Forum:DB:New policy concerning Inactive admins/mods/chat mods

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > DB:New policy concerning Inactive admins/mods/chat mods

It has been brought to my attention that some people here have an issue with the open endedness of our inactive admins/mods still retaining their user rights. So in conjunction with J and and with input from Sig and Agent C we have come up with the following policy change to take effect October 16, 2012.:

“Inactive admins/moderators will have their user rights removed by the bureaucrats and restored by a community vote upon a return to constructive editing.

• Definition of inactive is 6 months of a lack of editing.
• Definition of inactive for rights removal is 9 months of a lack of editing.”

An message will be left on all inactive admin/mods talk pages informing them of the situation. After that anything can happen. They will have until the 16th to respond.--Kingclyde (talk) 00:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I did just talk this over with Kingclyde in chat and have approved of this new policy. Jspoel 00:44, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

This seems fair enough to me. Allows for us to keep our lists from growing too large down the road, and it still allows for them to have their rights returned upon request. Don't see the harm in that. ^{Some Assembly Required!}

This is a surprise. I had similar intentions I discussed with you in the chat, to be brought up before the community and discussed then voted on. The big difference is that the administrators who are deemed inactive (Jspoel and I set up a cut-off line of January 2011) will have their rights removed and they will have to work for them again upon their return. This is going a step further, and I believe it is a necessary step. The wiki has changed and they cannot remain in the past, but must prove themselves that they are valuable to October 2012 Nukapedia, not 2010 Vault. --Skire (talk) 00:49, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I kinda thought a vote on this one was perhaps more appropriate as it is just 4 of us, rather than the larger group that supported the image limit changes (which what a rule removal rather than a change in user rights).... but the policy change seems to be in the right direction Agent c (talk) 00:54, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I had previously spoken with SigmaDelta about the discussion forum to be set up, in response to the lengthy absences of inactive staff members. This seems to have skipped several steps, including the change of initial premise of the new policy so returning users may have their rights returned; this, I feel, has completely nullified the purpose and intent of removing rights of inactive staff. These should be removed due to a lack of dedication, no knowledge of the current policies and regulations, by letting them return with rights at any time they request it adds and unknown to the otherwise known system. We simply can not have unfit staff members in such positions, especially with a clear lack of dedication to the wiki. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 01:04, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Who is unfit? The only Administrator I really had a problem with when it came to their edit quality was Nukey. And he's gone now. ^{Some Assembly Required!}

If a staff member is not dedicated any more, lacks knowledge of current policies, regulations and is out of touch with the community they are simply not fit for their rights. If they applied now, to an administrative position, then their request would be turned down faster than David Bowie in a metal concert. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 01:19, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

What exactly classifies someone as inactive? Is it still one month without an edit as the tom thumb law has always been? ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 01:14, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Good question, Jspoel and I decided on a January 2011 cut-off line. Anyone who wasn't active before that is to be considered formally "inactive". That's a more-than-generous threshold, I believe. --Skire (talk) 01:16, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

That's the "you haven't done squat so I'm removing your rights" cutoff time. I'm talking about what it takes to get the "inactive" label over your head. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 01:47, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that has been formally discussed upon yet. Typically the inactive label was added at the Split, or afterwards as a result of the admin being placed under "inactive admins" due to extended periods of inactivity. --Skire (talk) 01:54, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

As well as when I go 16 days without an edit and try to add the active label back anyways, right? ;) ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 02:00, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I think it's around a month for most people. For me, it's around that. And the active label isn't that significant, it can be removed at any time. --Skire (talk) 02:05, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is why this is left in the hands if the bc's. It seems a lot of people here seem to think they know who is fit or unfit for this or that. What really makes them qualified for that? J and I made a Jan 2012 cut off but i did not include that as 6 months kinda covers that doesn't it?--Kingclyde (talk) 01:22, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Inactive is listed above as 6 months or more.--Kingclyde (talk) 01:23, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Why is this left in the hands of the bc's again? I'm not too excited with the process being skipped out here. And the cut-off J and I discussed earlier was a year longer, which means left people whose rights will be lost. And TBH, this is very unnecessary, IMO, as why/how would they need their rights when they are inactive anyway? --Skire (talk) 01:27, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ok let's review

• How is this left in the BC's hand's again?

