Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Inactive administrators and moderators rule, time for a change?

Ok people. Here is the deal. The current policy is stated below

In the event that an administrator or moderator has been inactive for an extended period of time, they 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 six months of a lack of editing.
  • Definition of inactive for rights removal is nine months of a lack of editing.

This policy was created because people had an unreal fear that inactive admins would at some point in the future comeback and start vandalizing the wiki or possibly cause harm to the wiki. If you think hard about this it make no sense and is very paranoid. If indeed someone that was an inactive admin came back, vandalized let's say 10 pages before they were found out, the following would happen. The admin would be blocked by another admin, the pages would be fixed (reverted), and a bc would be notified to remove rights temporarily pending a review. That makes sense. But here in the whole history of The Vault/Nukapedia we have never had anyone do that. This policy was formulated out of pure paranoia. My proposal is to invalidate the second line of the policy. It is not needed and can simply be replaced transferal to the inactive list. We must also define constructive editing. In my opinion, constructive editing is forums, files and main space articles. Talkpages and blogs do not count. So I propose this:

In the event that an administrator or moderator has been inactive for an extended period of time, they 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 six months of a lack of constructive editing.
  • After nine months of inactivity the administrator or moderator will be moved to the inactive list.
Constructive editing is to be defined as editing of main space articles, main space article talk pages, file uploads, forum edits and template/maintenance article edits. Constructive edits do not include blog article responses and user talk page edits.

That should sum up the definition of constructive. Ok people. Discuss.--Kingclyde (talk) 00:25, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Comments[]

When the inactivity discussions first sprang up from the depths in which they originated in, I was under the belief that there is no such thing as too much volunteer help, and when the next Fallout game comes out, we are going to need as much help as we can muster up. I was also under the belief that it is wrong to remove someone's rights, as gaining the Special Rights means that they dedicated their time and proved their worth before, and by removing their rights, we are essentially making them prove themselves all over again if and should they choose to come back, which is absolutely unnecessary when it comes to volunteer work. The only exceptions I ever had is that I did believe we needed to remove those that were made Administrators even though they only had 100 or less edits, and I also believe that periodically, Special Rights holders should be exposed to yearly community reviews.

My opinion has not changed, even though I did vehemently protect this policy which was voted in and approved by the community. If the community chooses to remove this policy, then I will cast my support for such a motion, and will personally be glad to see it gone. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:33, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Well lets bear in mind the security incidents that have occurred... We had CrazySam go crazy shutting down chat, and a disgruntled former admin seized control of, and trashed, the Vault Facebook page. There is a legitimate security concern in giving people rights they no longer need.

However the current rule isn't working. The presumption people seem to have that editing means make at least 1 edit is being circumvented by people who just make a token effort to stave off the wolf. Agent c (talk) 01:20, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Then the wording of the rule needs to be made clear. Because as it's written now it leaves whether or not someone is inactive up to people's personal opinions. Great Mara (talk) 01:39, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

I would not really say there is ever a true security risk. Any actions of spite will be caught immediately, and in the case of extreme vandalism, Wikia Staff and VSTF have a tool that allows the nuking of ever edit a user or I.P. has made within the past hour/day/week/etc. But if we are to continue on with using an inactivity policy, then it definitely needs to be cleaned up. And the only way I can think of having this policy cleaned up is by adding a clause along the lines of should the community be in general agreement that a Special Rights user is inactive, that they are to be placed inactive and left a message. Should they heed the message and continue being active, they may move themselves back off. If they refuse to answer or do not make a certain amount of mainspace edits/important forum contributions, then the 9 month rules would once again apply.

Let me give an example: we have an Administrator named Beevus, and for 6 months he has made maybe a grand total of 300 edits, with most of those being blog comments and mainspace edits only adding a period or capitalizing a letter. Well, the community is going to notice. People are going to mention it in public or chat, just as they always have, and it will become a general understanding that they are not doing their part for the wiki. So since there is a general agreement, they are moved to an inactive status, and are left a message. Beevus says he will become more active, but 3 months later, has only contributed by spamming 600 mainspace edits, all of which are minor (adding one word here, a comma there kind of edits). At the end of 9 months, these edits are judged, and their rights are removed. The second clause will be that there is a moment of reconciliation - say, 2 weeks. In those 2 weeks after having their rights removed, a hearing can be started to defend themselves. Should the community still have faith in them after the hearing is over, an additional 3 months will be given until they truly do become active again.

Does this sound good? It is a rough concept - I know. I will continue thinking on this. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:47, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Why remove people's rights at all? The situation you describe sounds like misuse of administrative tools, and we have reconfirmation processes for that, pretty much exactly like you described. If someone is not making adequate contributions, that generally becomes self evident. There is a general consensus about who is active and who is not, I don't see any problem with moving someone to inactive and leaving them there indefinitely when their lack of activity becomes obvious. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:53, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
Read my original post: I believe we should do away with this entirely. But if we are to have one, I would like to go ahead and get proper ideas rolling so it is not complete shit like the current policy. So keep in mind that my primary proposal is to do away with it entirely. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:56, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I strongly believe we should do away with it entirely, based on the rationale above. I think that any policy we come up with will be too vague/specific/complex/unenforceable. Inactivity is an obvious characteristic, and in this case it's best to keep it simple and deal with an obvious issue in an obvious way. I supported this policy because it was a rule, but I really dislike the idea of removing extra-rights. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  02:01, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
Got to keep a balance of having rules, and making sure we do not bog ourselves down with Bureaucracy. In the case of inactivity, we know who is inactive or not. Having some policy in place only restricts us. I used this example in chat:
  1. Like being in the police-force, they are bogged down by red-tape on what they can and cannot do. An officer can know for an absolute fact that there might be a meth lab in some house, but are unable to get inside until acquiring a permit or provoking the home owner into doing something stupid, giving the officer a reason to break in lawfully. This gives the chance for those inside to catch onto the unwanted attention, and allows them to dispose of the evidence or escape.
  2. Or we can be like a neighborhood watch, which deals with situations as they pop up instead of waiting for the police. See a man sneaking around houses at night? We do not need evidence to confront him. We know they are doing something wrong, and so we do something about it right then and there. Yeah, we are still bound by certain rules. But it is much better this way as we do not have to jump through all of those loops just to call out something everyone knows is going on. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:08, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

