Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/February 2014

Organizations that use Wikiversity

Organizations that use Wikiversity

Proposition to use user: namespace for organizations that use Wikiversity or to create a new namespace for organizations. Using user: space is convenient, but a password may be lost from the organization. A password is not required for anyone to edit it, and other small problems can be easily worked around. Ideas? Its important to separate resource space and organizational space. - Sidelight12 Talk 15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Do you have an example of the problem we are trying to solve? Is it just to allow organizations to log in, or are we also trying to organize or exclude content from resource space? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Actually, I choose not to force organizations to log in. The idea is to move Howard Community College to [[user:Howard Community College]] (with a password-less account) or another namespace like [[org:Howard Community College]]. It's to solve the problem of running into organizations by hitting random, and to allow a space for organizations to be found easily. To try "to organize or exclude content from resource space," and keep the content. - Sidelight12 Talk 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC) The addition of an org: namespace might be useful. For example, a place for RuralWeb and similar projects comes to mind. Now, for clarification, this would mean that an organization could come and run their classes out of their org: space using Wikiversity. What are the restrictions? Only non-profit organizations? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC) doesn't have to be non-profit. any realworld organization. Not necessarily restrictions. a place for Howard community college, Sawtry Community College. Any college, or external organization (as would a user) not affiliated with wikiversity that uses wikiversity. Any external organization that uses Wikiversity as a user. - Sidelight12 Talk 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Organizations already use Wikiversity for their online space, there's a list somewhere. I disagree with some of the uses Wikiversity is used for in these purposes. (that's another subject)- Sidelight12 Talk 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) We might want to rethink this. It might open a door we don't want to open. - Sidelight12 Talk 17:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Technical writing has a picture of a real world classroom based on wikiversity. - Sidelight12 Talk 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC) The other solution would be to have a learning project for the organization. They get one root page, and everything else goes below that. That's what I tried to do with the University of Florida content. It's not a great solution, but we're not seeing all of the engineering projects show up on random anymore. A similar approach would have been to move these all under an Engineering topic of some type, which would be fine, too. And because they are now organized, it's a relatively easy move to make if there's agreement to a different structure. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC) We already have that. The idea was to move the whole tree under user: - Sidelight12 Talk 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC) The issue of role accounts has come up, it's not uncommon. The question of resources here with titles that refer to institutions has come up. Howard Community College is a real school. However, the Wikiversity schoolspace was not designed to list real-world schools or organizations. Nor was resource space (mainspace) designed for that. I think Sidelight's suggestion has merit. Basically, we would allow role accounts, especially for schools, but also for other verifiable real-world organizations. We would use categories to identify them. We would ask a role account to have one or more designated responsible registered users, who would be real-name identified (that should be easy to verify, in fact; a real school has a phone number and a way to solidly verify that someone actually represents the school. The authorized users would be able to manage that user space. We would ask them not to edit the project under the role account name, only to manage the user space. As I think about it, many possibilities come up for improving Wikiversity through this. The whole tree might not be moved. We'd want an actual course to stay in mainspace, as long as anyone can participate. However, if the instructor at HCC wants to draft a course, using his or her existing class and students, yes, that could be done in the user space, and the instructor, being authorized by HCC, would allow it, and then, when that course is complete, it could be moved to mainspace. We have not paid adequate attention to the management of resources. The wiki model, heavily influenced by Wikipedia, doesn't trust management, thinks of it as control and as being oppressive. However, human societies depend on management, though that's a whole philosophical discussion; suffice it to say that even anarchist and liberatarian organizations find it necessary, as they grow, to develop management structures. If the culture underlying the management is open and inclusive, so too, the management will be so, though we need guard against "power corrupts." There are ways to do that. No, it would not need to be a nonprofit organization. Sometimes, following Wikipedia, we go nuts about conflict of interest, but the big problem with conflict of interest is when it is not disclosed. And then they go crazy about identifying sock puppets. I wish I had a penny for every editor hour wasted on this. As I've suggested, role accounts would be not only disclosed, but might be routinely verified. (However, we might also only verify if some issue arises needing it. If there is no conflict, no problem.) So some diploma mill, for-profit, wants to set up a role account here? I've seen real issues with for-profit schools on Wikipedia, and they were resolved when the President of the school actually identified himself and participated in discussions, and cooperated. I think he fired his SEO contractors from Africa. And he got an article out of it. Sure, the article was in places critical! But last I looked, it was fair, the school was a real school. To me, the issue is whether or not the intention is to build resources here, and why the user wants to do this isn't actually our business. We might develop a special guideline for role accounts to handle the issue of spam. Again, we go crazy about spam, but the truly general spam problem is that spam is indiscriminate. Hey, if Hunter wants to have a Hunter account here (I forget what it's actually called, they are always linking to youtube videos on fans), maybe with a link in user space to a preferred entry point to find out about them, what, exactly is the problem? We might have a no-follow tag on the page, but as soon as that user page exists, we'd have a place to complain about Hunter spam! And a real company to complain to! Does Hunter want some good publicity here? I'd bet that they have employees who could create some educational resources. -- Even if they are just a sales company, they have experienced sales people who could create resources on Sales, a standard business topic. Now, I've often invited spammers, where it seemed like they might have something to contribute, to register an account, and use it within policy. None have ever accepted, so far, but, it remains possible, and the first previous-spammer who accepts would blaze a trail. However, we tend to think of Spammers as one step up -- or down -- from Evil Destroyer of All That is Good and Proper. Same with Vandals, when many (most?) Vandals are children, simply playing, because they can. I've proven that it's possible to guide certain kinds of vandals. With children, I have a bit of experience (I have seven children, six grandchildren so far, there will be a *lot* more), we are advisedly Firm *and* Kind. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC) How about Attendance/Howard_Community_College/fall2012/p3-503-ff. The root resource is Attendance, a project to identify students attending class, real-world, probably by face recognition hardware and software, or a credit card scanner or USB memory stick reader. It's really an engineering project, misnamed and categorized, all in good faith. A lot of HCC stuff has presented problems like this. Yet they are doing really valuable work. Our job is not to make them wrong, but to develop guidelines so that they will know what to do, so supporting them will be efficient. As part of the work of WV:Curriculum committee -- all users are invited to join in that process -- let's look at what HCC has done and consider how it can be placed in Wikiversity structure, with a view toward developing and improving guidelines. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not closed. Still needs an answer. I'd do it myself, but everyone would object, and accuse me of trying to take over the project. No action happens when something is brought up here. There is hardly any other participation here. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion templates

Please watch and use w:Template:Wikiversity-t (for talkpage discussions) and w:Template:Wikiversity-c (for custom resource link texts) from Wikipedia. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This comment is a continuation of a recent discussion that was archived at [1]. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is resolved. People just need to make use of these templates, before someone at Wikipedia decides to nominate them for deletion for lack of use. Talk can be carried to those templates. Or a new thread may continue here. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion thread may also continue here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion templates

Please watch and use w:Template:Wikiversity-t (for talkpage discussions) and w:Template:Wikiversity-c (for custom resource link texts) from Wikipedia. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This comment is a continuation of a recent discussion that was archived at [2]. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is resolved. People just need to make use of these templates, before someone at Wikipedia decides to nominate them for deletion for lack of use. Talk can be carried to those templates. Or a new thread may continue here. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion thread may also continue here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Upload file tool

Hi!

I have a question regarding our upload file tool. Usually when I upload a file it is non-commercial use only. But the last two uploads the choice of this designation shows the added parenthetical "(this file will be deleted)". As long as licensing is supplied and is appropriate the uploaded file should not be deleted. Why has this parenthetical phrase been recently added to the upload file tool? Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, choosing the non-commercial use only option tags (or at least appears to tag) the file with the nld template, meaning it is tagged for deletion after seven days. Can you provide a link to one of the last two uploads so I can see what it actually generated after the upload? I realize I could check your contributions here, just being lazy. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the latest File:Stephan's Quintet with annotation.jpg. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm far from expert, but I think that is a free file, it could go on Commons. It is not restricted to non-commercial use, to my knowledge. "Non-commercial use" requires a fair use rationale, which is why a deletion tag could be added. However, no deletion tag exists on that file. "Public domain" is free use, not Fair Use. Basically, the file information supplied by Marshall may be incorrect. Not in a way that would lead to deletion, though, unless by mistake and incaution.

Fair Use files require some actual usage with educational purpose to be kept. No usage was shown. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem. If you choose the non-commercial option, that just puts an {{nld}} tag in the file. You knew enough to go into the file after it was uploaded and add licensing information. Many users don't, which means their file will be deleted. So, how do we resolve this? What modifications can we make to the language on the Upload file page so that users know what to choose and what to add, and how do we properly indicate in the list what the results will be for the options they choose? We can change the language, and we can change the list. How do we improve it? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's some additional info: the file is in use for educational purposes as part of the lecture Intergalactic medium as the file indicates. I have put additional Wikipedia like info on fair use files, but this may not be necessary since the file usage list when checked shows it's for educational use. And, education is probably the number one reason for Wikiversity in the first place, with research being perhaps second. Wikipedia has to add more justification because their primary purpose is other than educational. Regarding the Commons Public Domain matter: I've had way too many Public Domain files from NASA deleted at Commons to send any more there. The White paper is published by NASA, the image without the annotations is already on commons. So here's the likely outcome if I upload it to commons: some deletionist looks at it, slaps a deletion tag on it for the annotations, I state factually it's from NASA which tells users the copyright status or not, usually not, meaning it's PD definitively, and the file gets deleted from Commons anyway. I see no reason to waste effort uploading any file to commons unless it is way beyond reasonable doubt that it's PD. And I still do upload some there occasionally. Since I'm using it educationally, the best place for it is here. On the wording matter, that's a lot tougher! The new phrase was probably added to get uploaders to put licensing info on it to reduce the likelihood that it would be deleted. This is good. The image and info that comes up before licensing info is added states: "This file needs copyright and/or license information by February 19, 2014 to remain at Wikiversity.", where the date is for my example above. The parenthetical could just say "(licensing info prevents deletion)" or "(licensing info increases retention)", though there may not be enough space. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not load files to Commons immediately, until they are used here. I had assumed that NASA images would be public domain. That may not be accurate. I looked on Commons for files of yours, deleted, and saw several things. First of all, the SOHO release only covers non-commercial usage. So it is not "free." The problem may be that SOHO is an ESA/NASA, so rules that apply to U.S. governmental work may not apply. So ... Fair Use is correct for SOHO images. [3] shows a different result. This was simply a NASA image.

It seems to me that I've seen cases of images moved to Commons from here, the local image being deleted, and then the Commons image was deleted because some license problem was then discovered. When a Commons image is deleted, the delinker both removes links to it, which will show up on a watchlist of the user who used the file. We may also want to watch the contributions of the bot. Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the deletion language from the list until we can figure out something better. But we do need to do something soon, as all of the engineering classes will start posting their project images shortly. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Conversation continued at Wikiversity talk:License tags. All interested please participate there. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

loss of images because of dependence on Commons

Looking at contributions of CommonsDelinker, I see this removal: [4]. That is a page in user space, but it was obviously part of a class being run by User:Leighblackall, a custodian. Leigh is still quite active. So a user used a file from Commons, in November, 2011. In February 2014, Commons decided this wasn't properly licensed, and deleted it. We have no copy of the file that we can claim Fair Use on. My knee-jerk reaction: Commons is not a repository of free use files, it is a repository of files that might be fair use. If we depend on Commons, we lose the opportunity to claim Fair Use. It might be possible to find that file, but it would be work.

The page is obviously a possible WV resource, but Leigh, at that time, had his students creating pages in user space, and apparently they stayed there. We have other professors running projects in user space. That conflicts directly with the possibility of Fair Use for anything long-term. (I argued for allowing Fair Use in user space, but that's one of the few deletion debates I "lost," back then, it would require a change in our EDP, and some feared that the WMF would object. That's not clear, but ... it simply is not important enough to push.)

What this seems to be leading me to is that we should not use Commons files, we should create local copies. That way, we have control, if a file is deleted, we can still claim Fair Use and keep it. I am not liking this thinking.

What could make more sense is that if a Commons file is used on Wikiversity, we'd be notified if the file is to be deleted, and we'd be given an opportunity to transfer the file. That file could be automatically transferred by CommonsDelinker, I think that bot might be capable of doing that. The file would be tagged with appropriate categories to ensure review for fair use or deletion here. If there is some sentiment here for this, I might bring it up on Commons. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one, this one is easy to fix: [5]. What may be the same file is used on Wikipedia. [6] This may be true for very many of the files being removed by CommonsDelinker. We may almost certainly claim Fair Use, no problem, for any file used on Wikipedia, and used in a resource here.

• Now, this is really ironic. The Scream is used on many user pages on Wikipedia. I think some of those users are administrators. Those are all violations of Wikipedia EDP policy, almost certainly. Who knew? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this and bringing it to my attention User:Abd.

At the time, and still today, I use this issue into teachable moments. The learning goes something like this:

1. Students typically can't find the images they want on Commons so they upload an image and offend copyright, resulting in deletion
2. They experience deflation and agitation, but through tuition come to realise they didn't follow due diligence.
3. At this point they either create and upload another file but within regulations, or look harder for an image on Commons. I encourage them to browse featured images, and other methods for identifying more reliable files.

The point I'm making is that all this is important learning process. Abd, you might be more concerned with the integrity of a finished product? I can understand that, but for me at least, it's a process learning space more than resource repository, and disruptive edits like this trigger teachable moments. Leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The example I found does not match the "learning" described. Apparently, this file was found on Commons by our student. The assumption is being made (and encouraged) that the files on Commons are Free Use. It was two years later that the file was deleted on Commons. The deletion "discussion" contains very little information readable by ordinary humans.[7]. Okay, I looked up FoP. It means commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. This was a set of images taken by a single person ("David O.," perhaps, whoever that was). These images may have been of a scene that included a building. The architecture could be considered copyrighted, so the picture taken is called a "derivative work." Laws vary all over the world on this. I read the FoP page as allowing the file, for the U.S. So the deletion might have been improper, but I'm certainly not an expert. Are the Commons deletion closers experts? Maybe. They would certainly be familiar with copyright arguments, but might hold, shall we say, overly conservative positions. This was a case where most normal people would say, "whoever took the photo, it's their work and they can release it." "No FoP in US" is an incomplete argument, the fact apparently depends on details not stated. Mangoman88 uploaded quite a few files that are hosted on Wikipedia under Fair Use, such as w:File:2002 Winter Olympics logo.svg.

Basically, if we use a file from Commons, we foreclose on the possibility of a later claim of Fair Use, unless we can get a copy of the file somehow. It's possible to request the file from a Commons administrator, but ... without being able to see it, we don't even know if it is worth the effort. Commons is unreliable as a source of "free use images," that's the problem. The Commons process doesn't allow the other wikis, where Commons files have been used, the opportunity to review deletion requests. There is no notice here that a file we are using is about to be deleted, so that we can copy it locally if needed.

How much of an issue is this? I don't know yet, I'm researching it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Leigh. No, I am most concerned about the educational process. While you may have a motive, with your students, of teaching them to handle license issues, including assessing the reliability of a Commons file, in this case the file had lasted on commons for a substantial period, though I can't easily tell. Commons files have been deleted after years. For our general purposes, users here should be able to assert fair use for a file, and may reasonably -- and erroneously -- expect that a file on Commons is "free use," though the case here shows that Commons is not what Commons represents itself as. (The main page: "a database of 20,219,734 freely usable media files...." Really? Apparently not!) To be reliable, Commons would need process that it does not have. It is also possible, by the way, that the Commons deletion was improper. We really don't know and can't necessarily tell. If a file is uploaded to Wikiversity, any Wikiversity sysop can see it, even if it is deleted.

I have been making the point in discussions on Fair Use, that use in our process is educationally fair use. Could a student show a slide of an image in a class presentation? (I've certainly seen it commonly. We should not at all encourage copyright violation, but for a user to claim fair use does protect the WMF, as long as the purpose of the use is not clearly bypassing copyright or harming the copyright owner. The legal precedents on this are clear.) So I would argue that we could allow fair use in user space, at least for a time. I'm suggesting that files outside the ordinary EDP, but with a fair use claim, either asserted by the user or by another user, be allowed temporarily, and with necessary templates showing the file as Fair Use, machine readable, and we are working on that. It's complicated, because we must interface with and respect WMF policy, which was not written with educational process in mind, but only what you call "content." We may do this by various means, even not changing our Exemption Doctrine Policy.

Are you moving those student resources into mainspace? Fair use is allowed in mainspace. The solution here could have been for the file to be uploaded to Wikiversity, so that Fair Use may be alleged and the file kept. Preventing the usage of the file is not our general answer, it is creating clear instructions to file uploaders, and there are other possible responses to this situation. Thanks again. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one: Martian_Ionosphere_MARSIS_release_4.jpg, "it has been deleted from Commons by Jameslwoodward because: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martian Ionosphere MARSIS release 4.jpg." This one was in Radar astronomy. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can find the file, you can upload it to Wikiversity, use it, and claim Fair Use. The commons arguments over copyright sometimes give me a headache, and it's really only necessary for Commons because of the claim of "free content" there. We have an EDP and I'm sure that file can have a Fair Use, so these arcanities about file copyright, much of which seems speculative and inferential, simply become irrelevant. If the file is free use, it could be back on Commons, and the fair use rationale here could be claimed *in addition to a claim of free use."

Indeed, we might set up a standard disclosure for that. "In the event that the license to this file is found to be defective, fair use is claimed based on [page], and the Fair Use template should be restored to this page.

This is the fact: it is untenable to have to discuss every file, and untenable to trust our resources to deletionists who don't care at all about educational quality. Users coming here from off-wiki who want to "help" can certainly do so, but we need to have procedures in place to avoid disruption. If they want to pour over details of file licensing, that's fine with me. Let them tag the files as they wish, and let us have efficient procedures for handing compliance with WMF policy and maintaining the quality of resources.

And we need to, it seems, resist the moving of files off to Commons. People want to copy files there, fine. It's deleting the local file that is a problem. I can see no sane reason to delete the file locally. It's not going to save disk space. If the Commons file is improved, the local file can be renamed, and a resource will then automatically be pointing to the Commons version. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was able to find and locate a copy and uploaded it here with a changed name. I am using close to a thousand images for the course: principles of radiation astronomy. About half a dozen have disappeared from commons. On the one hand I'm tempted to start keeping a copy here with fair use and a changed name even for those that NASA states are free of copyright. Some of the others were on commons for years until I used them. Then, they were deleted. Unless there is consensus against archiving in-use images here, I will start to do so with appropriate licensing just in case. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a conservative approach. The down side, increased storage space. However, what my research shows, below, is that Commons process is utterly unreliable. A file can seem totally proper, but someone comes up with an unexpected argument that cannot be conclusively refuted, and so the file is deleted. And that can take years, before it happens. Commons has no process for ensuring that their "free content" is actually free. It's quite like Wikipedia, which has no process for actually insuring that content is neutral and verifiable. It has processes which sort-of work, much of the time, that's all.

You could use the same license rationale as is used on Commons, if you copy the file here. That's easy. Or you could claim Fair Use, and you can, as I suggest above, do both. If the Commons file is deleted, then, it has no effect on our process, a separate deletion would be needed here. A human can, then, review the situation here, and we can set up categories to make this process relatively efficient and reliable. This is all part of what we are working out with the Licensing discussion, because having a generic process that anyone can use is far better than a free-for-all that then wastes a great deal of time, with little benefit. We would reserve discussion, then, for difficult situations where there is no ready consensus. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Research

I have archived this to history,[8] because it adds too much text to this page. Summary:

• Maybe 1000 edits per year from CommonsDelinker. (which also handles file renaming)
• Template:PD-self was damaged in 2011. Fixed, but more attention is needed to process.

--Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Universal Language Selector will be enabled by default again on this wiki by 21 February 2014

On January 21 2014 the MediaWiki extension Universal Language Selector (ULS) was disabled on this wiki. A new preference was added for logged-in users to turn on ULS. This was done to prevent slow loading of pages due to ULS webfonts, a behaviour that had been observed by the Wikimedia Technical Operations team on some wikis.

We are now ready to enable ULS again. The temporary preference to enable ULS will be removed. A new checkbox has been added to the Language Panel to enable/disable font delivery. This will be unchecked by default for this wiki, but can be selected at any time by the users to enable webfonts. This is an interim solution while we improve the feature of webfonts delivery.

You can read the announcement and the development plan for more information. Apologies for writing this message only in English. Thank you. Runa

Amendment to the Terms of Use

Hello all,

Please join a discussion about a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing and we encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please translate this statement if you can, and we welcome you to translate the proposed amendment and introduction. Please see the discussion on Meta Wiki for more information. Thank you! Slaporte (WMF) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot not running

ArchiveBot (contributions) has not run since April and may have been broken before that, for example, (User talk:Sebmol has not been archived since 16 September 2011. In the absence of a running bot, we may need to manually archive the Colloquium or other supposedly archived pages. The archive page month (in the name) would be the month of last signed contribution. I'll do this when I have time, but wanted to note this here first. I have pinged Sebmol talk, and if there is no response, will follow up with email, or anyone can. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This was already noted here, and the Colloquium has been archived manually since then. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Has anyone attempted to contact Sebmol? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not beyond the posts here and your post on Sebmol's talk page. I wasn't interested in trying to drag someone back into Wikiversity if they've moved on. The automatic archiving was convenient, but it's not a big hassle. From a coding point of view, whatever is necessary to write an archiving bot would be more work than the archiving itself is, at least at this point. But you've had contact with Sebmol in the past and have a better perspective on how to proceed in that regard. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sebmol has been seriously inactive now, more than two years. There is now steward policy establishing two years of inactivity, that will at some point trigger a notice to his talk page and a notice to the community to hold a discussion about removal. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• We have had some recent activity archiving the Colloquium faster than the 18 day period represented on the page. There is little harm in going longer than 18 days, and some harm archiving faster. Some people don't get email and don't check watchlists more often than once a week or two. If we find that the Colloquium becomes overfull, we can reduce that time, but it hasn't been overfull. Note that stale discussions are not "closed." Anyone can effectively un-stale them by commenting in them. If someone does so without making any new contributions, and extends the time unreasonably, we can address that by explicit closes, allowing 18 days then for the close to be challenged. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)