Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Inactive and who should ask


This forum discussion is brought here today because of some recent happenings in the last few months about who should be labeled as inactive and such. This is a little more about who should ask. What I mean by this is what SYSop rank holder should ask if another SYSop is inactive. In recent events, certain patrollers have taken it upon themselves to ask other Patrollers, Mods, Admins, and such if they would like to be considered inactive or moved there if they are. While I, and many others, admire the reasoning behind these question I do not believe that anybody but Bureaucrats should be allowed to...

  • Ask another user if they are inactive.
  • Ask another user if they will go inactive.
  • Request that users go inactive.

Seeing as Bureaucrats instate the rights given to users and have the power to revoke those rights it should be brought up by Bureaucrats only. While Admins have the power to remove themselves from power (if they choose so) they cannot change the Title on userpages for other users. And on this note, anyone can remove themselves from the Administrator and Moderator page and alert a Bureaucrat of their resignation or inactivity.

I thought I should bring this to light.

Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 19:50, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comments[]

You need a good reason if you're going to censor the community. Why should my concerns about someone's activity be censored because the bureaucrats are the only ones with the power to change everyone's rights. The community gets to give feedback on who gets rights, and they should be able to give that same feedback on whose rights should be changed. 69.l25 (talk) 20:13, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Would you rather have people bring concerns to bureaucrats and have bureaucrats then ask about inactivity? I see that as just a useless middleman. 69.l25 (talk) 20:19, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The Bureaucrats were never given ultimate authority over inactivity. Our policies dictate that inactivity is defined after 6 months of not editing, and any user, even those without Special Rights, have the right to ask of their leadership if they really are active or not. If the Bureaucrats want ultimate authority on this issue, they will need community consensus. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:20, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

@69, you asked Energy X if he would consider going Inactive even though he has made edits recently. By the way this isn't censorship. Censorship is way different, but seeing as that isn't the topic, we won't get into that. While the community gets the right to A) Give feedback on who gets rights & B)Give feedback on rights to be changed, they don't have the ultimate power to do so as a user. By the way, My reasons are justified and just because you don't understand them does not mean I don't have a reason. I see your anger with this forum and you seem to think this about what you asked, but others have done it too. And from what I gather from other users, it is frowned upon by the most of the community, therefore I bring it to the communities attention to discuss.

I asked Energy X if he would be comfortable being listed as inactive as he has edited notably less than 1. all the other admins and 2. the most active admins. Are you trying to say that I should not be able to ask such a question? 69.l25 (talk) 20:39, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
It really wasn't a question, more of a nice demand. A demand covered with a smile. I'm still trying to figure out why it would concern you that he edits less than say Toci or Ryan, but he still edits on a basis that is actually consistent and in range of being active. I could see if say Scar was considered still considered active but hadn't made more than 15 edits in 9 months and you asked that question. But that is not the case. By the way, if you take offense to what is being said by me and I see an once of hostility from you in this forum towards me I will simply stop talking to you throughout the whole duration this this forum. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 20:47, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
No, it was a question that he-- and another admin-- was totally fine with. I'm concerned because we can help new users by directing them toward administrators and users with special rights who are here almost every day and available to help out most of the time; but seeing Energy X's edits were far less than everyone else's, it would be unfair to give off the impression that he could answer a question or assist someone as quickly or as easily as another special-rights holder who contributes regularly. 69.l25 (talk) 20:52, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

@Leon, You are right, policy dictates inactivity and I agree. But also, seeing as they have right to change rights, they should dictate who gets moved to inactive and when to ask said users. And you are right, if Bureaucrats want full authority on this issue they will need the community consensus, hence this forum and what it stands for. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 20:34, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