Garoux's plan seems promising. It allows flexibility with enforcement while attempting to limit the potential for misunderstanding and bias. Overall it seems that we need to find the balance between an objective and interpretive definition of "inactive." What's for sure is that this policy absolutely should not be removed. Showing some basic care for the wiki whose community gave you extra rights is not a difficult thing, especially over the span over several months. I find myself in a very busy time, but I can still manage to check in on a daily basis, make some edits, and work on some long-term tasks/projects. Perhaps others are busier and can put in less, but it is not a steep requirement to demand some basic editing. Perhaps easier than defining inactivity is knowing what doesn't count as inactivity. Making a few edits once every few days, for example, shows some consistency and dedication to the wiki. It's quite simple: those who are trusted with extra rights must show a commitment toward to the wiki. Use 'em or lose 'em, it's not like a loss of rights is permanent at all. --Skire (talk) 02:31, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

What good does taking someone's rights away do? Not much if you ask me. Someone may depart our wiki only to return after a long period of time, only to find they have lost admin/patroller/chat mod rights. To me that can be a bit of a deterrent to coming back, as we are a community and that implies the community no longer supports you. I can't see where that's a good thing. To me abuse is the only real reason to remove rights, and in cases of abuse we have fail-safes in place to ensure a limited amount of damage. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  04:34, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
An understandable viewpoint, but not one I can agree with. Our reapplication process should make it rather easy if a former extra rights holder decides to return to regular activity again. It is certainly my hope that holding extra rights isn't the #1 incentive for returning to the wiki... Also, before implementation of the policy, we've had very few instances of old admins returning. The ones who did "return" left soon afterwards (bleep is a clear exception to this though). Perhaps we need to recognise that if someone leaves (as in do essentially nothing for a whopping nine months), they're probably gone for good. If they finally decide to come back, then can reapply after showing some commitment. Especially if they return after an extended period time, the community and many wiki policies and practices would have changed. --Skire (talk) 14:33, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

I have a question, well two technically. Will this definition of constructive editing apply to chat moderators as well or will they have their activity monitored in a different manner? If so, anyone have any ideas on what that would be? --MountHail (talk) 05:09, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Clyde, but I don't think so and I wouldn't support it if it did apply. Chat moderators are to moderate chat, and as long as that is being done I have no issues with a lack of mainspace editing. I also think there are enough chat-active admins and bureaucrats and admins who are more then capable of discerning chat mod activity, so a definitive activity policy on them isn't warranted. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  06:08, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought. It's definitely the logical approach to gauging chat moderator activity. Just brought it up for clarification, plus it's been mentioned several times when this topic was discussed. As for the ideas laid out here, I have no major issues with them and definitely feel like it's an update over our current policy. --MountHail (talk) 06:32, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Follower. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 06:32, April 24, 2014 (UTC)

I think, as probably the only Admin who has been inactive for an extended period of time and returned (other than Scar who is sporadic in terms of his availability to edit, much like myself) that I should put my weight into this discussion. I am of the same opinion as Garoux in the frame of inactivity. Admins, and other special rights positions are granted such rights because they have volunteered their time and energy to bettering our wiki in many ways. As someone who over the past 2-3 years has been taxed down with school work, emotional issues involving depression and anxiety, it has been difficult to maintain a constant presence here. I do what I can when I have time to here, and that's the best that I can do. I keep coming back because I love this place, I love the community, and I love contributing and furthering the structure and content of the wiki itself. It is my firm belief that because we are volunteers, and because we worked to earn the responsibility of special rights that they should not be removed because we end up having to spend a rather large period of time away from the wiki due to real life issues (because come on, we all have lives, jobs, and school to attend to and in the end this is an encyclopedia online and as important as it is to me in terms of the time and effort I've put in, it never will take precedence over the real world for me). I was inactive twice in the time I've been an admin, for almost a year between 2010 and late 2011 due to school issues, and then again from mid 2012 to later in the year due to starting college. I came back both times, because again I'm dedicated to the wiki and when I have time I'm always going to come back and edit.

Skire may be right, I'm a unique exception to the rule when it comes to returning Admins. However, considering the number of admins we've had in the time since the split and the implementation of this new policy, I don't think we can consider this the general rule. Since the split, we've had Energy, Skire, Kastera, Limmie, Tocinoman, TwoBears, Garoux, Paladin, and A Follower come into holding special rights as an admin. Now then, of those names, how many of them went inactive for a month or more? Kastera, Limmie, Tocinoman, Garoux, Energy, Skire, and Twobears have all had periods of inactivity. Why? Because life got in the way. The same is true for KingClyde as a BC, which blew up earlier this year in a reconfirmation request that clearly demonstrated that the community still had faith in him. Here is the thing, the inactivity policy is not an effective means by which to promote admin activity, because we all have real life issues to deal with, and I think the recent stir up surrounding 69's inquiries into peoples activities is part of the reason this has become such a big issue. We are in a stage where the wiki is not experiencing much growth, there is a little bit of turnover in terms of who is coming in and who is going out, and it's hard for even the admins to stay completely active right now, and yes I realize there is a huge amount of work that needs doing, but the thing is we can't do it alone, and the community isn't exactly bustling to help us do it. We're volunteers yes, but the wiki cannot be completely dependent on us to do all the editing necessary, as we are people with real lives and real issues that come up. Patroller's who are inactive come back, moderators and chat mods who are inactive tend to come back as well, so my question is why do we believe that if an admin goes inactive they aren't coming back? After all if they have put so much work into earning the responsibility of their rights don't you think they would come back to continue their contribution? ---bleep196- (talk) 22:26, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