To be honest, some of these admins have been here longer than any of you and the community has already had their say. Not to mention this is the first thing the BC's have done outside of anything else.

• The cut-off you and J discussed was longer.

Yes but 6 months is the base standard and the year time frame you discussed is also covered in that time frame. Simple mathematics.

• And TBH, this is very unnecessary, IMO, as why/how would they need their rights when they are inactive anyway?

What?

• I'm not too excited with the process being skipped out here.

Your original idea that you brought to me was to bring up a vote of confidence for these inactive admins. That in my opinion is out of line as they cannot defend themselves. A vote of confidence is one and the same as a reconfirmation vote. And those are for people who have done something wrong. These inctive admins/mods/chatmods have already passed community muster once and should not have to do it again. You the people elected us as bc's. I would assume you would accept our good judgement in certain matters.--Kingclyde (talk) 01:43, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

They passed a communities muster... But is it the same community? Ultimately out in the real world we resolve this with a length of service and new vote - No, I'm not calling for admins to be reconfirmed every so often, but ultimately there is a proceedure if the community loses faith in a admin. With inactive admins, it may just be that there's almost noone where from that era, and thus do not have the communities faith and trust at the point of their return. I'm all for a fast track process to say "hey, remember me", but aren't too keep on the cutting out of the community bit. Agent c (talk) 01:50, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, some of these admins have been here longer than any of you and the community has already had their say. Not to mention this is the first thing the BC's have done outside of anything else.

• That was the then-community, this is now. It has nothing to do with how long they were here.

Yes but 6 months is the base standard and the year time frame you discussed is also covered in that time frame. Simple mathematics.

• My time frame is more definitive, and allows many active admins at the Vault to retain their rights here. It is longer too, so only the really ancient admins will be affected.

And TBH, this is very unnecessary, IMO, as why/how would they need their rights when they are inactive anyway?

• What will this achieve? Inactive people do not need their rights (because they're not here) and once they come here they will simply get them back. It seems rather pointless to me.

I'm not too excited with the process being skipped out here. Your original idea that you brought to me was to bring up a vote of confidence for these inactive admins. That in my opinion is out of line as they cannot defend themselves. A vote of confidence is one and the same as a reconfirmation vote. And those are for people who have done something wrong. These inctive admins/mods/chatmods have already passed community muster once and should not have to do it again. You the people elected us as bc's. I would assume you would accept our good judgement in certain matters.

• Yes I trust the judgement of the bureaucrats but that is not an excuse for skipping proper policy-creating processes, especially over something that could be controversial. A vote of confidence is not the same as a reconfirmation vote. This is not a trial. It is a necessary measure to ensure efficiency and high-quality administration (i.e. an administration up-to-date and in-touch with the community, as other have said before). There is no need for defence, they have been absent for a very long time - res ipsa loquitur. If they genuinely actually wanted their rights, they wouldn't have left for more than a year. --Skire (talk) 01:52, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Clyde and I discussed this also. The points I made were that admins/mods do not need another vote to regain their rights on return and that a reasonable time be decided on for inactive status. I'm perfectly OK with 6mo/12mo. Upon return, any admin/mod that wishes a return of their rights will have a "fast track process". They'll have to appeal to a BC for their rights return. Look at this realistically. How many of the current group of inactive (by the new measure) admins/mods do you really think are going to come back? Now think about this: how many of the currently active group, yes, I'm talking to all of you right now, may take some time off? When you come back, do you feel it's fair to have to endure another rights request vote? Anybody wants another rights request, let me know. I'm sure the inactive folks wouldn't think it fair either. The Gunny   02:17, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Why are active admins being compared to inactive ones? Especially, according to what I prefer, 22-month long inactive admins? The difference is that active ones have shown as continuous care and attention for the wiki, contributing and participating in the community. Inactive ones, by our January 2011-cut off definition, have taken an absence long enough to show that they clearly do not put in that care for the wiki any more. And having them make another request makes up for the absence, as well as more importantly, learn more about the changed wiki, and build their skills accordingly. The wiki has changed a lot since then, and they must be able to prove their worth to this wiki, not the wiki then. --Skire (talk) 02:36, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I'm comparing currently inactive admins to admins that may be inactive in the future. How would you feel if you took a year off for school, came back to help with FO4 and had to go through a vote again, with all new people you didn't know? I'm trying to be as fair as possible, here. The Gunny   02:55, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

