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)

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.  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. ^{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   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. ^{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   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. ^{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)

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.  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.  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.  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. _{Don't give up the ship!} 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.  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.  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   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.  A Follower  Talk  22:36, May 4, 2014 (UTC)