You do not want a wiki where Bureaucrats have ultimate authority over everything. I can tell you right now that if Nukapedia ever becomes that, I will not be returning - I regret not reading the Administration Conduct Policy vote properly before, because now the Bureaucrats have ultimate authority over the finalization of user-rights removal requests, which is a direct contradiction of the fact that there were no written in stone policy(ies) stating that Bureaucrats even have the right to determine vote outcomes, as this allowed the community to dictate at any given time whether vote outcomes should be left to the community or Bureaucrats.
I can tell you now, and I mean this with all due respect as I know you are only trying to do what is best, but I will vehemently oppose any forums suggesting we should give our Bureaucrats ultimate power over wiki matters in any form. It is not a trust issue - it is a matter of preservation and long-term wiki integrity. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:14, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Garoux in terms of handing ultimate power to any one special rights position, as that puts us all in a dangerously suspect and vulnerable position. However, I believe we need to reign in the questioning of inactivity. While the recent efforts at motivating and increasing the activity on the wiki are noticed and appreciated, they have taken on a disturbingly antagonistic approach.
Attacking users who do not edit quite consistently or frequently over certain stretches of time due to school and real life issues (see Kingclyde) but have a history of being immensely productive as well as contributing great amounts to the wiki is not a positive approach to increasing activity as a whole. If anything it creates drama and impedes progress, as the entire wiki's attention gets sucked into a microcosm of strife. Instead I would like to suggest that you lead by example, continue to make the edits you are making and in a positive light so that other users notice what you are doing, pick up on it, and start to take on a more active role themselves. Be a positive role model.
Quite frankly my stance on regulating inactivity decisions is that it should be relegated to the administrators and BC's. However the majority will not agree with that so I don't really know how to approach this problem other than to say that we need to see it happen less. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:30, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
In the case that inspired this (EnergyX), he wasn't even inactive to begin with, so it needs to be a little more obvious that they haven't edited in 6 months. Asking the user is a polite gesture that gives the user a chance to discuss when they think they'll be back, or it could just be a wake-up call to kick them back into gear. I think asking the user directly is just fine. That's more than I got the two or three times I've gone inactive. Danny just moved me over without telling me. Lol. And I agree with bleep. Not everyone can have Toci/OfficialLolGuy/Jspoelstra edit streaks every few days. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 21:38, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, and I am not stating this to put anyone in an awkward position, but Mystery is in a semi-state of inactivity and has been ever since they went to run the Pokemon wiki. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:41, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

( Inactivity notices should be left to bureaucrats. They have gotten their position for a good reason and can be trusted to make fair judgment. I think Energy X felt 69's message as rather intimidating and with pressure. It's not the position of a patroller or even admin to give such a notice. If I had been an admin and a patroller would have sent me such a message it'd raise a real question mark. I'd always expect it from someone higher up. Bureaucrats ultimately remove rights, bureaucrats should be the ones determining when someone is inactive for 6 months and send such a notice. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:49, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

From personal experience, I can tell you that is not the way to go. In individual cases, I support the community giving the Bureaucrats the right to ask those questions and remove rights should the need arise. But giving any Special Rights group ultimate authority will breed contempt and corruption. And I can assure you it will: we already have cases of Special Rights users changing or outright removing bans under the noses of those that made the original bans, outright ignoring policies, and those under the assumption that they already have ultimate authority where they do not, such as over the inactivity policies.
The community needs to remain in charge, only allowing their leaders certain privileges of authority when needed, such as the community allowing the Bureaucrats to be the final determiners of votes (now with the recent exception of rights removal requests). ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:56, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
My concerns shouldn't have to be funneled through bureaucratic or administrative tubes before they can be heard. I did not leave an inactivity notice; I wished only to express a concern and ask if Energy X was comfortable with still being considered "active" as he has been lagging behind the other admins-- especially now that we have new, more active administrators. I don't mean it in an intimidating way, and I'd like to know why you feel it's intimidating when I have a message from him that suggests otherwise. 69.l25 (talk) 22:00, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

"Seeing as Bureaucrats instate the rights given to users and have the power to revoke those rights it should be brought up by Bureaucrats only." This statement is simply not true. Extra user rights are given by the community through the bureaucrats. Yes, bureaucrats are the ones who physically check the box, but it is the community at large that allows them to do so. As such, it is also the right of any member of said community at large to merely inquire about an extra user rights holder's activity status. --Skire (talk) 22:30, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