What about me? I'll be leaving soon, and I'll be forced to be away from the community for the most part of 4-5 years. ;__; ^{Some Assembly Required!}

Leon, if you come back and make a single edit every year, you would not be on the list. The current list Jspoel and I had compiled contains only admins who have not made an edit in the past 22 months. So it is over a year, Gunny, and normal circumstances shouldn't render it impossible to even make a few edits during that time. I understand you position now and I respect it, but I am also trying to be as fair as possible - they earned their rights then, and upon their return they must earn them again, to prove that they are fit to serve the wiki now. In other words, they can be considered regular users when they return from their extensive hiatus, as the the changes to the wiki have been that significant since 22 months ago. --Skire (talk) 03:00, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

(←) That's your view and you're welcome to it, Sig. I disagree. I for one would hate to see an admin, like Leon just above, that leaves in good graces to pursue real life, get punished for not being able to contribute. The community of the future should assume good faith, shouldn't they? If Leon has made no bad acts, and has left to be in the Navy for some time, why should that be held against him? Just like I feel we should now assume good faith that returning admins/mods from the past still deserve the rights they worked so had for. The Gunny   03:08, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that won't be a problem. I'd just hate to come back one day to find out that my rights and reputation were struck from the records while I was gone, and then having to throw up a vote in a community that doesn't know who in the hell I even am. People have short memories. :P ^{Some Assembly Required!}

I have no stance on this formed yet. But it sounds a bit improper to me to consider the removal of rights of inactive as a punishment, since userrights aren't rewards in the first place. Since we are supposed to give them based on need, not only qualification, it seems to me removing them due to lack of need a matter of consistency, if anything else. Neither we have need for inactive staff, nor they have need for such rights, after all. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:13, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think we all know how I feel about the consistency argument. ;) In a ways though, it is a sort of punishment. The Administrators we're talking about possibly removing their rights were of inferior quality. (No offense to them, they were just needed when this wiki was first created. Many of them hardly had any article edits or knowledge on sentence structure.) These days, however, we're much more nitpicky on who we want as the leadership here. (Let's not fool ourselves. We say that these extra rights are merely extra tools to take advantage of, but in reality, it determines who the power players are.) So to have rights taken away simply because a user is caught up in real life seems a tad ridiculous to me, especially if said user put a lot into making the wiki as great as it is. But think about it long term: You return, with a new community in place. No one recognizes your talents, and it also looks bad when you have it on your record that you had rights removed. All the sudden, you're just a lowly user again that no one respects; forcing you to start entirely over. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:51, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I've considered this before. I remember an extremely old admin becoming active a while ago, (He had Justin Bieber as his avatar, I'm not sure of his name but he didn't seem to know what he was doing.) The point was brought up, how likely are those people to come back? Besides, back in the old days of the site, admins weren't not held to a standard as strict as they are now. If an inactive admin wants to come back, and contribute to our current site, he needs to be brought back to speed, and set up a poll. I'm sure with dedication they wouldn't have a problem getting it.-- 06:06, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Besides, on the Wiki Promote (new feature if you haven't seen) states that on Wikia.com we have admins like Ausir (!), Porter21, Gothemasticator etc. So, I assume that similar issues can be made.

And if an admin lost his rights due to inactivity, he can still have them. Energy X ∞ 19:52, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

But in my opinion, if the b'carts would do that, it would be at least fair to leave a message to their talk page to let them know if they want to be an admin again, they should ask. Energy X ∞ 19:55, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I have a technical question. What about them? --Theodorico (talk) 20:06, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

They practically have admin rights (or mod rights), so it should be as well. Energy X ∞

Mine hasn't, it's just a bot. --Theodorico (talk) 20:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I thought that the user has to be inactive to have his bot stipped off the rights. Well, if a user is active (but bot isn't), then no rights removal is neccesary (Who knows when are you going to need it?). Energy X ∞ 20:32, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is understood. But, bots do have their own specific user rights, independently from the user rights of their owners. Something tells me, that an outdated bot can give a good competition to an outdated admin. Should bots keep the "bot flag", if their owners are considered inactive (even if owner isn't an admin/mod/c.mod)? --Theodorico (talk) 15:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the bots, and there are a few that are not being used. I'll discuss this with Clyde and Js. The Gunny   01:28, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Well I think there seems to be a divide in which option to go with amongst the community. Could I suggest (later on) we create a multi poll with 3 options: The above proposed, my proposal (shared with others), and retaining the status quo. --Skire (talk) 22:09, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor point... The inactivity limit may not work for chatmod. Agent c (talk) 23:36, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand, when did chat mod even become an issue? --Skire (talk) 23:54, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

The policy applies to all ranks, not just admins. Agent c (talk) 23:56, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that may be what you see fit, but I myself do not care about chat mods in this respect. Everything I have said thus far pertains to admins only, as only their rank is significant enough for all this to be done. --Skire (talk) 23:59, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Just from a comment in chat, other than the voting proceedure, this seems to be the only other valid method for rules to be added.

Aside from the normal procedure, the administrators may "decree" policies or guidelines. This should only be done with consensus among administrators and in cases where community consensus cannot be reached but a policy or guideline is needed. Of course, changes to decreed policies and guidelines can be suggested by anyone on the "standard" way above.

As there is no Admin consensus on what the content of the rule should be, I think we're forced to a community vote. Agent c (talk) 00:22, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps after a bit more discussion here we can move to that phase. --Skire (talk) 00:23, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

The policy isn't in effect, but Kingclyde already began implementing it? _Tagaziel ^(call!) 08:57, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

He told the inactive admins about this, so the response should be soon. Energy X ∞ 10:20, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

He already removed Game Widow's rights. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 10:52, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Game widow stated that he (Or she?) will contribute at Curse (see talk page). Energy X ∞ 11:38, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Ahem... The policy is to take effect no sooner than October 16, 2012. So, strictly speaking, Game Widow was punished for collaboration with the Vault. --Theodorico (talk) 16:56, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  Its not a punishment, as user rights arent a reward; and BW's comment has been taken as meaning they do not intent to reuse their rights here, a voluntary surrender. Agent c (talk) 17:08, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, "punished for collaboration with the Vault"? --Skire (talk) 18:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

The policy is in effect, this was a discussion board for it. That is why there were tweaks to it. The date of implementation is the date of the two week time frame that the inactive admins have to respond to the messages left on their talk pages. If they do not respond on that date their rights will be removed. Game Widow as well as Clean Up as they both responded to the messages stating that they do not wish to edit and keep their rights. As such their rights were removed sooner. Clean Up did state he may return when Fallout 4 comes out and is willing to reapply for admin right if he feel he needs them. And Theodorico, don't you think if we were to punish people for "collaboration" with The Vault we would have done it after the split? If that's the case would Ghost ever been made a bc again? Come on man.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:05, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Since the two former admins in question responded in the way they did, I am fine with their rights being removed now. But I do not understand why the policy is in effect, since there is hardly any consensus on here that this is the policy to be enacted. If anything, both sides agree that the rights should be removed and what to do afterwards is the matter disagreed upon. And for that I'll look to set up a separate vote so we can gather consensus. --Skire (talk) 20:08, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  @ Sigma Yeap. Definition of punishment

1. Kingclyde is The Authority around here.
2. Game Widow lost sysop rights.
3. Offence: this one.
4. "removed as of responses on 10/03/2012" shows that Kingclyde deemed GW responsible for offence.

@ Kingclyde Please explain:

“So in conjunction with J and and with input from Sig and Agent C we have come up with the following policy change to take effect October 16, 2012.”

I'm not catching up. And where is it published?--Theodorico (talk) 20:34, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Theo, User rights are not a reward, nor is taking them a punishment. Game Widow surrendered his rights, not stripped. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Agent c (talk) 20:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC) @Theodorico Let see if you can wrap you head around this. Game Widow responded to my post by saying he worked for Curse (which means he no longer works here). How you see that as a offense that I punished him for us well strange but you insinuating that I am some kind of person who would blatantly remove someones rights as punishment, that is insulting and I recommend that you stop.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

• I'm working for my employer. Does this means that i'm not contributing here? Editing at the Vault is mutually exclusive with editing at the Nukapedia? Because i can't see formal request to remove GW's rights.
• If the policy is in effect, where's is it published? I can't find it. --Theodorico (talk) 21:03, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you cannot read what has been written above. His last edit was Nov 15, 2011 before the split. I am done talking with you.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:05, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I take it, that the policy exist only in this thread? It haven't been published nowhere in VA:P? --Theodorico (talk) 21:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

It wouldnt be until the implementation date, no. Agent c (talk) 21:36, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

So the policy isn't in effect, and isn't published. Then please explain this to me :

“The policy is in effect, this was a discussion board for it.”— Kingclyde to us all

“We have enacted a policy concerning all inactive admins/mods/chat mods who have not edited here in over 9 months.”— Kingclyde to Game widow

What in hell is going on in here? BC enforces unwritten policy? Or maybe i'm that stupid? --Theodorico (talk) 22:01, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Theo, I believe October 16th is the deadline for the individual admins' responses. If they do not respond by then, their rights will be taken away. Apparently the rest of the policy (i.e. the messages) is already active? --Skire (talk) 22:03, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

(←) 

“So in conjunction with J and and with input from Sig and Agent C we have come up with the following policy change to take effect October 16, 2012”— Kingclyde

--Theodorico (talk) 22:20, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I feel the need to say this. This topic needs to be moved to an official poll. It's obviously something that has been bothering some members. Comments will just keep coming and coming, so if we want to have an official say, please move it to a poll.-- ^{A Safe People is a Strong People!} 22:48, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Theo let's do a Q&A.

Q:

“

I take it, that the policy exist only in this thread? It haven't been published nowhere in VA:P? --Theodorico (talk) 21:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)”

A: According to what it says up there in the policy post, the date sure looks like October 16, 2012. "The following policy change to take effect October 16, 2012." If the inactives want to surrender their rights sooner, that is their prerogative.

Q:

“The policy is in effect, this was a discussion board for it.”— Kingclyde to us all

A: The BC's decided it was prudent to give the current inactives 2 weeks notice of the new policy so we decided to leave them messages informing them of thus. After the two week period if we do not hear a response, their rights will be removed. Not sure how much clearer that can be made.

This is a pretty cut and dry case and the decision was made. We (the bc's) decided that this was the best way to do it as the other plan had issues similar to any plan. In any event what is done is done. Theo I would advise against continuing this argument as all you are doing is causing trouble and not adding anything constructive. Causing problems and being generally disruptive to the wiki is not tolerated here. Thanks.--Kingclyde (talk) 00:10, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

The vote is up by now. It really needs some input. Find it here. --Skire (talk) 19:10, October 10, 2012 (UTC)