There's inactive, and then there's inactive for rights removal. I do consider myself inactive right now even though I have never gone over 48 hours without checking in or making an edit every 72 hours. However, I don't think (or hope) that my rights need removal. However, if you're not here for three-quarters of a year, then that's a different story. You bleep, do not qualify for 6-months inactivity IMO. --Skire (talk) 22:31, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
At one point I was gone for a large chunk of the year (my memory about the large period where I was not present, e.g., between my Junior and senior year of high school, is fuzzy as I was going through a very rough period and I do not know the exact amount of time that I was not present, but I know it was in the ballpark of 5 or 6 months, may have been more. I became inactive after the split and came back way later) and while on the surface it may not seem like some people aren't around, they may check in regularly but may not have time to edit. Our definition of inactive is...at best sketchy and unreliable. We either need to bring it up to par and better define it or get rid of it totally. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:48, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

KISS proposal[]

As the person who usually has to actually apply this policy, let me be clear: I can't stand it. For two reasons, as others have stated above. 1. The definition of activity, which is something we're never going to agree on and is too convoluted to nail down. Any proposal that includes some kind of activity metric will not remove the problem in this policy for the simple fact that any metric will be subjective. 2. We're volunteers and should be able to contribute as we can. I never want people to feel that they have a quota to fill or anything like that. That's silly to me.

That being said, I understand and also agree with the need for some kind of proactive means to protect against abuse by long gone rights holders. If a person has completely left, is there any reasonable reason for them to still have rights? Not in my mind. Let me remind you all of the reason this policy was first brought up: To remove all the old, completely gone rights holders. The following proposal gives us the security of removing rights from long gone users, while removing the onus of quotas for current/future users and most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, is clear, unambiguous, and easy to define:

Rights holders that have been completely inactive, ie have not edited at all, or in the case of chat mods, have not entered chat, for a period of one year, will have their rights removed without notice.

This only targets folks who have completely left, proven that they have left for a long period and removes the entire notice/edit for a bit then go inactive again scenario. This is as simple as I can make it, and it only targets folks who have completely left, without us having to deal with figuring out what the hell "active" means. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 17:40, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly the simplest way I see it is removing it entirely. The only reason it became a big deal to remove the old Administration was over the fact that many of them had stopped contributing since The Vault was first founded back in 2005. And what made it even worse when comparing them to the new standards we have set is that most of the old Administration had less than 100 mainspace edits, since they were merely given rights due to Ausir bringing them over from Duck & Cover. Now that they are gone, I do not even see a personal issue with seeing people gone for a year or two so long as the community puts that opinion into place. When it does become a problem is when they are gone for nearly 10 years and have less edits than anyone else. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:45, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer 6months over 1 year, but that wording is clear, unabigious, and not open to interpretation. I like it. Agent c (talk) 17:46, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

@Chad @Leon, that's why I went with a year. I personally think this a decent middle ground between those who feel it should be shorter, and those who feel there should be none at all. After a year, you can pretty much assume the person is pretty much gone for good. And if they to come back, the moving yardstick of the community's expectations of contribution can be addressed, as they would have to apply again, and pass whatever yardstick is currently in place. Long enough to be sure they're completely gone, short enough to ensure their contributions are up to the current standard. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 17:53, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, I think it is a good middle-ground as well. I understand the other side and I am always up for compromise. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:56, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I think after that time passes, the user should be warned. If he/she wants to keep them, I suppose we can give them a month to prove how active they are, then it would be up to the bureaucrats to review that user and see if the user rights can be kept or given away. That's my suggestion. Energy X 21:28, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how changing the time is going to fix anything. Nine months is already more than enough (especially if 0 edits are being made) and changing this to a full year is not something I will support at all. --Skire (talk) 21:32, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I myself am a fan of this policy. I find the idea of quotas and such as stupid, and defining inactivity as frustratingly devisive and vague. The way I see it, if someone is just popping in once a year to edit or visit chat then you put in a reconfirmation request, and get the rights removed that way, if that's what is needed. No reason to over-complicate things with quotas, specific requirements for what is and is not "active". The way I see it, defining inactive as a lack of editing is stupid, I'd consider someone active if I saw them in chat, admin or otherwise. Richie9999 (talk) 04:02, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

A Follower's Catch-All Proposal[]

Let me start this by saying I don't understand why the use of the inactive list is not being considered more; it has a function, and conveys the information regarding activity. I also dislike the idea of removing rights at all, but there seems to be support for some failsafe so I'll address that as well. As for 'constructive editing', I fail to see how community participation is not constructive; it may not use extra-rights tools, but Finally, I want to be able to deal with people who make known their intention of departing permanently. Keeping all that in mind, here is a catch-all proposal I have been working on the past few days:

  • Extra rights users who do not display an intent to participate and contribute to the wiki will have their rights removed without notice.
    • Lack of intent is hereby defined as the verbal communication of an intention to permanently depart the wiki, or a 1 year absence from the wiki.
  • Extra-rights users with an evident, extended absence from the wiki will be moved to the inactive list by an administrator/bureaucrat. Instances of conflict will be resolved using the existing editing policies.

So what does this do? It defines a users intent, which is the most important factor. A year without editing is enough to show that there is little to no intent of returning. It also allows for a user to be moved to the inactive list if they are inactive without notice or sporadic, and cases of disagreement can be solved by our editing conflict policies. It also allows for rights removal of those who depart with an obvious intent of not returning. Is it perfect? No. But I think it has the potential to work.

Not to discount from this proposal, but I still think the abolishment of the policy in its entirety is the more favourable option. Feel free to discuss. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  02:57, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I like the "intent to participate" clause, but I will not settle for a one year absence -- that is ridiculously long. Also, what is an "extended absence" and what existing editing policies are you referring to? A single mediator? --Skire (talk) 03:03, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
That's why I included the qualifier 'evident'. I think the recent revisions made by Gunny recently qualify. As for the policy, I was referring to standard edit conflicts. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  03:54, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
I can't wait to see how many takes on "evident" our users will have =P Perhaps this policy was never meant to be. Now that we got rid of most of those old admins we should maybe just leave it lol. --Skire (talk) 04:10, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to see users who are clearly not active for significant lengths of time listed as inactive. As long as we have an accurate representation of our active extra-rights holders, whether or not they retain the rights is not really an issue for me. Like I said, abolishment and unofficial enforcement may be the best way to go. We could also look into putting the matter into the hands of bureaucrats, but I don't really think that's a fair way to go. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  04:31, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay. I think this takes a step in the right direction with the "intent to participate" clause. My question is the following: what if a user knows in advance that he/she will be gone for longer than the arbitrary length of time defined in the policy, but states the full intent of returning after that extended absence before he/she leaves? I am actually talking about myself. When I attend the Naval Academy beginning July 2015, I may or may not be placed in a company that does not allow its plebes (freshmen or 4th class midshipmen) to have or use any media that isn't necessary for the completion of schoolwork. As a result, I would be away from the wiki until May or June 2016, which would be an absence of 10 or 11 months, barring brief returns for two weeks around Christmas and 1 week in the spring. Seeing as 1 year probably won't fly with the community (most people I've seen like it at 9 months), would the stated intent to return at a specified time by a trusted user who has had an active presence for years already be enough to retain rights a little past the deadline? Loopholes like this come up, and it's hard to write rules that cover them. That's why I'm asking now, for both myself and others. Toci Anchor Don't give up the ship! Toci Anchor 05:30, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated above, as long as we have an accurate representation of activity I don't really care about removing rights. If your absence becomes 'evident' (say, 1 month with 0 edits), you would be moved to the inactive list. If you pop back from time to time, you would stay on the inactive list but you would reset the 9month/1year timeframe (as in the case of rights removal the period of time should contain 0 edits). To me, that shows a lack of intent, but returning when you could maintains intent. That's why I set a year, because I think most would agree after 1 year it is fair to assume a return is not imminent. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  06:57, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
I strongly feel we should define "evident" in this proposal else we'll end up right where we started at the beginning of this forum should it be enacted. Subjectivity left to the BCs doesn't seem highly-endorsed and I can't think of any other quick means to deal with it. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere along the line we had an argument about what "intent" really was... I dunno, I'm cynical in these regards today. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 21:07, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Subjectivity left to the BCs is not the way to go because 1) their powers need not further augmentation and 2) they need not further burdens and obligations. --Skire (talk) 21:11, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
That brings the question, do we want a hard policy or a soft policy? By that I mean do we want to have set timeframes or edit counts as a measure of activity, or do we want it left subjective? I'm more in favour of the latter. I don't really think a strict ruleset is going to accomplish much, as it has already proven to be a hassle. Instead of leaving it to the bureaucrats, why not put in the hands of the admins? Something like this:
'Evident absence' is defined as a noticeable absence from editing/community participation without prior notice. If an administrator notices an extended absence of an extra-rights holder, they must consult 2 other administrators and reach a consensus before the user is moved to the inactive list.
Kind of wordy if you ask me, but there's a definition without putting hard caps on dates/edit counts. In all honesty, I think a specific length of time with zero activity as grounds for rights removal is sufficient. Honestly, what problem is there with users being on the inactive list? As long as we accurate represent activity, the admin team or bureaucrats should be able to move people to the inactive list as they see fit. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  02:13, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
I think some people want a hard policy and others want a soft policy. Personally I favor a hard policy because it avoids misinterpretation of our policies (and by extension these types of forums) but I don't have the slightest idea what kind of dates and times I would suggest.
Generally I'm actually fine with soft policies because I trust our BCs' discretion. Problem is, not everyone does, and the BCs are left confused because they had felt trusted with the subjective wording of the policy when really they weren't. The problem is then compounded because everybody who doesn't trust them hasn't defined a harder policy or do not agree on the right terms for a harder policy.
As for admin discretion? I dunno, I see potential conflict from this that will inevitably involve the BCs (or another one of these forums) anyway.
So I think we need a hard policy without a doubt, but I have yet to see any agreeable (or streamlined) terms. We need a compromise and we need unanimous understanding and I don't think this revision is it. It contains the word, "noticeable" which is just as subjective as before and likely to encounter the same issues.
That said, I do like the "prior notice" part. It ensures people like Tocino can still be absent for quite a long period of time but have intent to return and be held to their notice and allowed to return without a fuss. That, and I see no problem with making the notice known to other users (although I'll be damned if we do find one). --The Ever Ruler (talk) 18:09, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just to make myself clear here, we need a policy that is not ambiguous at all. Everything needs to be clearly defined or we are right back where we were. I have to somehow enact this policy and I'm not gonna pass anything that leaves any criteria like "activity", "intent", "evident" or any other term open to interpretation. If the community hands us another policy that is unenforceable because it is vague and contains undefined terms, we simply won't pass the motion. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 14:26, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an unambiguous policy based on one that I found on another large wiki. It's ready to be posted, but first I'm asking permission to use their policy as a framework in order to prevent any sort of conflict or copyright infringement. I will post it here as soon as I have the go-ahead. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  22:36, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

A Follower's Proposal II[]

I've been looking around some of the larger wikis to see how they deal with this issue, and what I've found is that most wikis don't even address the problem at all, and simply list users as inactive at the discretion of the other administrators or bureaucrats, and rights removal is not something done due to inactivity. That being said, our community seems to want a hard policy and I think I've found one that's fair and addresses all points of concern:

Inactivity

In the event that an extra-rights holder enter into a prolonged absence from the wiki, some form of explanation, such as a simple notice of absence on their user page or a message to an administrator/bureaucrat, is desired. In the absence of any explanation, if an extra-rights holder does not edit or use their tools for three months or more, the following steps are to be taken:

  • 3 months: An attempt at contact is made by an administrator/bureaucrat and the user is moved to the inactive list.
  • 4 months: Another attempt at contact is made, with a warning that a user's rights will be removed at 6 months.
  • 6 months: Rights removed by a bureaucrat.

Likewise, in order to maintain their extra rights users (with the exception of chat moderators) are required to make at least 50 mainspace edits in any six month span, barring prior explanation of inactivity. Users who explain their inactivity will be moved to the inactive list for the duration of their absence and are exempt from rights removal.

Extra-rights holders who make public their intention to depart the wiki permanently will have their rights removed immediately and without notice.

The above policy, barring noted exceptions, applies in its entirety to bureaucrats, administrators, moderators, chat moderators, and patrollers.

This policy is a modified version of the 'extended leave of absence' policy found on Wookieepedia and is used with permission. Discuss. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  23:40, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

+1 Agent c (talk) 00:23, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
I PLATONICalLY LOVE YOU FOLLOWER --Skire (talk) 00:40, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

A good option. However, I will take you up on the offer of discussion:

  1. I believe any activity rules should never be applied to Patrollers.
  2. I believe the Chat Moderators should have to follow a different set of rules. Essentially, something along the lines with replacing the 50 mainspace edits per 3 months to being a regular presence in chat for at least 10 days of each month, meaning 30 days for each 3 months. This would not be something we specifically keep track of every 3 months, until a Chat Moderators absence becomes general knowledge amongst the chat regulars and a check becomes necessary. I do not believe this needs further explanation - we have always known when a Chat Moderator is inactive.
  3. With an occasion of 3 or more years of inactivity, even with explanation, Special Rights users will be given a community hearing, in which the community may dictate whether they lose their rights, or should their exemption be renewed.

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:48, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind me weighing in...
  1. Agreed 100%. Patrollers don't have any real powers; their tools are purely auxiliary.
  2. The editing requirement is not necessary for chat mods, and while chat activity may be harder to gauge, it is a better measurement of a chat mod's activity. It indeed has been general knowledge as to whether or not a chat mod has been in chat recently.
  3. Three or more years? This is completely unnecessary and allows favouritism and inconsistent application of the rules (by means of a popular vote). There is honestly no need to exempt anyone after half a year of not making edits. They can reapply if interested. I understand intention behind this but I cannot approve it... --Skire (talk) 01:42, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

+1 Follower Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 03:09, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Your first point is a good one, Leon. We could add an exception to the rights removal bit of the policy just for patrollers, but still leave them eligible to be moved to the inactive list after 3 months or with less than 50 mainspace edits per 6 months. There's a problem with your second point, though. If we gauge by entrance into chat, that tool is part of the CheckUser ability, so we would in essence be leaving this at the discretion of the bureaucrats with those tools, because we couldn't ask for verification of the information without violating personal information (to the best of my knowledge). On your third point, I don't care for the idea of a public hearing forum, I really think it's a bit pointless especially after such a long period. I think that if someone notes that they are going to be absent and do not know when they return, they should be kept on the inactive list for the duration of their absence. The fact that they said they wanted to return is enough for them to stay there. If a hard policy on this is needed, I think the 6 months is enough as it covers most situations. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  07:23, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Please completely and unequivocally define the terms highlighted in red in the proposal sections listed below:

In the event that an extra-rights holder enter into a prolonged absence from the wiki, some form of explanation, such as a simple notice of absence on their user page or a message to an administrator/bureaucrat, is desired. In the absence of any explanation, if an extra-rights holder does not edit or use their tools for three months or more, the following steps are to be taken:

  • 3 months: An attempt at contact is made by an administrator/bureaucrat and the user is moved to the inactive list.
  • 4 months: Another attempt at contact is made, with a warning that a user's rights will be removed at 6 months.
  • 6 months: Rights removed by a bureaucrat.

Likewise, in order to maintain their extra rights users (with the exception of chat moderators) are required to make at least 50 mainspace edits in any six month span, barring prior explanation of inactivity. Users who explain their inactivity will be moved to the inactive list for the duration of their absence and are exempt from rights removal.

Extra-rights holders who make public their intention to depart the wiki permanently will have their rights removed immediately and without notice.

The above policy, barring noted exceptions, applies in its entirety to bureaucrats, administrators, moderators, chat moderators, and patrollers.

Thank you,  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:46, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

  • Prolonged absence - My interpretation of it all in the whole would be that "Prolonged absence" is 3 months with no actions.
  • Form of explanation - Blog post, talk page alert/message, user profile alert/message
  • Attempt at contact - The Talk page.
  • 50 mainspace edits - As we define them for vote purposes.
  • Intention to depart the wiki permanently - I would suggest as we do it now, when someone publicly broadcasts them we contact them via talk page and ask if they are going and if we should remove them.
Agent c (talk) 22:58, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Prolonged Absence - Either no edits at all, or only edits in blogs and non-wiki (forums specifically designed to either improve or modify the wiki) related forums for 3-months.
  • Form of Explanation - Anywhere, and any explanation. If a user promises they will be back by a certain time, we should hold them to it.
  • Attempt at contact - No contact is needed. They simply need to leave their explanation within their user-profile or talk-page, making sure that it is clear to see by all.
  • 50 main-space edits - Any article-page edit that exceeds 50-100 bytes.
  • Intention to depart the wiki permanently - Agree with Chad.

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:09, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

  • Prolonged absence - zero or near-zero edits in the article, file, template, and wiki-related forums namespaces for 3 months. For chat mods, a prolonged absence is 3 months without consistent activity in chat (as said previously, this will become well-known if so).
  • Form of explanation - concur with the two above me.
  • Use of tools - using admin/moderator tools appropriately, constructive editing, actively participating in chat (for chat mods)
  • Attempt at contact - per Chad.
  • 50 main namespace edits - 50 edits in the article, template, file, and category namespaces (only in relation to wiki content, that is).
  • Intention to depart the wiki permanently - concur with the two above me.
--Skire (talk) 00:02, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. You see my point. Three people and mostly three different interpretations of those undefined phrases. Either something this get all of the ambiguity out of it, or I can't support it. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:05, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we cannot become paralyzed with fear to act on something because of either a lack of rules, or because we have too many rules. Just as I would be a fool to hide away an inheritance in fear that I would squander it until the perfect investment arises, we would be fools to ignore a situation such as this one until some perfect solution is offered. We either need to do away with the rule entirely, or we need to accept that maybe the community knows best and can handle incidents as they arise with only a minimal set of rules in place. The community knows when a user is inactive, and whether they still have confidence in those they voted in after becoming inactive. We are not stupid, and we do not need to be treated like children by pretending to create some infallible set of rules to hold our hands during every instance of deliberation.
We need to return to our roots. We no longer have someone like Ausir to take command. So we need to start going back to leaving matters in the hands of the community, which will always know what is best for the wiki. Because as it is now, we are beginning to get as bad as most governments around the world: we elect people to be in charge, and it breeds complacency. So the leadership ends up bickering trying to get everything together, with no results to show for it, while the community itself feels no obligation to fulfill their wiki's needs because of their expectancy. So that is what I propose: do away with the inactivity policy, or get the community together and agree upon a minimalistic set of rules which they can use as guidelines should they ever lose faith in those they voted in which have/will become inactive. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:17, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Leon, but for posterity's sake I will post an attempt at a revision below. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  09:20, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Revision[]

Inactivity (revised)

In the event that an extra-rights holder enter into a prolonged absence from the wiki (i.e. a length of time greater than 3 months), a form of explanation, either notice of absence on their user page or a message to an administrator/bureaucrat (containing an estimated return date), is desired. In the absence of any explanation, if an extra-rights holder does not make any form of edit for three months or more, the following steps are to be taken:

  • 3 months: An attempt at contact via talk page message is made by an administrator/bureaucrat and the user is moved to the inactive list.
  • 4 months: Another attempt at contact (same form as above) is made, with a warning that a user's rights will be removed at 6 months.
  • 6 months: Rights removed by a bureaucrat and a notice placed on the user's talk page.

Likewise, in order to maintain their extra rights users (with the exception of chat moderators) are required to make at least 50 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count) in any six month span, barring prior explanation of inactivity. Users who explain their inactivity will be moved to the inactive list for the duration of their absence and are exempt from rights removal.

Patroller rights cannot be removed due to inactivity. The user will instead be moved to the inactive list if they are inactive for greater than 3 months or fail to make the 50 required edits in a 6 month span.

Extra-rights holders who make public their intention to depart the wiki permanently (either through a message on their user page, a message to an administrator/bureaucrat, or a public declaration in chat to an administrator/bureaucrat) will have their rights removed immediately and without notice.

The above policy, barring noted exceptions, applies in its entirety to bureaucrats, administrators, moderators, chat moderators, and patrollers.
---
I think this is sufficiently specific and I believe I addressed all highlighted points. Defining This is my personal interpretation and differs somewhat from those that were posted above. We can hash out any disagreements over definitions or lengths of time below.

For the record I think that it is impossible to define chat moderator activity. From what I know only CheckUser rights holders can check for entrance into chat, so I believe that is something we must leave to bureaucrats by default. I can include that, but I wanted to see if there is any suggestions for objectively gauging chat mod activity first. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  09:20, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Neko was working on a tool that we could feed the logs into and it would spit out by certain time block which listed users were actively participating through that block. He did manage to get it in a somewhat working state, but there seemed to be issues when trying to get it to work on any other computer... The goal being to be able to answer if there were too many mods, or not, at any given time. If he still has it, it could potentially be used for this - Its not perfect as it does rely on the logs which can have a few holes in them, but over a 3-4 month period to have few if any active spots purely down to the log would be extremely unlikely. Agent c (talk) 12:24, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
@#Follower: That's far better, with less terms open to interpretation. I'm sure someone will find a way to bitch about me using a policy like that, but it's far better than the one we have now. You should add back in that "use of tools" thing, but name the specific tools. Patrolling an edit for an admin should not count.
@#Chad: The problem with Neko's tool is it only counts people speaking in chat. I often moderate chat, but seldom speak, for hours at times. I would not want to use only a tool like that to judge moderator activity. It would help, but would not be a complete solution. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 19:56, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
That is because the world does not pander to you, Gunny. Anyways, this does look a lot better if we are going to go with amending the current policy to something a bit more suitable. Just a quick thought: should forum edits count as well should the Special Rights holder(s) in question contribute to important forums? And by important, I mean forums that affect the wiki as a whole, such as this one. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:10, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
Forum edits are...iffy. Those would have to be an edit by edit basis if we were to look at doing them in that fashion. "Important Forums" would have to be clearly defined and we would have to look at edits that are actually making contribution or adding to the proposal/discussion and not simply agreeing/restating an opinion/view that has already been expressed. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:45, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Defining important forums is exactly as I stated: any forum that was specifically meant to address the wiki as a whole. However, I do agree with you that not every contribution to an important forum is really all that important in itself. And it would be too tedious anyways to go in and look through every comment/vote someone made on each important forum. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 15:50, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I like it, Andrew. The only thing I would suggest is to amend the line about explaining inactivity. Should the reason for absence be subject to bureaucrat or community (bureaucrat would be much more simple, as we wouldn't have to drag someone's personal business into the public eye) approval before an exemption from rights removal is granted? I think so. Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of "oh I just don't have a lot of time for this place I'll be back soon" excuses and this policy will solve nothing. Once that is changed, I'd vote for it if it came to that. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 03:33, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of the policy? If it is to prevent people who have distanced themselves from the wiki so much that they can no longer be said to be representing the Wiki and the community, then we ought to be looking for ways to determine if they are still engaged. To this end, merely looking at mainspace edits, or even giving them special consideration is meaningless. Any kind of of activity, even blog comments and talkpage edits show as much engagement as article edits. OTOH, if the purpose is to instead to ascertain that special right users are making use of said special rights, then edits are equally pointless (which also makes the patroller exclusion somewhat puzzling as well), and we should be instead be looking exclusively at the rights usage logs (deletions, page moves, bans, etc). Either way, determining what exactly we are trying to accomplish with this rule should be the very first step.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 20:55, May 8, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying for a few days. I've sort of adopted this forum and I haven't really had the time until now to address all the comments and concerns that have been brought up . Anyways, I'll do my best to address them. I want to reiterate that this proposal and my subsequent arguments are based on my perception of community consensus and may not accurately reflect my personal views.

  1. @Gunny - I removed the 'use of tools' part from the revised proposal because I personally think that the tracking of use of special rights is too tedious, and would be difficult to define with consensus. Is patrolling edits an admin tool? Technically, yes. Does using the 'revert' option count for patrollers? I don't see a way where we can come to a consensus on this that isn't far too specific and tedious to apply practically. Plus, the way I wrote it singles out 'any form of edit', and it would be exceedingly hard to apply your admin tools without editing anyways.
  2. @Leon - I do not like the idea of including forums. They skirt the line too much. Even small edits to articles, categories, and templates benefit the wiki as they are improvements. Does adding a yes vote to a clear unopposed admin request make an improvement to the wiki? In a very small way, yes, but as for counting as a mainspace edit I'm not really for it. Also we would have to consider how to track said edits, and no offense, but if someone is that close to rights removal that we have to start picking through forum contributions, I think the level of their activity is very evident.
  3. @Toci - In the policy exists a request for an approximate return date. If one is provided, I think it is reasonable that the 3-4-6 month rules would apply if the user is not back by that time. I could add that in if you would prefer. I also think that we can place enough trust in our extra-rights holders to not do what you described. We deemed them worthy for the rights, and I think they should be given a certain level of trust.
  4. @Limmie - You make good points. I wrote this proposal to solve two problems that the community deemed significant - extra-rights holders abusing our lenient inactivity policies and provide a solid unambiguous policy that encourages activity as a part of holding extra-rights. As for talk and blog page, yes they show wiki contribution, but apart from chat moderators (which have an exemption from the editing requirement) admins, bureaucrats, and those with patroller rights are obligated by the virtue of them holding rights to contribute to the wiki content, not just it's community. That's how I see it anyways.

I hope this is a sufficient explanation for everyone. Without any significant opposition or discussion I'm looking at moving this to a vote within the next few days. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  22:13, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Then the problem isn't really inactivity, but failing to reach a certain "productivity quota". Which is a valid position, of course, but a different issue. And of course, if we are to expect a minimum productivity from users in return for the extra rights, then there's no reason to exempt chatmods from it either.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 02:26, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
@#Follower: What we're trying to do here is measure a person's continued need for extra rights, and by extension of that, use of the tools those extra rights grant. Or at least, if we have to have some kind of policy about keeping extra rights, that' what we should be doing. Here's the thing: Anyone can edit. You do not need extra rights to edit. You gain the extra rights because the community decided you needed the tools that come with them. The edit requirements only prove to the community you have the ability and trust to use those tools properly. Actual use of the tools themselves should be the most important yardstick to measure if a person has continued need for them. And determining which tools each level of rights holder need to use to maintain some semblance of that continued use of tools is simple: The tools granted at each level. Patrollers get patrol log rights and revert. Chat moderators get the chat tools. Admins get delete, block and protect tools. BCs get rights granting and removal tools. It's that simple. You look at the logs. It's a bit harder to judge chat moderators use of rights, but we'll have to handle that as it comes.
At the end of the day, I've come to the point where I just don't think a policy like this is even worth it. Either a simple "I've been gone so long it's clear I'm gone" policy like I outlined above, or no policy at all, just removing rights after abuse is what I believe we should do. Of course that's my opinion. But if we must have some kind of quota system for qualifying the continued need for the tools the extra rights grant, I don't think we should base those quotas on solely on edits, but on the use of the tools that come with those rights. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 15:28, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
But that is where things get messy. Sysop tools are: granting chatmod rights, deleting pages, blocking pages, editing blocked pages, and banning users. There are only so many pages in need of deletion at any given time, so it is not a measure of the individual sysops' activity, and a similar rationale goes for the protected pages. Ad hoc promotion of temp chatmods is something extraordinary, so it's equally unsuitable. That leaves banning users and protecting pages, but both are actually discouraged and only to be used as a last resort. The best possible sysop is one that manages to defuse conflicts and edit wars before it becomes necessary to issue bans or lockdowns, so establishing quotas for said goes counter to the wiki's best interest in every way.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 17:25, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Limmie. Use of rights is very difficult to use as a measure of sysop activity. I do think that a edit quota is sufficient to ascertain activity and the use of extra-rights tools, and I would like to think that there are very few (if any) extra rights holders who do not use their tools at all. If there is such a situation, I would hope that continued misuse (or lack of use) would be addressed by the community in one way or another. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:41, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward[]

I'm eager to move this forward and move on to other projects, and from what I can see this discussion has largely concluded with three contending schools of thought: a specific and strict policy with the loss of rights after extended inactivity and activity quotas, a simple policy removing users rights after a defined period of inactivity, or complete repealing of the policy. With that in mind, I am in the process of writing a vote forum with each of these options as a choice. For the strict proposal, it will be almost exactly the same as stated above, with the possibility of a few minor additions. I will delay posting the vote forum for 36 hours to allow any final objections or comments to come forth and I will consider those in the vote process. I can also be found in chat of there is anything anyone wishes to discuss there. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  04:19, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

I still think we should first determine what we want this policy to address. If it is productivity quotas for the mainspace in return for userrights, then everyone with said rights (including patrollers and chatmods) should be expected to meet them as well (even if with different tiers having different sized quotas). If it is simply to ascertain involvement from said users, then every kind of activity should receive equal weight, as someone who edits articles are no more involved with the community as someone who comments on blogs or forums. Once we can reach a consensus on the basic purpose of the rule, then we have to reach a consensus on the specific numbers and details (quantity of edits, length of time, the proportionality of burden for each userright tier, etc). The issue can't be considered ready to be brought to a poll until those two consensus are reached.
For this reason, I'd like to ask everyone interested in the matter to state on which camp they find themselves in in regards to the intent of the policy: productivity quotas, level of involvement, or some other option.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 06:42, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
I think at this point the matter is more trouble than it's worth. Because of consistent enforcement of the current policy, there are no officially inactive administrators left, so enforcement of a similar policy in the future will be rather infrequent... As one of the ardent supporters of the original policy, I think now maybe we can just vote on scrapping it, see what the community wants. We will always have motions of no confidence the community can file if its members lose faith in an extra rights holder. Removing the stigma associated with such motions is far more important... --Skire (talk) 16:22, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying we should first have a vote to see whether people want to keep an inactivity policy at all in the first place? I could get behind that, if nobody really wants a policy then we're just wasting time writing one and pinning down specifics. As for the stigma of reconfirmations, I think that as long as it depends on individual users to bring up the motion there will always be the bad blood since the targets will feel like it was a personal move against them. The only way to remove the stigma IMO would be an objective, automatic indiscriminate trigger. Periodic reviews would be a good example of such a measure, but they were rejected.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 16:46, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the way to help remove the stigma is to make it absolutely clear that any form of Special Rights are simply tools given out by a community when they have learned to trust in a user. We are slowly transitioning into this belief system that worth is measured by rights levels. I know this to be true, because not long ago, it was suggested to me in a negative context that as an Admin, I acted like a Bureaucrat, and as a normal user now, I still act as an Admin. And what bothers me more than that is that when we were discussing the yearly reviews, there were multiple users in chat that both publicly and privately admitted they did not want to contribute to the discussions/vote because they were afraid they would ultimately lose their rights to yearly reviews, which suggests to me that there are users here that covet their rights, which is what leads to such bad blood when discussions of rights are ever brought up. Even a discussion as simple as whether or not we should remove the Moderator position. But this is a bit off-topic, so I digress. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:57, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
I can get behind scrapping the inactivity policy in favor of no-confidence motions and/or periodic reviews. But that would mean we'd have to look into both of those in separate forums. I don't know if it's best to continue it here. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 00:55, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. After all, a proposal for periodic reviews nearly passed last time, showing that users don't covet their rights as if they were a prized personal possession! --Skire (talk) 01:01, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
lmao ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:10, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Remember that repealing the policy with no replacement or alternative means that all users with extra rights will be listed regardless of activity. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  07:09, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

A thought: Special Rights holders are still free to classify themselves as inactive to help avoid confusion on the Admistration page. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 08:35, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Just my quick thoughts![]

Hey guys, just thought I'd put my thoughts down here :) The role I have is chat mod; it isn't as easily defined above as "moderator" or "administrator". I feel my role isn't dependant on article edits but rather my ability to moderate chat. The issue of moderating chat is 2 fold; a) the times chat is busiest is probably during the night here (I imagine most active users at the moment are USA side) and b) that the chat tends to be dead when I go in there so there is nobody to moderate! Other than people visiting the wiki to gain information on what are now old games, there is no real reason for anyone to just come in to the chat room. As soon as another game drops that will change completely and (I hope) it will go back to what it was like this time 2 years ago. I don't feel as if at the moment I can really fulfill my role when there is nothing for me to actually do. I am more than happy to step up to the plate as soon as chat requires moderating, but at the moment I don't feel that is necessary as there is nobody active in there whenever I enter. Most of the time I am there alone (moderating oneself is a bit too easy!). Whilst I appreciate the need to cut back on inactive mods etc I personally find it hard not to be inactive when there is nothing for me to do. Hope that all made sense! User talk:Miss"Even In Death May You Be Triumphant" 11:37, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion[]

It has now become clear that most of the users involved in the discussion within this forum are in favor of repealing the inactivity policy as opposed to amending it. As such, a vote has been called and can be found here. Depending on the outcome on the vote, discussion may resume on how to move forward. Thanks everyone for their time and contribution. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  19:38, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement