Forum:Inactive administrators and moderators rule, time for a change?

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. ^{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. ^{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.  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. ^{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.  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. ^{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.  A Follower  Talk  04:34, 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.  A Follower  Talk  06:08, April 24, 2014 (UTC)