(Created page with "{{Forumheader|Wiki discussion}} <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> Ok people. Here is the deal. The current p...") Â |
m (oops) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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: |
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: |
||
| + | |||
| + | {{Quote|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.}} |
||
{{Quote|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.}} |
{{Quote|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.}} |
||
Revision as of 00:29, 24 April 2014
Ok people. Here is the deal. The current policy is stated below
- 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:
- 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.”
That should sum up the definition of constructive. Ok people. Discuss.--Kingclyde (talk) 00:25, April 24, 2014 (UTC)