentially reclosing the next day (if it's not had activity in the past sixty days) or (b) remove the exemption locally, to prevent reclosing of the wiki if no activity in the past sixty days, and note here the reason for the removal. Dmehus (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But it will be deleted anyway! Then? Because of this, a wiki will never stay in Miraheze forever, or "undefined" as you say. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 17:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per RobKelk above.  -- Looney Toons (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Additionally, I would consider the visits, if the wiki is been visited frequently the period should be renewed without asking --LilyLilyu - smile.svg talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 10:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a very good idea and one that should have been thought of by the proposers. I do not think it would make sense to remove a wiki's exemption simply because it is not officially renewed even if it has plenty of visits. Please see my Proposal 7 below implementing your idea. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's not such a good idea. And a wiki that needs to have information forever? <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's my frank belief that if a wiki wants to be a static archive of information with no traffic nor edits indefinitely, then a) it doesn't understand how the internet operates since hardly any site simply lives in its current form forever and b) it is ill suited to Miraheze, which must consider its resource limits that are very taxed by the fact it's offered for free without irritating or malicious strings attached to get income. Thus, wikis with a full MediaWiki install taking cycles and being effectively useless to everyone on and off the platform except for the wishes (not even activity) of its founder are wikis that I believe are out of scope for what Miraheze stands to be. That sort of site would be better served as a self hosted solution or provided on a less resource intensive medium. --Raidarr (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Conditional on 5A passing I support the basic idea that a wiki should not be having an indefinite exemption because the obvious danger to that is that once an exemption is granted it is possible that the wiki will never be edited or visited again and it will remain on the servers of Miraheze indefinitely. That being said as I say in my reply to Lily I only weakly support this because I would rather have an exception to this rule where there is a sufficiently large amount of visits to the wiki. This is to avoid two situations: (a) imposing extra procedural requirements on users, (b) a situation where the owners of the wikis have gone completely inactive and cannot be contacted but the wiki is still useful to its visitors. In counting the final votes I would like to be deemed to have opposed this proposal if my Proposal 7 is does not suceed unless a better alternative is made to accomodate wikis where the main owners are completely inactive but people still visit them. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  together with the below amendment (moved from oppose) --Soukupmi (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per above. TigerBlazer (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one? <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 00:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agent Isai's response TigerBlazer (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  only if 5A passes -- Waffledogefern (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (5)

 * 1)  If my math is correct, this means that an exemption only saves you a couple of "inputs" (making an edit or comment) to save your wiki. Instead of slightly more than four times during a two-year period touching your wiki, you need to ask once for an exemption. But since the latter choice might lead to follow-up discussion, making you interact several times, not to mention how it adds to the administrative burden of the Miraheze team, is it really any easier than to just not ask for an exemption in the first place? If the exemption period were at least five years, it would actually mean a real saving in time, focus and effort worth maintaining an Exemption Policy in the first place. So my question is: is the short period truly motivated by restrained hardware resources or are you just shooting yourself in the foot here...? :-) Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That observation is fair though it would in total save 5 inputs because 24 months would have to pass since the granting of the extension, so 4 edits plus 6 months since the regular Dormancy Policy would apply once the exemption is removed. It may not seem like a lot, but the purpose of exemptions is to allow the bureaucrats/administrators to not have to worry about that and just let their wiki be read. As to the administrative side, I don't think as complex as described as all that needs to be done in two years is create a thread and explain in a short sentence why the exemption is still needed and then a Steward can just tick a box. In my opinion, the status quo which is the possibility to grant exemptions indefinitely needs changing because there's no reason why a wiki which has been completely abandoned should remain online. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reception123's comments here. I did consider whether there is even a utility to Dormancy Policy exemptions since many wikis can, and do, opt to never request a Dormancy Policy exemption, and just make an edit or log action every few months. I still do think the exemptions provide some value, largely for the reason Reception123 has outlined. Dmehus (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 * OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 * OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT! <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 17:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , will you please ammend your !vote and remove these recurring alphabets. --Magogre (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine, in my view, though perhaps a few less Os would be appreciated. :) Dmehus (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please also note that the number of 'O's will not make your argument stronger. If you disagree so much with this proposal, please do feel free to explain why in more articulate terms. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, I see what Magogre has said, so I've fixed the indentation as a community courtesy by adding line breaks to prevent horizontal scrolling. Dmehus (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , and Magogre For starters, most people who voted for Support don't have a wiki (Anpang, Raidarr, Magogre Etc). I didn't like this proposal because, from what I read, the dormancy policy exemption will no longer be infinite. If so, I hope they'll accept infinite waiver requests! Also because there are people who have the wiki that needs to be infinite even though it is not much visited as this wiki here, because they wait for the wiki to be read, or because it is a blog, database, etc. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 18:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Magogre, specifically, but I do know that Anpang has several wikis, with content on them. Raidarr has a private wiki and at least one other wiki, as far as I am aware. It's a bit fuzzy because he's recently requested deletion of an unused wiki or two, but I still think he has at least two current wikis. Note that DP exemptions were never permanent; they were merely indefinite, meaning they could still be removed, ideally with advance notification to the wiki bureaucrats, if there were no longer a need for an exemption (i.e., a very active wiki with a large community of editors, or a nearly empty wiki with no significant edits). Dmehus (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets just say I don't put much stock in an oppose where multiple users must pull teeth to get more than two letters of argument to make its point and then makes obviously inaccurate presumptions about the investments of other users. It makes whatever is used as an argument from there all the weaker, though I don't accept what is left because it utterly fails to address Reception's reasoning anyway. In other words it is the loudest oppose with the weakest voice. I apologize for the harsh bluntness of my comment, but this is not the first time I've seen this sort of discussion style from the user. --Raidarr (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Their wikis are private and have little content. The wiki I manage has more than 1K articles and has precious information: it can be classified as a database. The only thing I want is the wiki I manage, have an infinite dormancy policy exemption as it is a database. Probably, if this RFC is accepted, I will no longer contribute to my 1,114-article wiki, as I won't be contributing an one thing that will disappear one day. Have you ever seen a Blogger blog, and it hasn't been updated since 2008, 2007? It's a database. What did talk about, what do you mean? Indefinite no dormancy policy also means that a bureaucrat/steward gets out there and deletes a wiki even though it's obeying the content policy? Isn't that unfair?  I didn't really understand what you said, because it's a large text with several changed synonyms, but from what I deciphered, it was a criticism of me. What can I improve on? <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 20:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * YellowFrogger, I think there's a few misconceptions here. Wikis that do not have Dormancy Policy exemptions will see no change to their workflow (most do not). That is to say, wikis can see their wikis continue indefinitely, so long as they or any user makes one qualifying edit or logged action on their wiki every six months. With this proposed change in this RfC, that will change, to an extent, for exempted wikis; however, in the sense that wikis granted a two-year exemption will have to make one logged action or edit on their wiki or on Meta Wiki every two years. I do not think this is a significant imposition on existing wikis, whilst balancing Miraheze's limited system resources. Content Policy is an entirely separate global policy and is completely unaffected by these changes. As well, for public wikis, by SRE convention, Reception123 posts XML dumps on The Internet Archive every 3-6 months or so. Even if wikis lost an inactivity exemption, that in and of itself does not mean the wiki will be deleted. The wiki's users could continue making the occasional edit on the wiki. Similarly, one could deploy a  account on their wiki to periodically perform minor wiki maintenance on a fixed schedule, and would also be unaffected. If anything, this proposed change makes it more transparent and increases the accountability for wikis. Dmehus (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's okay that Miraheze needs to delete useless wikis to keep working, because maintaining wikis is paid. However, this proposal will make the exemption useless, as the wiki will be deleted in the same way, and only the time has changed (instead of 6 months, it will be two years). For me, if this proposal is accepted, there will now have to be two ways to apply for the exemption. Normal exemption (only two years) and infinite exemption (indefinite time, the wiki will remain forever). And I don't know how to make/run bots. There are also wikis listed in Dormancy Policy/Exemptions, which have strangely been deleted as this one, but for reasons I don't know. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 21:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see that you are a sysop on six wikis. Is it really so much work to edit your own User or User talk page on one wiki each week, cycling between the six wikis so that they're all updated at least once every six weeks? From the amount of effort you're putting into this discussion, I thought you were in charge at a lot of wikis. (Yes, I'm sysop on "only" three wikis, but one of those three is the monster of Mirahee, AllTheTropes.) --Robkelk (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on six wikis. However, what really counts is just a wiki (which is also the only one that has an exemption). The others, mostly, are wikis for personal notes or other things. AllTheTropes is Miraheze's largest in number of articles because it was created even before the creation of Miraheze. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 21:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , the size of the wiki only matters as to how much work needs to be put in to keep it maintained. What matters for the Dormancy Policy is activity, not quantity of activity - the "one edit every six weeks" solution would work just as easily for AllTheTropes as it would for Buses, assuming the edit is needed to keep the Recent Changes history active. --Robkelk (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A basic wiki principle even in Wikipedia is that unnecessary bureaucracy is to be avoided. Asking people that have been requested to be except from inactivity, to be active, in order to justify why they are inactive, is the very definition of suffocating, excedeengly absurd, extremely unnecessary, self-defeating, laberinthic byzantine, absolutely redundant, logically paradoxical and self-contradictory bureaucracy. "Ah, if you have to be inactive and don't want to be deleted, why don't you come and say it every so often and stay checking and responding manually day to day in the meta wiki for a while!?" PS: Of note this absurd argument has already been double-crossed as per the comments above: Telling an admin that "if he is so active to discuss the policy change, why can't he be regularly active to edit all wikis with performative changes"... woudn't that then apply every time rendering the entire proposed change moot? Yes it would. --NimoStar (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We aren't asking people who request an exemption to be active considering the fact that they would only have to come to request an exemption on Stewards' noticeboard once every 2 years which can hardly be said by any definition to be 'active'. I understand that you may think this is a bureaucratic move, but then what is your alternative proposal? Should all wikis just be exempt forever even if they are no longer of any use to anyone? I'm certain that at least a few of our current exempted wikis are no longer being used and the main users involved have just forgot about the and moved on to other projects. I also don't find it that bureaucratic to simply open a thread and ask for an exemption. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Asking for the procedure, and sticking around to see if it is approved is by definition being active. The user would not want to miss the answer seeing it would be a manual process. 2) adding a new, hitherto unexisting manually initiated and answered procedure, only to do what is done autromatically now, is by definition bureaucracy. You cannot logically argue otherwise. You could, however, argue such bureaucracy is necessary; but I haven't seen a single reason for such. How significant is proportionally the resource drain from inactive excempt wikis, and what are the reasons to say unedited wikis are worth less than edited ones? I haven't seen anyone argue the actual *reason* for this. --NimoStar (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) * What if a person needs a 3-year exemption with a valid reason? For example, a person with a private wiki is facing political prosecution. He expects he will face 2-3 years of imprisonment soon. He requests a 3-year exemption, but under the new rule, it will no longer be possible due to the hard limit in place. He couldn't ask for exemption renewal when he is in jail.
 * 2) * Most wikis which asked for exemptions are granted infinite exemptions. They will be seriously affected under the new rule.
 * 3) * Most people do not see such a need, but that doesn't mean such a need does not exist, and that's what an exemption is for. Exemptions exist so as to cater for a small number of people with special needs or in difficult circumstances. We should allow more flexibility rather than placing a hard and rigid limit.--Revival (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But it's more likely to be that the person has a friend, and after he's been in prison for almost 2 years, his friend re-requests an excemption. For your second point, not a lot of wikis have an excemption. Miraheze is currently hosting more than 4000 wikis but the list of wikis that have an excemption is small compared to that. For your third point, do you know how long 2 years is? Anpang   Talk   Stuff  07:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What if he really couldn't find a trusted friend, or the trusted friend will be in trouble or face prosecution due to the political nature of that wiki? We couldn't just assume an arbitrary hard limit **must** fit all cases. That's why we should allow more flexibility so we could handle those exceptional cases.
 * If he definitely needs a renewal after 2 years, why don't we just grant him 3-year exemption in the first place? It saves time and resources for both sides.--Revival (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  What is the point of being *exempt* from dormancy policy if you have to be *active* in order to know when that excemption expires? That isn't an exemption at all. To me,the whole point is that the wiki is complete enpough as it is and doesn't *need* regular manteinance. --NimoStar (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Sounds like "longer inactivity period" not the "exemption". Suggests renaming the section if things are going to work that way. &mdash;  <tt>revi</tt>  11:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  oh, this one, again. As I have said before, I think that this proposal fails to grasp the purpose of an exemption to the dormancy policy is to prevent wikis that meet specific conditions from having to interact with Miraheze during periods of inactivity. My example was of a 4 yearly sports tournament but Revival's political prisoner example is equally valid. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Exemptions are indefinite, not permanent, and I don't see a real need for them to automatically expire. — Arcversin (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  2 years is a very short amount of time to be inactive. I don't think is good to have so short amount of time for automatical expiration. -- Jakeukalane (talk) contribs) 16:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I would rather offer indefinite exemptions. This is actually one reason why I did T6576. I would rather see that configured to add reasons for exemptions (which I added functionality for but left for Stewards to provide what they wish those reasons to be configured as), then Stewards could request that to either be visible for all wikis somewhere through an automated list, or a system to automate expiry of exemptions based on specific reasons for exemptions (I think I could do either of those anyways), while still maintaining the ability to hold indefinite exemptions for some wikis, especially wikis already exempt should not at all, ever be affected by this policy, in my opinion.  17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * Universal Omega Your argument suggests you prefer time-limited exemptions to Dormancy Policy, as that was the main reason for the linked Phabricator task. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to completely removing indefinite exemptions, as I articulated above, but per my comments in the below proposal, they should be the rare exception and not the norm. As well, it should also be noted that nothing in the policy or indeed this RfC precludes indefinitely exempted wikis from being reviewed by Stewards at a later date to see whether they still need them, with Stewards reaching out to bureaucrats to articulate a clear need. Dmehus (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The main issue I see with indefinite exemptions is that they require extra work from Stewards who would have to periodically review them and reach out to the bureaucrats and see if there is anything still going on. I don't think it's appropriate that we have wikis who can just have exemptions infinitely even if their content is not being read by anyone nor being edited. This proposal just means that bureaucrats have to reach out every two years to get a renewal, but in theory it basically acts like an indefinite exemption sine in practice renewal requests wouldn't be declined if the original reason still exists. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern with this policy is that it doesn't clarify indefinite/even permanent exemptions such as community wikis which should most definitely remain permanently exempted, as well as a few other (albeit rare) circumstances. I would much rather configure reasons for exemptions, and then add support for exemption expiration instead, while some reasons like community wikis could remain permanently exempted.  17:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "community wikis", if you mean like Meta those are different and are classified as "exceptions" rather than exemptions so this would not apply to them. And if you would like reasons perhaps you should create a different proposal. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The proposal of 2 years is just arbitrary and ignorant of what a wiki's specific reason for getting an exemption would be, which others above have given examples for why 2 years would not always be suitable. I don't believe that there's really much wrong with the current system of indefinite exemptions that I figure would be reviewed at the judgement of the exemption granters. K599 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The proposal of 2 years is just arbitrary and ignorant of what a wiki's specific reason for getting an exemption would be, which others above have given examples for why 2 years would not always be suitable. I don't believe that there's really much wrong with the current system of indefinite exemptions that I figure would be reviewed at the judgement of the exemption granters. K599 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hola. Varios asuntos:
 * No estpy de acuerdo con la solicitud indefinida de exención. Todos los humanos somos mortales y algún día nos llegará el fin. La solicitud cada dos años implica que, al fin y al cabo, los wikis administrados por pocas personas serán eliminados, independientemente de su contenido o temática.
 * Desde mi punto de vista, la exención debería otorgarse de acuerdo a la calidad de los contenidos y a la temática que trata. Por ejemplo, se puede estimular la creación de wikis culturales o educativos otorgando la exención definitiva si los artículos son originales y de buena calidad. Miraheze debería enogullercerse por contar con wikis con artículos originales y de calidad, a pesar de que estén inactivos.
 * Un ejemplo concreto: este wiki debería estar exento de inactividad indefinidamente, aunque esté inactivo durante años. Mi opinión: la exención no es un asunto que tenga que depender del tiempo de inactividad, sino de la calidad, originalidad y contenido de cada wiki.
 * A aquellos wikis que no cumplan con unos estándares mínimos de calidad, originalidd y cantidad, no otorgar la exención.
 * Saludos coriales. Hugo Ar (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Saludos coriales. Hugo Ar (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Translated by Google Translator
 * Hello. Various matters:
 * I do not agree to the indefinite exemption request. All humans are mortal and one day the end will come to us. The request every two years means that, after all, wikis managed by few people will be eliminated, regardless of their content or theme.
 * From my point of view, the exemption should be granted according to the quality of the content and the subject matter it deals with. For example, the creation of cultural or educational wikis can be encouraged by granting the definitive exemption if the articles are original and of good quality. Miraheze should be proud of having wikis with original and quality articles, even though they are inactive.
 * A concrete example: this wiki should be inactive indefinitely, even if it is inactive for years. My opinion: the exemption is not a matter that has to depend on the downtime, but on the quality, originality and content of each wiki.
 * To those wikis that do not meet minimum standards of quality, originality and quantity, do not grant the exemption.
 * Kind regards. Hugo Ar (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Abstain (5)

 * 1)  --Mike9012 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments (5)
though not to the point of making an independent proposition to change the wording, I do think that traffic (visits) should be relevant here, not just editing. If a particular wiki comes in useful long term but has fallen out of update, removing it even if it is archived obscurely on archive.org will be a loss in general internet terms and detract from a) perceived reliability of Miraheze and b) obfuscate information that was previously accessible, which is a shame. At the very least I'd like to consider the direct archive link being placed on the wiki after removal when applicable so people doing their own research following links can have something to go on without having to backtrack through Miraheze conventions or sift through various archives to find what they want. --Raidarr (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 5A (Amendment) (proposed by DeeM28)
It is added to Proposal 5: "In exceptional and limited circumstances, a Steward may decide to grant exemptions for a period longer than 2 years".

Rationale: After reading what everyone has said I do not think it is right to no longer have Steward discretion and have this maximum set-in-stone period.

Support (5A)

 * 1)  per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Soukupmi (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This proposal depends on Proposal 5 passing too so I would suggest you withdraw your oppose from Proposal 5 if you wish for this to also pass. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that is indeed true ... Thanks --Soukupmi (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  There will always be edge cases so it is important to have human discretion at the moment -- Waffledogefern (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my comments above that I wasn't not that enamoured with completely removing an indefinite exemption. That being said, as this RfC has demonstrated, many users incorrectly have believed indefinite exemptions were permanent. They are not. As such, indefinite exemptions should become a rare exception, as the proposer articulated in this sub-proposal, rather than the norm. Dmehus (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If indefinite exemptions should be a rare exception, then what is the point of exemptions? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I recognise based on some of the comments made in this RfC that it is reasonable to allow for exemptions running more than 2 years if there's some exceptional circumstance. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)   Anpang   Talk   Stuff  02:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) to that and  if you can claim an exemption as it was before (indefinite time, or unknown) <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 18:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (5A)

 * 1) In essense I concur with the opinion of Universal Omega above — that exemptions should not be time-limited. Cannot support this. &mdash;  revi  08:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  - Although it's marginally better than always two years, there has been provided zero reasonings about why exemptions can't be permanent by default without issue, as indeed they are now without issue. This depends on a proposal that should be defeated at root level. --NimoStar (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your opposes however I think that my alternative proposed is better than Proposal 5 passing as 'the lesser evil'. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Abstain (5A)

 * 1)  The whole Proposal 5 is deeply flawed and should be rejected. I prefer Proposal 5B. I support this amendment only if Proposal 5B is rejected and Proposal 5 is accepted.--Revival (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (5A)

 * 1) Once again I am pinging the people who opposed Proposal 5., , , , . --DeeM28 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  "Or you can order an infinity". I Only vote Support like that. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can never 'order an infinity'. That is a pipe dream. No website can nor will last in its current form forever. It's naive to believe otherwise. --Raidarr (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * However, most sites don't time-limit your accounts anymore and this has been so for nearly two decades. Your facebook, instagram account doesn't expire. Your email doesn't expire. Your blog doesn't expire... and it doesn't get "closed" after 45 days. --NimoStar (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Social media accounts are backed by ad supported, rather massive companies that have their fingers all over the internet and get absurd volumes of ambient revenue. Even Fandom is subject to this and thus is able to claim reliable income in a way Miraheze cannot, so Miraheze by virtue of its ambitious nature (many different mediawiki installations with very few caps on what they can do) cannot afford to be as liberal with long term hosting as other platforms. An email, a profile, even a lightweight blog is nothing to what it takes to sustainably run and maintain wiki software. Other wiki farms are commercially sponsored, more limited in nature or, well, haven't made it this far. --Raidarr (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost Just as NimoStar put it. There are sites that last ten years on Blogger (there are sites that haven't been updated for a while) and they haven't been deleted for that reason. It's okay that Miraheze is not for profit, but there must be a version as it was before (undefined). Indefinite and infinite are different things. Sites not updated will only be deleted if the hosting service goes bankrupt. Even so, this hypothesis that a site doesn't last forever can be disputed, as Wikipedia exists since 2001 and plans to exist forever <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 18:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My answer to this is not much different than as I put it to NimoStar, except to say you've compared two different fruits so to speak. Blogger typically lacks the weight of a mediawiki installation and runs on far more sustainable income than Miraheze ever will should it retain its autonomy and morals regarding advertising and independence. Blogger is probably the better option for someone looking to drop information and leave. That said, I'm considering a shift to abstain on the topic, as I think more volunteers and manual review can roughly achieve the same purpose without adding more process and without invoking the ire of those who currently oppose. In that case the most that's necessary is straining the fact that dormancy lasts as long as it's needed, should only be granted as needed, and may occasionally be subject to questions that result in reasonable answers such as recently posted on the Stewards' noticeboard. --Raidarr (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exemptions are already supposed to be exceptional circumstances. This would create an unnecessarily complex 3 tiered process where the middle tier (ie exemption for 2 years aka a longer dormancy period) is effectively useless. If people want a stricter exemptions process (something I'd still disagree with the necessity of), then just write a stricter exemptions process. I feel that like proposal 5 that this reflects a lack of understanding of how the dormancy policy would be used in practice. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 5B (Exemptions) (Alternative to Proposal 5)
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Closing this as moot/largely duplicative of Proposal 5A, which aims to provide for some degree of Steward discretion in granting Dormancy Policy exemptions longer than the two years articulated in Proposal 1. In short, I suspect this was created from a misunderstanding of, or perhaps not seeing, Proposal 5A. Dmehus (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the current requirements, the following is added:

Exemptions to the Dormancy Policy are granted normally for a period of three years. A longer period of exemption could be granted if a valid reason is given. At the expiry of the exemption, it can be requested that the exemption is renewed if the reason(s) still exist(s).

Rationale:
 * It is a bad idea to set an arbitrary hard limit and just assume it **must** fit all sort of cases with special needs or difficult circumstances. For example, a 4-year tournament wiki (people participate in that wiki every 4 years) needs a longer period of exemption. The cases of political prisoners needs a longer period too.
 * There are only about 70 wikis which need exemptions. For those very few, many need a longer period of exemption.
 * This proposal allows more flexibility and gives back steward discretion.

Support (5B)

 * 1) --Revival (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) --Mike9012 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)   Anpang   Talk   Stuff  01:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Especially if you can add an exemption request indefinitely (as it was before) <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 01:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Yes, as above. --Soukupmi (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  this seems like a reasonable idea, though I would prefer 5 years instead of 3. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 11:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (5B)

 * 1) The "normal period" this proposal is suggesting is still just arbitrary and does not properly acknowledge that reasons for exemptions are generally pretty different, and therefore cannot be generalized under some arbitrary number to serve as a "normal period". I don't believe that there are any convincing reasons to change the current exemption process of indefinite exemptions that I figure get reviewed at the judgement of the exemption granters. K599 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (5B)

 * 1) Pinging users who may be interested in this proposal:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . --Revival (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Proposal 5.1 (Exemptions)
If the data available on Matomo suggests that there are very little or no visits on a wiki exempted from the Dormancy Policy, that exemption may be removed no earlier than six months after it was granted by a Steward. Two weeks prior to removal, notice should be given via a suitable notification method (notably, via a note on Meta user talk pages or via e-mail) to all existing bureaucrats.

Note: If the request for removal of an exemption comes from SRE, it should ideally be requested of Stewards via Stewards' noticeboard. A Steward may then provide the appropriate notification, or they may delegate the notification to an SRE team member, both in accordance with the policy.

Note: Where a wiki with very little or no visits to a wiki suggests it is unused and not being read by multiple people, a Steward should, ideally and as a good practice, generate XML and image dumps and e-mail them either to the most recently active bureaucrat(s), all bureaucrats, or, in the case of personal and/or private wikis, the original requesting wiki bureaucrat, to mitigate data loss. Stewards should advise SRE when this been done and, optionally, copy SRE on the e-mail to bureaucrat(s).

Support (5.1)

 * 1)   Anpang   Talk   Stuff  08:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Since wikis are granted Dormancy exemptions mainly because of the fact that while they're not edited they are still read, it would not make sense for a wiki that is not active or read by anyone to stay online. If needed again, the bureaucrat will just have to use the XML and image dumps to restore their wiki. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Extremely reasonable. If the viewership doesn't justify the exemption then why should these wikis continue to take up space?  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  per above. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  likewise as an extension of my rationale in 5.  Includes a strong steward and core volunteer support, so at least on input it doesn't seem like there is a workload concern here. --Raidarr (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)   Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  If there's no traffic to a wiki, then I support. If there's traffic, even if it's "very little", then I would have to know how much of Miraheze's resources are being used to support the traffic. --Robkelk (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  Per Robkelk - I doubt low-viewership wikis are taking up that much in terms of resources, and I think there would have to be other criteria considered in that regard at least. Now, if it was a significant drain from a zero-traffic one... --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  pending a definition of the threshold at which a number of edits becomes insufficient to preserve a wiki.  -- Looney Toons (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  I think this is the right approach to take. If a wiki is not being edited or visited then in my opinion there is no scope for it to be hosted by a wiki made mainly for collaboration. Modified: Modifying my vote to "Weak support" as after reading the comments after mine I agree with the argument regarding terminology and the fact that 'very little' is too vague for it to be certain. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC) (modified: --DeeM28 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC))
 * 11)  This policy does need a big step-up, as this case seems like a double-edged sword. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12)  Only in combination with 6 and 7 below --Soukupmi (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (5.1)

 * 1)  This rule only seems to take in account public wikis. Private wikis are only supposed to be visited by owners and their guests, and thus cannot have visitors similarly to the public wikis. --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above and the fact that some wikis are very niche and usually do not receive too much attention from most readers. -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * EdwardMaginot and Waffledogefern, while an exact number of visits constituting "low usage" is intentionally not codified, speaking hypothetically as a Steward, I would expect that it would be a fairly low threshold to reach. At the end of the day, Stewards still retain discretion to remove an exemption to Dormancy Policy under this criterion, and it would be my expectation that the number of unique visits to a wiki would be very low. Even on private wikis, there would be the expectation that someone reviews their wiki every months in order to add additional notes, or removes outdated personal information. Each page view counts as a visit. A wiki that was nearly completely unvisited would suggest it's no longer being used. Moreover, users would still be notified, via their user talk page, via e-mail, or what have you, prior to any exemption being removed, so they would have ample opportunity to state how they're still using the wiki, and in all likelihood, the exemption would be extended, if there was still was a clear need in terms of both activity and content. Plus, as noted in the proposal, XML and image dumps would be generated and made available to either (a) current wiki bureaucrats or to (b) the original requesting wiki bureaucrat (in the case of personal public or private wikis). Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. On the visited part, if a wiki is neither being edited by anyone or visited by anyone it seems that there's no reason for it to stay on Miraheze and it could just be saved somewhere locally if it's not being used. Once again, all someone needs to do is edit once in 6 months to avoid this. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) * This rule does not take private, public personal, niche, bi-yearly or yearly wikis into account. They may have very little visit (or no visit for extended periods of time but will eventually visited). Still they should be kept. Currently some wikis are granted exemptions because the contribution is (generally) done but they will still be read by the admins/guests of the private wiki, or a small number of people in niche wikis, or only read bi-yearly or yearly. The exemptions shouldn't be removed later on because of that.
 * 2) * The stewards should have considered this factor when they initially granted exemptions. If the number of visit is a condition to grant that exemption, the steward should state it clearly at that time the exemption is granted.
 * 3) * Some wikis may have very different special circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all (that's why they asked for exemptions). There shouldn't be a hard and rigid "visit" requirement to all sorts of exemptions.
 * 4) * After all I don't think exemptions should be removed after granted unless in extreme circumstances.--Revival (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At first glance your arguments are quite convicing and it would have been better (see my comments under Proposal 7) if the proposers would have allowed the community to add our proposals here too before publication. I think that there are two solutions to this issue that doesn't require longer exemptions which are: (a) backups of the wiki can be generated and the user can revive it when he/she returns from prison. I acknowledge that there might be an issue with this if the wiki is read, which is precisely why I would like my Proposal 7 to be implemented which would resolve that issue. (b) The bureaucrat can transfer ownership to another user which can take care of the granting of an exemption. Alternatively I would have preferred a power to Stewards to grant longer exemptions in exceptional circumstances. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)   Define the "very little". Too vague. &mdash;  <tt>revi</tt>  11:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  vaguely worded, leaves everything to the personal interpretation of the sysop in question, rule is arbitrary and unclear in application. Generally all wiki content of less active wikis is a few MB, and a few big wikis use several *gigabytes* of data, so I don't get the obsession of a few SREs to delete as many wikis as possible; seeing as it seems extremely likely even deleting all of the ones appliable won't even have a 1% difference in storage. It almost seems like bullying the smaller wikis, which are precisely the ones that need Miraheze the most since most other wiki farms are commercialized and frequently prune the "unmarketeable", "niche" wikis. --NimoStar (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While the distinction is a bit confusing (and perhaps you would even call artificial) I'd like to point out that this RfC was created in my capacity as user and is not something that the SRE team is proposing or has agreed on. The purpose simply was to ensure that our resources are being used properly. I'm not very sure what the need is for wikis that aren't edited nor visited to stay online indefinitely. Also, while I can't speak for Stewards I feel quite confident that the interpretation would be narrow and that they won't be out to get small wikis. I feel like it would have been more arbitrary to come up with a minimal visitors number, this way at least things can be looked at more broadly. In practice however my belief is that a few visitors per month (even 5 perhaps) should prevent an exemption from being removed. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The personal unregulated belief of an individual about what constitues sufficient views is by definition arbitrary and confirms the point about being so. Another individual with the power to apply this rule may have an entirely different belief, or such beliefs may change with time and sympathy for the wiki in question. What is sufficient at one time may not be sufficient at another; what is sufficient for one sysop may not be sufficient for another; what is sufficient for one wiki may not be deemed sufficient for another. None of that would be against the rule. Thus why this is a mess. --NimoStar (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think this defeates the whole purpose of an exemption. While it doesn't take into account private wikis whatsoever. I don't think removing based of low views is good. However if it was absolutely no views, whatsoever for an extended period of time then this might be okay.  17:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * Universal Omega As I said above, a specific number is intentionally not codified and, speaking just for myself, it would have to be a very, very low number of visits in order to remove a previously granted indefinite exemption strictly on the basis of low views. In other words, SRE would need to present a strong case for doing so. I should also clarify that indefinite exemptions do not mean permanent, and nothing in policy, or indeed, this RfC, precludes Stewards from regularly reviewing exempted wikis to see whether they still need an exemption, reaching out to existing bureaucrats to articulate a continued need. Dmehus (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Debunking once again unvisited wikis. If it has a lot of content, it doesn't matter if it has visitors. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 18:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this argument. If it has no visitors what is its purpose? There's no reason for why a wiki that has no visits at all needs to stay online, the content could simply be hosted on a local machine in that case. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many blogs on Blogger that haven't changed since 2008. The only chance these wikis disappear is if Blogger goes bankrupt. And will he receive visits? Also, Miraheze's SEO is reasonable <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 01:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel that this is likely to be fairly susceptible to bias over what counts as "very little" visits, and therefore would prefer that this criteria not be in play. K599 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel that this is likely to be fairly susceptible to bias over what counts as "very little" visits, and therefore would prefer that this criteria not be in play. K599 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Transition)
For wikis granted a Dormancy Policy exemption prior to the initial publication date of this RfC, SRE will not request removal of any indefinite Dormancy Policy exemption until the greater of (a) at least one year has passed since they were first granted the exemption or (b) at least one year has elapsed since the RfC was first made public, due solely to low Matomo visitor statistics. After that, the criteria specified in Proposal 5.1 would apply.

Note: This does not preclude Stewards from periodically reviewing indefinitely exempted wikis to see whether wikis still need an exemption (i.e., wikis with very active editing communities) or have sufficient content intended to be read or otherwise used as a resource by real people. In such cases, Stewards, will reach out to recently active bureaucrats (usually via their Meta user talk page) to see whether they still require an exemption and to provide an updated reason for wishing to maintain an exemption. If no response is received after a reasonable period of time in such cases, then a Steward would remove the exemption, ideally generating XML and image dumps as in the above proposal

Support (6)

 * 1)  as proposer, it makes sense to allow wikis that relied on the previous Dormancy Policy provisions more leeway. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Again, does sound extremely fair and reasonable. Additionally, the provision of generating XML and image dumps is a good one as some users later resent having lost access to their work.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Reception123. Dmehus (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  for the principle and continuity. Again I think TDM raises a fair point, but with a Steward in support I don't think it's prohibitive. Though I think the proposal could do just fine if the attached notes were streamlined to just note the goals, rather than detail out the process. --Raidarr (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 14:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I agree that existing wikis should be granted a certain tolerance given the fact that when they originally applied for an exemption they of course could not reasonably predict that the policy would change in such a way and they would be at a disadvantage from new wikis which know the rules. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  --Soukupmi (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (6)

 * 1)  Opposed by principle as opposed to the Proposal 5.1 this rule depends on. --EdwardMaginot (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Opposed to 5.1 -- Waffledogefern (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your comments in Proposal 5.1. Dmehus (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 01:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) * Opposed by principles as opposed to the Proposal 5 and 5.1.
 * 3) * There are only about 70 indefinitely exempted wikis. Disk space is very cheap nowadays. Those very-infrequently-visited wikis adds negligible server load. I fail to see any strong or good reason to change the rules just to revoke a small number of indefinite exemptions. There are valid reasons to be granted those exemptions in the first place. We should keep the honor.--Revival (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  What is the definition of "low"? And given that MatomoAnalytics only displays last 30 days, what if the data is only useful for specific timeframe? (Christmas carol wiki wouldn't get a lot of attention throughout the Spring~Autumn, for example) &mdash;  <tt>revi</tt>  11:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  seeing as this depends on 5.1, it should be called 5.2 (oppose parent). --NimoStar (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  per what I said in proposal 5 and proposal 5.1. I do think this can apply for no views, however I don't believe removal of existing exemptions should apply retroactively to this RfC, unless per the criteria in proposal 5.1 withstanding low views, only no views as I said there.  17:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 7)  as readers of my thoughts on ExamKnow will know, I am strongly opposed to retroactively rewriting the rules on penalties. While I feel that this steers well enough clear of that for it to be tolerable, I think that combining the caution exercised over being retroactive and the fact that proposal 5, in my view, is not equivalent to the existing dormancy policy, I suggest that existing indefinite dormancy policies remain in place. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 13:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  as readers of my thoughts on ExamKnow will know, I am strongly opposed to retroactively rewriting the rules on penalties. While I feel that this steers well enough clear of that for it to be tolerable, I think that combining the caution exercised over being retroactive and the fact that proposal 5, in my view, is not equivalent to the existing dormancy policy, I suggest that existing indefinite dormancy policies remain in place. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 13:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Abstain (6)

 * 1)   Anpang   Talk   Stuff  08:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Meh. The language already says "a Steward may" (my emphasis). It would follow no formal transition rule would be necessary if Stewards can be assumed to use common sense rather than follow rules to the letter, rather than never giving any leeway unless forced to. Is this wiki really that big you have Stewards that must be told what to do through formal language? Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (added by DeeM28)
An exception to the rule in Proposal 5 is made: If a wiki has sufficient visitors (sufficient is at the discretion of Stewards) it may be granted a renewal of one or two years without the express request of a bureaucrat on that wiki.

Rationale: As I say above, in the situation that the owners of a wiki have gone completely inactive but the wiki is still useful to its passive visitors it does not make sense for it to be shut down.

Support (7)

 * 1) as proposer. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) only in the unfortunate case the (not thought entirely throught) inactivity amendments should go forward, this would make the changes less radical. --NimoStar (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Even though sufficient is vague --Soukupmi (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Sufficient should be defined --LilyLilyu - smile.svg talk and I will listen · Lilypond Wiki 17:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) as already mentioned, sufficient is vague, however should proposal 5 pass then this is a good option as well, though I still agree with what I said in proposal 5 and I don't prefer even this solution, I do prefer potential indefinite exemptions.  17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 6)  quality of life -- Waffledogefern (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  if proposal 5 is going to pass we might as well make it slightly less foolish. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 13:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (7)

 * 1)  Sufficient is too vague. &mdash;  <tt>revi</tt>  12:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Debunking once again unvisited wikis. If it has a lot of content, it doesn't matter if it has visitors. <b style="color: #1965e0;">YellowFrogger</b> <b style="color: #069404;">(<b style="color: #069404;">✉ Talk </b> <b style="color: #069404;">✐ Edits </b>)</b> 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Vague, complex, and has really the use case been shown to merit the attention? TheDungeonMaster (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  per above and uses somewhat contradictory language to other proposals. Dmehus (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I support the spirit, but not the language or (lack of) details here per the concerns above. --Raidarr (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  I don't think the way this is proposed and phrased would be a right 'fix' to the issue pointed out by some above and it would overcomplicate things too much. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  per the other oppositions above this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenPlum (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 December 2021

Comments (7)

 * 1) Comment My apologies for posting this after the RfC has commenced. In my defence the proposer(s) did not leave any time for the draft to be seen by the community and for us to add proposals to it which I think is very unfortunate considering that users are encouraged to do so. In my opinion this should routinely be done before every RfC in oder to allow new ideas to come up and be posted at the same time as the other proposals.--DeeM28 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There should not be discouragement of adding proposals or amendments to ongoing RfCs, as ideally RfCs would be open discussions to allow for better collaboration. The page for Requests for Comment says that they're "designed to be an easy way to gather community feedback", and if any new ideas come up for an ongoing RfC, then people should be free to share them. K599 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I am pinging the people who opposed Proposal 7 here in case they do not return to the RfC as they may be interested in supporting this alternative. I reiterate that if the proposers would have allowed a period of drafting for everyone this would not have been necessary.,  - this addresses your problem because now if the wiki is complete and has visitors it would be 'saved', , , . --DeeM28 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably mean "the people who opposed Proposal 5 and its derivatives". Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 8 (added by TDM)
Change the various time duration before an inactive wiki takes the next step until deletion. Here is a proposal - note that the time until deletion (where hardware resources are freed to be used elsewhere remains the same):

Current values in regular font. My proposed changes (in bold within brackets).

Rationale: If the reason for the Dormancy Policy is to conserve resources, the only parameter that is significant is the time until actual deletion. So why do wikis get a warning already after less than a 1/3rd of the total time window? Why are wikis then kept around in various states for twice as long? This proposal assumes there are no real reasons for discouraging wikis with, say, a three-month editing interval.

Support (8)

 * 1)  as nom TheDungeonMaster (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I like those distribution better --Soukupmi (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Less shuffling around and less alarmism for admins. --NimoStar (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted this will lead potentially to less deletions, since the closing time is further away. Only a local admin can "unclose" a wiki, while anyone can edit in that period thus resetting the clock with legitimate activity instead of unreasonable 45 days closure. --NimoStar (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- Waffledogefern (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (8)

 * 1)  My main issue here is that with this proposal, there is less time between closure and deletion. That means that when bureaucrats get a closure email, they will have less time to reopen their wiki before it's eligible for deletion. I don't think the current timing needs changing and I think that is has the appropriate balance. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if this really is a practical concern? That is, do Miraheze have users where two months advance warning (days 120 to 180) isn't sufficient, but where four months is? Do really the needs of this special case have to go before the overall friendliness and generosity of Miraheze? After all, any bureaucrat worried about losing their less-than-active wiki can simply keep on visiting it every 45 days just like today. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this can be reasonably addressed by adding an interim notice at the original time which will still grab the bureaucrat's eye, as well as offer an additional deletion notice by period suggested here. But I don't have too much stock in the topic either way. --Raidarr (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I really would like to ask Reception123 to help me see a use case common enough to justify the current time periods. I can't see it - to me two months is already very generous, and I can't easily envision any use case where two months isn't enough, but for some reason four months is. Please help me understand your position, Reception123. Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean but my position is that the Dormancy Policy has always been quite generous and there is no valid reason to change that. Maybe I haven't read it carefully enough but I don't really understand what you are trying to achieve by keeping the same overall time but switching around closed and inactive statuses. My concern is that if a wiki is inactive for a long period time there's just a notice but people can just continue editing as before, whereas when it is closed it requires a bureaucrat's attention and positive action to reopen it, and they also receive an email when it's closed. I simply don't see a justification from changing the current rules here which, to my knowledge have not caused any issues really. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, please ask for clarification before reflexively opposing proposals you do not understand. Also, opposing change just because status quo hasn't caused problems is needlessly conservative. Again: why have it like today? Please engage with my stated rationale. Why not offer more of the total 6 months time to the user complete hassle-free? Thanks TheDungeonMaster (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Reception123's comments, per a too rigid codification to proposed timelines, and on procedural grounds to this sub-proposal being added days after the RfC started. If you oppose one or more of the above proposals, you can do that, and, should it still pass, you can proposal an amendment following this RfC's closing. In addition, I  doubling the timeframe by which a wiki is closed by Dormancy Policy with no stated rationale for doing so. If the late-stage proponent's aim is conserve system resources, this would have the opposite effect. Thus, I cannot support this under any terms. Dmehus (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would more system resources be expended by not closing it? The resources are expended by having the wiki online (which stays for the exact number of days), not by enabling the edit button. On a purely pedantic note, it does conserve marginally system resources to not have the bot take action so soon and not have the administrator uncheck the closed box. So what has the opposite effect? --NimoStar (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by "too rigid codification to proposed timelines", User:Dmehus. I intend zero change to the rigidity of the dormancy policy. I don't even understand what quality you refer to. Nor do I understand how you can consider my proposed numbers to be more (or less) rigid than the current numbers. Thank you. TheDungeonMaster (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And just to be sure: my proposal is not dependent on any of the others. As the page says: "The proposals below are not mutually exclusive unless indicated otherwise." I have not indicated otherwise. Regards, TheDungeonMaster (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've clarified this. Actually your proposal is contingent on the others, as the language is contradictory. Moreover, you've proposed to double the time by which a wiki is closed per Dormancy Policy, without explanation, which is counter to your and this RfC's stated aim of helping to conserve system resources. In short, it uses contradictory language that contradicts both its own proposal, but other proposals as well. Dmehus (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not intend any contingencies or contradictions. Let us ensure there have been no misunderstandings: What exact contradictions do you believe exist, Dmehus? What do you mean by "the time by which a wiki is closed"? If you mean the time before the wiki is marked inactive, rendered unreachable etc, then yes of course - that's the entire point of the proposal. However, if you mean the time until deletion and resource reclamation (arguably the significant event) then no, the time (since last edit) should remain the same. Please detail the scenario in which you are seeing a change, and I will respond accordingly. Thank you TheDungeonMaster (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * People should not be discouraged from adding new proposals or amendments to RfCs, as that's discouraging collaboration, something that is part of what wikis are. Also, this proposal was added a day after the RfC started, so this isn't really a particularly late addition anyway. If you feel that people might miss the discussion on any additions, well there are various methods of notifying people, like making use of mentions or continuing to keep up the central notice for this RfC, which I would like to see for the reasoning that I've explained in other discussions like Requests for Comment/Central notice changes or this recently made discussion on community noticeboard that I encourage others to take a look at and share their thoughts. K599 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thx TheDungeonMaster (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, Dmehus: Can I ask you to clarify why you are in opposition? You don't have to of course, but "per Reception123's comments", ""too rigid codification to proposed timelines" and "your proposal is contingent on the others" appears to me entirely indistinct and unclear? I would very much appreciate if you could detail what you are actually opposing, since I would be very interested in finding out if you are opposing what I am proposing, or if we simply have a misunderstanding on our hands. Thanks TheDungeonMaster (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) per Reception123. If a wiki is closed, a bureaucrat can simply reopen it at any time and have months to do so however with this proposal, bureaucrats have less time to reopen it before it's deleted. This doesn't really make sense and if anything aggravates the issue. As such, I must oppose.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am asking you (and everyone) - "per Reception123" leaves me with questions: why force interaction as often as every 45 days, when resources are not freed up until after six months? What about lightening this load does not make sense to you? Why the focus on "time to reopen"? Why can't those concerned keep doing what they do today? Why must Miraheze act as their alarm clock, sacrificing other users' convenience in the meantime? What scenario gets "aggravated", Agent Isai? TheDungeonMaster (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My issue here is that it gives admins less time to react and reopen their wiki once it is closed and less time to people who want to adopt abandoned wikis to do so before it's eligible for deletion. Under the current system, admins have a nice span of time to reopen their wiki and interested users also have a nice amount of time to express their desire for reopening a wiki before it is eligible for deletion. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okaay... but to ask a somewhat pointed question: what is the goal of Miraheze? Is it to provide free wiki hosting with generous options, or is its main purpose to allow people to play a kind of shuffling-around game of closed wikis? Please help me understand why you feel the time to reopen should be more important than the time the wiki actually stays open in the first place! (Just because the time before inactivity warnings is extended from 45 to 120 days does not mean admins must change their behavior. We can still recommend them to check up on their wikis or the associated email notice accounts every 45 days if you like). Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Miraheze's goal is to provide free wiki hosting with generous options, yes. Wikis are made to be collaborated on and edited. If they are not edited and are inactive, there is not much reason for them to be hosted on a live website. Of course, if there is a valid reason for it not needing to be frequently edited that's why exemptions to the DP exist. In my opinion, if someone is not editing a wiki in 45 days regularly and just keeps coming back to reopen the wiki they really should ask for an exemption which will be generously granted if there is a good reason (which most of the times that is simply that the wiki has enough pages and they don't need much editing). In my view, the closure system is useful to users who perhaps have completely forgot about their wiki because they're busy with other things and do need to be alerted to the fact that it has been closed to 'save' it from deletion. The DP is not perfect, but I don't think the proposals made make it any better either. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still do not believe you have sufficiently explained why, given that Miraheze's resources are occupied for at least 6 months by a wiki, that the site requires you to make edits after less than a third of that time, Reception123. Why not prioritize offering hassle-free wiki hosting above internal administrative jockeying? What is gained by reserving more than four months of time potentially shuffling around wikis in different states behind the scenes? Why not simply trust our users and use all that time to... well, not bother the wiki owners? Those wiki owners that are particularly concerned can still "touch" their sites every 45 days just like today. Honest question: What is gained by making every wiki owner to this so relatively often, when the hosting resources remain occupied for much longer than the 45 days? Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) this would give admins less notification of Miraheze's dormancy policy, making it easier for them to accidentally have their wiki deleted. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 12:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is the main concern here wikis that have gone passive, yet admins will resuscitate them, but only after several months?! Why not focus instead on Mirahezes actual users? Having to "touch" your wiki every 45 days is not ungenerous exactly, but given that resources aren't recovered until after 6 months at the earliest, why not give users some slack, and refrain from bothering them with inactivity warnings for at least 4 months...? (Miraheze would probably be just fine even if wikis weren't cautioned until after a full year, but I digress. If the cut-off date is 6 months, it is 6 months, and I have not changed that in my proposal) Cheers TheDungeonMaster (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Isn't that a bit too much? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Best regards TheDungeonMaster (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I agree with the comments made above and do not believe that this proposal would achieve anything to be desired. Additionally I do cannot fully state that I understand what exactly this proposal is trying to achieve in the first place. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How can it be difficult to see the upside? You would no longer have to touch your wiki every 45 days. Instead, once every four months would suffice. It really is incomprehensible why so much time is reserved "behind the scenes" - actual Miraheze resources are not released anyway! Why not use most of the 6 months to generously allow wikis to keep existing - it'd only make your offer more generous. Of course, I bet most of your wikis could be permitted to remain on the site for years without appreciably draining any resources (my guess is 95% are of insignificant size), but I digress... (I kept the total 6 months as is today; I only reshuffled the counting days to prioritize the customers who actively want their wiki to remain on site) Regards TheDungeonMaster (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per most of the comments above. FrozenPlum (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments (8)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section