What this says to me is that we need more clear definition as to what inactivity is. Although Energy's activity has subsided since he started heading up another wiki, I don't consider him to be inactive, but some people clearly do. I would be comfortable redefining what we consider 'active' vs. 'inactive' and allowing the bureaucrats - solely from their position of leadership - to inquire about an extra-rights holder's inactivity. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  22:39, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
There's clearly two definitions of inactivity going around. De facto inactivity is when people personally believe a user has become "inactive." This definition has no standing and is up to personal perception. De jure inactivity is our six months (codified on FW:ADMIN), with nine months being the threshold for rights removal. If someone wants to ask about de facto inactivity, let them. If someone wants to deal with de jure inactive, that someone should be a bureaucrat (per policy). --Skire (talk) 22:55, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity to me should be reserved to those responsible for user rights. It is an area that has to be handled with tact and diplomacy - if its worded in a clumsy way they can result in undesirable and unintended disrespect, or come across as arrogance. It is not something that people should just jump in and do on a whim, but only after clear consideration about the message they want to send - and how the message may be received. Agent c (talk) 22:46, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

It should be reserved for users responsible for user rights, and that's everyone. Everyone in the community gets a say in who receives special-rights, and they are entitled to voice concerns over anything that has to do with these rights, including activity. 69.l25 (talk) 22:52, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
There's no concentration of power there at all by letting those who have the ability to add/remove user rights, and ultimately are responsible for immediate sanctions in removing rights if required. I would point to your attempts as an example as to why adequate care and tact is required in the messaging - it upset a lot of people, not just your intended recipient. It is not something that just any random person can do effectively and correctly. Agent c (talk) 22:52, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
If only a small group of people reserve the right to bring up inactivity then that is a concentration of power. But nonetheless, I've received no messages personally that indicate that I upset anyone and, instead, have received messages indicating the opposite. 69.l25 (talk) 22:56, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
If you have an issue with someones inactivity, you are welcome to bring it up with us and we can investigate. Ultimatley there isnt any "concentration of power" because no "power" is being concentrated. We're elected to resolve disputes, enforce the rules, and manage user rights... let us do the job. I note the careful choice of the term "personally"... I'm sure you are aware of the "Who does he think he is" messages that came off in chat following your message to limmie. Approaching someone about performance, misconduct, or inactivty is not easy and needs to be handled carefully. Agent c (talk) 22:58, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is! Why do I need to bring it up with you when I can contact this person myself? I would never assert that I decide who gets moved to inactive, but I will certainly suggest a move should I find one necessary. 69.l25 (talk) 23:00, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

( What power do you have in doing that? None. You can't remove their rights. The power to do that is exactly where it was - With the user, and the Bureaucrats. Exactly where it has always been. The question is, why are you bothering to contact them in the first place? Its not exactly a good way to get along. Agent c (talk) 23:03, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I contacted Energy X because I wanted to get his opinion on his own activity-- to see what Energy X is thinking. I don't need any "power" to ask him that. 69.l25 (talk) 23:06, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
In which case, as no power is being used, no power can be being consolidated. I think the very fact that Slinger brought this up shows a lot of discomfort with your... initiative taking. In EnergyX's case, stumbling in can have negative effects later on. He's an admin on the Fallout Answers wiki, a wiki that links to both Us, and the Vault. A ill thought out message to him could result in our current sister partnership being put at risk (Energy's a nice guy, so I'm sure he'd rise above it), a partnership I hope to grow and expand upon when the next game hits - the Answers wiki is our line of defense against another one of your bugbears - People asking questions on the talk page. Were any of these factors in your mind when you stumbled in? Agent c (talk) 23:09, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
No power is being used, yes; but the motion that Bureaucrats must regulate any concern over activity-- that they are the only ones who can contact people about their activity-- not only introduces power; it gives it all to the Bureaucrats. And this forum shows discomfort from Gunslinger only; although, I see you're not thrilled with it either. 69.l25 (talk) 23:12, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
I dont think it does at all. Its our job to manage user rights, let us manage it. And I'm not particularly pleased with the idea of a well meaning user going doing something the wiki will regret. Edits are undoable, some other things are not. Agent c (talk) 23:21, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but he can manage his rights as well. I wanted so see what he had to say because the topic hadn't been brought up yet. 69.l25 (talk) 23:26, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I just don't want to come to a time where messages to other users about their activity are suppressed or completely not permitted. This forum hints that only bureaucrats should be able to discuss inactivity with users, which is a deeply concerning concentration of power. 69.l25 (talk) 22:49, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The point is, right now, anyone can leave a message to anyone about their activity; if you want to change this so that only bureaucrats can discuss it, you're concentrating power on that group and taking it away from everyone else. 69.l25 (talk) 22:58, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Chad, we can't allow the people in power to have power. That would make them corrupt and they would destroy the wiki and oppress the users. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 22:55, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
No reason to be facetious: you might as well be telling everyone that they are idiots - it has the same effect and degrades the entire conversation. The problem is not that those in power should not have any power. The problem is when that existing power is overextended upon, and the purpose of Special Rights becomes bastardized to the point of utter contempt: the feeling that a person or people are beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn. Which is exactly what will happen when the community loses its voice and the leaders claim ultimate authority. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:03, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Lol. So the bureaucrats using a little bit of critical thinking to determine whether or not a user hasn't edited in 6 months is considered having ultimate authority? I'm sorry if I sound like a jackass, but it matches you sounding a little paranoid. I trust the guys we have up there right now, and I trust the current and future community to prevent unsuitable men/women from being voted into a position of power. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 23:16, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Er. That has nothing to do with anything being said here. We are talking about the Bureaucrats claiming only they can determine a user to be inactive, and their claim that only they can ask users about their activity levels. We are not discussing already established policies that were put into place by the community - not our Bureaucrats. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:19, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
The same arugment applies to the Chat rules, but we consider Mini-Modding to be out of bounds. How is this different. Leave the rules to the rule enforcers. Agent c (talk) 23:22, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── +1 to Chad. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 23:24, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Not really a +1. There is a difference between impersonating a Special Rights user, and asking a question. Poe-tae-toe, poe-tat-toe. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:56, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Chad, this has nothing to do with rules. Why should a user be prevented from merely asking about another user's plans or activity? There is a difference between personal definition of inactive and the de jure definition of inactive (six months). There are no rules in question and so why would we need to delegate something like this to the bureaucrats only? --Skire (talk) 23:26, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Simply because of the effects of blundering in. These conversations - de jure or de facto, are difficult and sensitive conversations that must be handled with an appropriate amount of tact and diplomacy in order to avoid both sides losing. Agent c (talk) 23:35, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that User A sending User B a small, non-aggressive message after User B has gone through several months of little activity is a difficult nor sensitive topic. User rights shouldn't be treated as possessions, with the very mentioning of "inactivity" causing distress. Also, I don't believe that there is a precedent of a user being distraught over a message from someone other than a bureaucrat regarding inactivity. --Skire (talk) 23:40, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think that's whats happening here? Agent c (talk) 23:18, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
(In response to a comment that was removed) Not yet. But short-sighted decisions can and will have long-term repercussions. Over-extending one's position will always be an issue, but at this point, only manifests itself in the points I listed earlier in this forum. But the moment the community begins losing its voice and the leadership becomes undisputed in wiki-decisions, this wiki will be in trouble. And I can tell you that is exactly where this wiki will be heading should ultimate authority become a norm for any Special Rights group. We were unlucky that once occurrence managed to slip through. I simply hope that will be the only slip-up. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:15, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
But short-sighted decisions can and will have long-term repercussions
Agreed, thats one my my concerns in making sure that this sort of thing is done by the right person, in the right way, at the right time.
But the moment the community begins losing its voice and the leadership becomes undisputed in wiki-decisions, this wiki will be in trouble
No such thing is happening here. I Dont give the Slippery slope argument any merit.
We were unlucky that once occurrence managed to slip through
When did this happen again? Agent c (talk) 23:18, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • The Nuremberg Defense is a logical fallacy.
  • Slippery slope is not the issue. What is currently being seen is the issue.
  • It happened when the Bureaucrats were given ultimate authority over being the only users able to give final deliberations on Special Rights removal requests, which contradicts the fact that policies were never put into place giving Bureaucrats that right before, as most votes are decided by the community with the Bureaucrats merely allowed by the community to overrule community consensus should the votes be controversial in nature. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:25, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what the nuremberg defence has to do with anything. Is someone saying they were just following orders?
Slippery slope is exactly what you are arguing in the "not yet..but" stuff. If its not the issue, don't bring it up.
As for Burecrat power on user rights requests...
When your application has been posted, Nukapedia's community will be able to discuss whether or not you should be made moderator or admin over a timespan of at least one week (or more in case of controversy). All users who take part in any formal wiki vote are encouraged to post an at-least-basic rationale explaining why their vote was cast the way it is. In addition, administrators reserve the right to require voters' rationales for voting on certain polls, if and only if they feel a necessity. The final decision will be up to the bureaucrat(s) after the community has had its say.
As Far as I'm aware, thats been the rule since the Tezzla era, and no "non controversial" user right request has been blocked since he won one by a large margin. Agent c (talk) 23:29, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

The Nuremberg Defense is known as many things, such as blind obedience and team player. What has just been suggested here is that the community cannot be left to their own devices over inactivity, and so the Bureaucrats should be the only ones to handle inactivity matters because they are the only ones that know best, and we are just to accept that. That might not be directly being said, but that is exactly what it is when the Bureaucrats forbid other users from handling inactivity matters.

What I am seeing are discussions to give Bureaucrats ultimate authority over certain matters, and that even includes off-wiki or private discussions that are not transparent. Slipper slope has nothing to do with that - it has to do with tangible actions I am personally witnessing.

No, it was only recently instated here. We did not have user rights removal requests policies/guidelines until only a short time ago. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:35, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see what the nuremberg defence has to do with anything.
We don't have "Ultimate Authority", I think the Porter vote has set that precedent that the community can direct the bureaucrats to take an action if need be.
I see we're changing to removal. My understanding is that it just mirrors the long standing user rights request policy in that area. Agent c (talk) 23:39, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • I fully explained my reasons. The Nuremberg Defense is the fallacy that one should listen to and follow every decision made by their leaders. This correlates directly with the belief that only Bureaucrats should have the right to determine activity outside of our community established policies, as well as only the Bureaucrats having the ability to message other users over activity. This right was never given to the Bureaucrats, so stating otherwise is suggesting that only the Bureaucrats have the capacity to handle such as a matter.
  • What I remember are our policies not being followed in the Porter case, and the fact that some of the Bureaucrats were fully willing to continue ignoring our policies until the community voiced themselves. But that is not the discussion here, as that particular forum was over whether or not we should exempt Porter from the policies, not over having his rights removed. When that forum failed, Porter was susceptible to the inactivity policies, which has nothing to do with rights removal requests.
  • Read again. I was always talking about rights removal requests, I after checking again, I specifically stated that in my original messages as well. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:45, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

A person can ask someone if they are inactive, though it is better if a bureaucrat asks them. It is not an offence (which I have taken none) by asking such questions, only if he brands them at the admin and moderator list against their wish. Still, it does remind me that I should be more active here, in some ways. Energy X 23:42, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

A much more respectable position. I fully agree that many times it is better for a Bureaucrat to ask. It is just when it is stated that only the Bureaucrats have that right that irks me. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:48, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Energy X, I didn't contact a bureaucrat because I did not need one. I simply wanted to see what you thought about moving yourself to the inactive list; if you flet you'd be better off that way, you make the move yourself. Nowhere would a bureaucrat be required; this wasn't a rights-removal issue. 69.l25 (talk) 23:58, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
The Nuremberg Defense is the fallacy that one should listen to and follow every decision made by their leaders - And noone is suggesting any such thing. This just strikes me as a way to use hyperbole in a way that skirts very close to godwinning yourself. Agent c (talk) 00:03, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
That is what this forum is suggesting. That the Bureaucrats should have ultimate authority over everything involving inactivity and not covered by our existing inactivity policies, removing the community's say in any such matters. That is demanding blind obedience over this particular matter. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:07, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
You must be reading a very different forum. I am reading one that suggests that its the role of the bureaucrat to approach people, not one demanding that "You vill submit to ze ultimate authority ov ze burecrats and never ever question or discuss it, and think vat ve vant you to think, ja?". Agent c (talk) 01:03, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
Then please explain this, because what I am reading is strongly suggesting giving Bureaucrats the only say in inactivity matters outside of our already existing inactivity policies:


"While I, and many others, admire the reasoning behind these question I do not believe that anybody but Bureaucrats should be allowed to...

  • Ask another user if they are inactive.
  • Ask another user if they will go inactive.
  • Request that users go inactive."

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 13:48, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

That is a restriction on who makes the approach only. It doesn't say you can't have an opinion on it, discuss the problems of inactivity, or even raise the topic with a bureaucrat. There is no request for the only say to be left with the crat.
It isn't anything to do with demanding everyone "follows the leader", just leaves the approach for the right person, to be done in the right way, at the right time. Agent c (talk) 14:03, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
And that is the problem in my eyes. Why should the Bureaucrats be the only ones to approach users with activity questions, and why should we just accept that? And the most important question here is why are you suggesting that only the Bureaucrats have the capacity to ask such questions? So far, the only example I have seen supporting that logic is that the messages sent out by a few of us (69, Skire, and myself) are offensive in nature, when the fact of the matter is that everyone but one person has taken the messages in stride. And even if these types of messages from non-Bureaucrats were periodically offending users, using those few cases would be hasty generalization - another fallacy we should not even be entertaining with discussion. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 14:10, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my if I'm interrupting, but I believe the problem is should bureaucrats be the only ones to approach people about inactivity? In other words, would everyone else not be able to ask someone about their inactivity until they have cleared it with a bureaucrat? 69.l25 (talk) 01:06, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
this wasn't a rights-removal issue69.l25

Thank you. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 00:03, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

@Leon, you obviously do not know what this forum is suggesting. It is suggesting that Bcrats should be the ones looking into inactivity, not Patrollers. Also, I think we had this problem with you, if I recall.

@Skire, "This statement is simply not true." You took my words the wrong way. What I meant is that the Bcrats click the box that says said users can have rights, not patrollers. Yes, the community decides, but the community does not have the actual power at hand to make a user become inactive.

@69, you should have to inform a Bcrat (or at least and admin) if you notice a lack in a users activity seeing as they are the ones it goes to anyways. You don't have the power to remove their rights. Why does it matter if they are slightly inactive more than usual? They are still more active than most of our regular users. And before you say "Why does it matter that I ask them?" I will answer that with the fact that it stirs up the community with your intentions.

Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 00:33, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was understanding. Did you not specifically suggest that:

"While I, and many others, admire the reasoning behind these question I do not believe that anybody but Bureaucrats should be allowed to...

  • Ask another user if they are inactive.
  • Ask another user if they will go inactive.
  • Request that users go inactive."

Because that is what I have been addressing this entire time. And there should never have been a problem with me in the first place: I have every right to ask a user for their activity intentions, just as everyone else here does. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:38, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the right to basically give them options or whether they are inactive or not. A good way to ask if they are here while not being of power (like you are now) is to say something like.... "Hey, I was wondering if you were still active here or will be back anytime soon?" End of that. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a long paragraph with things such as "have you considered being listed as an "inactive administrator"? " , "Would you be okay with being moved to the inactive list?" and my favorite line here: "We've gotten new, more active admins, and moving yourself would allow for you to retain your rights without having pressure to contribute as much as the most of other admins are now." Which basically says "I don't see you edit much when your on, but you do edit, but I don't see you, go inactive for us." Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 00:45, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

There's no misinterpretation here. You said bureaucrats, being the ones who give rights, should be the only ones to ask about inactivity. Asking about inactivity should not be a right reserved solely to bureaucrats just because they are the ones who can physically un-check the box (then again, it's through the community's policy that they can do this). Also, please don't assume bad faith. 69's message was very non-aggressive and merely inquisitive. Furthermore, Energy X himself said he took no offence at all. --Skire (talk) 00:47, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Never said anyone took offense. It's not bad faith. I consider it bad timing at most. Gunslinger470/The-Gunslinger "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 00:53, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry five sentences is a long paragraph; we have different opinions on how to ask about inactivity, which is fine. But I'm still curious to see why a bureaucrat would need to be involved in me asking Energy X if he'd like to move himself to the "inactive" list. 69.l25 (talk) 00:59, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
@Gunslinger While I certainly wouldn't ask users about their inactivity, what 69 wants to ask others is his prerogative. I recognise your concerns, but ultimately we cannot begin to restrict the asking of mere questions to the bureaucrats only. Bad timing? Your call. Should it be allowed nonetheless? Absolutely. We shouldn't start making policies on what kinds of things certain people can ask about and others can't, especially when they're of such an innocuous nature. --Skire (talk) 01:22, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement