FANDOM


Icon nowrite
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Reviews for Special Rights holders
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki
Reviews for Special Rights holders

Back in mid-November, a review forum was thrown up by 69.l25, and was largely untouched even now. However, I along with a few others felt that the topic being discussed there was made up of legitimate points, and so I am moving this forum onto part II of the discussion so we can begin gathering community feedback and getting this topic ready for the voting stages.

Infrequent EditorsEdit

While not a large issue yet, we have had a few cases of Special Rights holders keeping their rights after a year of inactivity simply because they bypass our current inactivity policies by making a few very minor edits every month or two. How does the community feel about this? Is it appropriate enough for us to turn our cheeks when noticing such a trend? Or should they be called into question when this sort of infrequent editing is noticed after a year has passed?

Community discussionEdit

Crying WolfEdit

A rising problem that we have seen over the past two years are those with Special Rights threatening to leave the wiki over personal issues or even because of wiki-disputes had with other users. If a Special Rights holder threatens to leave, should they:

  1. ...have their rights removed immediately depending on the severity of the case
  2. ...have a review thrown up to decide whether the community still has faith in their abilities
  3. ...have their threats ignored, in which we wait to see if they leave or stay

Community discussionEdit

ReviewsEdit

As time passes, it becomes necessary to switch out leadership that can't keep up with the wiki as it grows. Whether personal life gets in the way, interest in the Fallout franchise fades, or even new communities that come in with newer games that can't be related with. While we currently do have policies in place to remove overly-inactive Special Rights holders, we do not have guidelines in place for reviewing our leadership periodically to make sure that the wiki tools are in the hands of those that the community supports. After discussion, here are the guidelines that we wish to have discussed and modified based off how the community feels:

-At the end of every year, reviews will be held for certain Special Rights holders. These reviews will be non-binding, and action isn't necessary or even warranted based off of negative reviews. They are simply to get a sense of how the community currently feels over specific leadership, and how they can improve themselves to better help the wiki and the community that represents it. For each level of Special Rights holder, different requirements will need to be met which will dictate their next review:

  • Moderators: A review every 2 years so long as they make 100 mainspace edits per year. If 100 mainspace edits aren't reached by the end of the year, a review will be thrown up prematurely. Alternatively, since Patrollers are not eligible for reviews under the terms presented here, Moderators will be treated as Chat Moderators and will face yearly reviews.
  • Chat Moderators: A review will be thrown up at the end of every year.
  • Patrollers: Due to the fact that Patrollers do not actually have any extra tools, Patrollers will not be reviewed under the terms specified here.
  • Administrators: A review every 3 years so long as they make 500 mainspace edits per year. If 500 mainspace edits aren't reached by the end of the year, a review will be thrown up prematurely.
  • Bureaucrats: A review every 3 years so long as they make 500 mainspace edits per year. If 500 mainspace edits aren't reached by the end of the year, a review will be thrown up prematurely.

-It should be noted that while reviews are merely community feedback and in no way reconfirmation requests, Bureaucrats will reserve the right to remove Special Rights in extreme cases where reviews reveal a negative light for the Special Rights holder the respective reviews correspond to.

Community discussionEdit

OverviewEdit

What exactly is the point of all of this?

  1. Nukapedia, as an encyclopedia of knowledge, must provide a strong foundation for ourselves built from sheer professionalism and a leadership that the community can consistently put their trust into. Our current environment is one in which the leadership is voted in and then they are left to their own devices until they step down or break our policies.
  2. There are those that skirt our policies, and yet aren't called out simply because the community has never been used to reaffirming their leaders, and because we simply have no guidelines or policies to govern such activity and behaviour.
  3. When left to our own devices, complacency is a common factor and the editing-quality of the wiki suffers for it. What we are hoping for, by creating community reviews, will be the introduction of a competitive environment in which our leadership will become motivated to better themselves and their editing-quality, with the help of frequent and consistent community feedback and criticism.

CommentsEdit

We are a professional wiki. Few other wikis have content as expansive and high-quality as ours. Such a professional wiki demands professional administration. This cannot be achieved unless our wiki's staff are willing to be continuously active in patrolling the wiki and making constructive edits. We are not demanding that all staff have to be like Jspoelstra, but just enough effort is shown that indicates a willingness to continuously contribute as a member of the wiki's staff. Not being inactive doesn't mean you're active. Of course we understand that many users have demanding real lives that leave little to no time for wiki duties. It is not a punishment that they go through reviews, but for the benefit of the community. These reviews will gauge the community's confidence in certain staff members, which will either affirm or cast uncertainty upon their position. Being a member of Nukapedia's staff requires continuous attention; if one is unable to afford giving that continuous attention, they should step down. And if they don't want to step down, a review should be in order to allow the community to have their say. Furthermore, keep in mind these reviews are non-binding, which means no action is necessary per se. The bureaucrats, as usual, will determine what action(s) to take, if any. --Skire (talk) 02:33, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that I'm glad we're finally reviewing this. There has been a few times where members with "special rights" haven't contributed much, if not at all to say. Personally, if you want to have rights, and end up getting them, you need to show that you are committed to it! THE NUCLEAR KING Talk 02:57, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

I think theres grounds for tightinging up what we mean by inactivtity or activity... But given that we have the ability to call a motion of confidence at any time, I think reviews are just an opportunity to invite intrigue and drama. If people are really that bothered by you, let em pull the pin and stand by their words.

Maybe if we tie the two together. if you make 500 edits a year as admin, theres no need for a review, your work stands for itself, and anyone who disagrees can pull a vote. If you make less, then this gets brought to the communities attention as an automatic vote of confidence. Agent c (talk) 03:04, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

I can get behind that, Chad. Also, perhaps we could lower the numbers a little bit... As long as people are showing some regular contribution, it's good enough. --Skire (talk) 03:09, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
If our community can't handle simple reviews without drama, then there is something seriously flawed with our wiki. Anyways, the point of the reviews is not to remove rights. It's to inspire our community to update our leaders on how they feel about them. This has never been the case before, and I personally feel that it's necessary for us to receive regular criticism and thoughts from our peers. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:11, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
As stated above, I am 100% for this in principle. The details need to be worked out, however. Maybe we should lower the administrator edits to 300 (from 500) and only give reviews to those who don't qualify. That would get rid of the 3 year mandatory reviews... --Skire (talk) 03:14, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Why 300? That's less than 1 edit a day for a year. I sort of expect our Admins and 'Crats to have at least an edit for each day of the year. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:25, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of imposing edit requirements for the year, with the consequence of not meeting said criteria a peer-review. The community can judge inactivity just fine without imposing restrictions such as this. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 03:15, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The Vault/Nukapedia has never embraced the community having an open channel to publicly discuss their thoughts and critiques over those that they voted in. This would help our community have that chance instead of relying on TP messages and gossiping in chat. Even individual forums in the past have been largely ignored or chastised. So now we are attempting to stream-line the prospect. Also, what restrictions? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:22, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
If the community wants to give me feedback, which is always welcome, they have my talk page, chat, and can call a motion of confidence... they have plenty of opportunity. as for the limit, I think 365 is a good number. Average of one edit per day... hard to call that unreasonable. Agent c (talk) 03:24, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
I point you to the fact again that this process has never been stream-lined, and most in our community, past and present community, have never felt comfortable with giving their leadership critique. This would open up the channels necessary for the community to jump in and have their say. Because, let's be frank: Most people are just waiting for someone else to start up the conversation first before they find themselves saying anything. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:26, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
My issue is if someone misses these requirements, yet has been largely active in other areas of the wiki, that they may have their rights removed because of personal dislike within the community. In the end, votes are somewhat popularity contests. As much as I would appreciate people voting and contributing to discussions with objectivity, often it just doesn't happen. Unless there's some form of failsafe (like BC's rendering final judgement) I can't really support imposing something this restrictive. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 03:41, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Why would the Bureaucrats remove someone's rights in a community review if the rationales involved are of personal disliking of the person? Leaders aren't necessarily around to be liked. They're around because they can make the proper decisions in the face of controversy and adversity, and based on their editing/community aspects. No one is going to have their rights removed simply because a few people have a bug up their butt. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:18, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Here it the problem I have with the edit requirement for inactivity, this wiki is in between games. The simple fact is that some of the admin staff do not work internet jobs or go to school exclusively and have access to the internet and thus have access to spend most of their time here. Some people have real life jobs and real life stuff. When Fallout 4 comes out my edit count will pickup again for example. As for this point "If our community can't handle simple reviews without drama, then there is something seriously flawed with our wiki."' I would point you back to the various incidents in the past with drama in chat, surrounding chat and that spilled out of chat into the wiki. 365 edits a year sounds great, and a vote of no confidence would be great if people feel a leader is not leading people down the correct path. But you must remember, we are in between games. I cannot stress that enough. And the talk pages have always been used for feedback.--Kingclyde (talk) 03:42, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it is that the tools are given to those that the community has trust in, for use in bettering our wiki. When those with the tools are no longer around to better the wiki for an extended amount of time, then there is no reason for them to hold onto the tools any longer. This is especially the case when positions such as the Administrator and Bureaucrat positions are based on a need-only criteria in which the more there are, the more skeptical the community is to adding more onto the ranks. Especially with the 3 only Bureaucrats superstition we have here (something I hope we can abolish for good one day). ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:22, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Clyde, Im not swayed by your real life argument. Fallout 4 isn't suddenly going to make your real world pressures go away, rather it will present itself as another possible distraction. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is nothing do do around here between games, in fact the opposite couldn't be more true. This is the time we should be laying our foundations - refreshing the look and feel of the wiki, improving the general structure of the content we have, and filling in those areas that have been left to rot... there is more than a fair ability to clock up an average of 1 mainspace edit per day. Agent c (talk) 14:27, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
I never asked you to be swayed by my argument, I'm simply providing a different viewpoint. I gave you a simply fact about Fallout 4 and my edit numbers, I don't appreciate you telling me what you think is in my future plans. Also I am not under this perceived notion that there is nothing to do. There is plenty to do, but whenever someone starts something, it stumbles. Sometimes it keeps going which is good. As for laying the foundations, I agree. I never said that this wiki as in anyway perfect. There are still places that have issues and they need work. And I never said there was no reason why someone could not at least get one edit a day in. Please reread my original statement.--Kingclyde (talk) 08:39, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have to ask this: Why is the number of edits being considered for the barometer for use of extra rights? None of the extra rights granted to users are directly related to edits, unless they consist of edits made to pages under protection. Patrollers mark edits patrolled and can use revert. The measure of a patroller using their extra rights are the number of edits marked patrolled and number of uses of revert (granted, that should be low, as we prefer not to use revert). Chat moderators kick and ban from chat, as well as inform/warn users of infractions/rules. The measure of a chat mod using their rights is number of bans given, is it not? Or the number of times they can avoid banning someone by correcting their behavior in chat? Anyone got ideas on how to measure that?

Admins can delete pages, protect pages, edit protected pages and block users. The only edits they make related to the extra rights are edits on protected pages. Shouldn't only those count? As well as the number of pages they protect (which we try to limit) or the number of pages they delete (which they can only do if there's something to delete) or the number of blocks they make? Bureaucrats can only click the little boxes in user rights tabs and make a short note at the end of forum votes that directly relate to their extra rights. Those are pretty darn rare. How many little boxes must a BC tick to show they are using their extra rights?

I'd like a reasonable explanation for the use of raw mainspace edits as a measure of whether or not extra rights holders are using the tools granted to them. Let me give an example of a work cycle that I commonly go through:

  • I create a new template in one of my sandboxes (User space, not mainspace). This can sometimes take dozens of edits.
  • I edit my personal css to create any css classes related to the new template (again, user space, not mainspace)
  • I move the template to the template space (not a mainspace edit) or copy the template to a new page in the template space (not a mainspace edit).
  • I copy the css changes to the mediawiki:common.css page (not a mainspace edit).

A new template is born. Number of edits? Sometimes dozens or even over a hundred. Number of mainspace edits? 0. I can do this all day. Js makes a huge number of file and category edits. None of those are mainspace. An ardent patroller can check every edit on the wiki by himself/herself, but unless they have to change one (not undo or revert vandalism, the entire purpose of their position) they can make 0 mainspace edits.

If we are going to come up with some metrics to measure the use of extra rights, don't you think that those metrics should focus on the actual use of those rights, rather than something completely unrelated, ie mainspace edits? Editors edit. Sysops sysop. Chat moderators moderate chat, etc. Does anyone catch my drift here? Oh, and before you answer that, you first have to answer this: How many mainspace edits do I have this year? Anyone really want to go through my edit history and count?  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:59, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make. The reviews are for the community to have a stream-lined channel for giving consistent critique and feedback, which some of us believe is necessary on a wiki that has always embraced Special Rights holders keeping their rights forever whether they use them or not until just recently with the introduction of the inactivity policies.
All that is being suggested here is to have yearly reviews to see how the community feels about the leadership that they voted in, and whether or not they have any advice for how they can improve. This also includes newer members that join our community, who never had a say before they joined in but still would like to share their thoughts over those that use the Special Rights tools. For those that go through a very extensive process to gain their Special Rights, from Moderator up to Bureaucrat, are merely given a bit of leeway should they show that they are an active force throughout the years. So one Bureaucrat, for instance, might make 800 edits in a year on their second year of service, and so their review would come up on the next year. On the other hand, we might have an Administrator that only made 20 edits in the year, and so a review would be brought forth prematurely to see how the community feels about their activity and work-quality.
But keep in mind that reviews are not to remove rights. They are simply a chance for the community to regularly provide feedback through a channel that has never existed here at Nukapedia. Because anyone that says that our community is breeding a competitive environment for the leadership with the community re-affirming whether they still have faith in them or not outside of the rare reconfirmation request is deluding themselves. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:34, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to go with the average 1 edit per day standard (which Im not sure is required, just suggested at as a reasonable level if we go down this path... not sure if we should). To me that limit would work on the same basis as qualifying edits for user rights requests - Template and files would be included, blog and forum not. Agent c (talk) 21:40, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you answered my question. How many mainspace edits do I have this year? Let's tackle this a different way. Problem solving 101: We are looking to modify our policies. That must mean there is either a problem with the policies, they either have something wrong we need to change or lack something we need. We have a problem we need a solution for. First question that needs an answer is this: What is the problem? Please specifically and concisely state the problem. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:54, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Problem - theres a number of admins who still have rights, but it is percieved that they have no presence on the wiki, and may or may not have community support. Proposed solution - Bump up the inactivity requirements from 1 edit every 9 months, to something that shows more presence. Agent c (talk) 22:01, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree with the problem you bring up I do not agree with the solution. As a moderator most of my work is, well, MODERATING and not editing. Now, I can and probably will be able to manage 100 or so edits a year, but I shouldn't have to as it isn't part of my job. The need for people to have edits prior to running for moderator or admin is to show they are trustworthy and know our rules, once that is proven they do not need to keep proving it every few years (they just need to not disprove it by acting out or whatever). Not to mention that a lot of us aren't in a position to add content to pages, if we catch trolls that is one thing but right now there is content to be added to pages which console or less GECK savvy users don't have the ability to add and, if they couldn't get up to that 100 edits a year quota would be punished. You may as well add a ban quota.
Now, there IS an issue with inactive admins, people such as scarface and Bleep come here rarely. Now, I understand they have reasons (bleep has limited computer access IIRC) but that doesn't really make that okay, as if you're an admin who can never be here, what's the point in you being an admin?
My main concern is more focused on Bcrats (of which there are only three). Js ad Gunny obviously have great presence each but It's very rare that I ever see King Clyde about. Given that Brcat is such an important and powerful roll I think we really do need a solution. It may not seem like such a bad thing if our admins and bcrats aren't here as often as they could be, but when you consider people who would be here more often running for this positions often get shot down with claims of "we have enough already" the issue becomes much clearer.
Honestly, if people aren't going to be here (either from choice or inability to do so) they shouldn't have the large privilege of additional user rights, because there are people here (more able or committed) who can and WILL be here who aren't given that privilege. And that's what matters, no point having an army who is never here.
I expect that in response to this people may point out I had a roughly 8 month absence about two or so years ago, which is true. I had some personal matters to work out so I took a sick day, week, month, half year to sort that all out. Under the current ruling (which was actually added a month or two after I returned) I would have still been in the clear (9 months is the cut off) but I would be fully understanding if, when I had returned, my rights had been removed (or transferred to someone else) due to my inactivity.
I think this is something we need to think about. Also, not long the user ButterFlyKiss lost her additional rights of chat moderator after 9 months of inactivity. However, before the rights were actually stripped there was a sort time when she came to chat and claimed to be moderating, but talked very little and didn't seem to be paying any attention. The problem was that she only came back after being told her rights were being stripped, not because she wanted to come back and be part of the community/chat or return to moderating but only because she didn't want to lose the rights she no longer used. I think this is a privilege that shouldn't be handed out. If users are gone for 9 months but only return in a feeble attempt to hold on to rights they don't actually have a use for, then why bother warning them? They wont become active to a relevant level. I propose that heavily inactive people have their rights stripped upon the 9 month (or however long you want) inactivity stretch and, should they return, have to reearn (maybe even re run) for them once they have been active again (say the 3 month length that running for mod requires).
To be sort, edits aren't the key as much as actually being here is, and if you only poke your head in every few months to keep your rights(which you no longer use or deserve) you should no longer have them. My two cents anyway, y'all can disagree.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:43, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

@The Gunny you have at least 550 main namespace edits this past year alone. --Skire (talk) 00:07, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

You get a cookie :) (actually edit stats say I have 368 in the last 6 months, they don't go back a year). Moving on. OK so the perceived problem is a few extra rights holders are not as active as some would like. That's not an illegitimate position, but there are a few subjective terms there we'll look over to continue this exercise. Of course, the problem involves human behavior, which makes it exponentially harder to tackle. Let's try, though.
The next step in problem solving 101 is to define the end state. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to get them to edit or contribute more? Or are we simply looking to determine the standard for acting on their lack of said contributions? The latter is a pretty simple solution. Haggle back and forth over what we can agree on for "lack of activity". Wait. We already did that. Do we just need to revisit that, rather than create new policies and mechanisms to achieve some ends that we can get to by modifying something we already have? If it's the former, that one's trickier.
If we are trying to change other people's behavior, that's not easy. You can distill the reason folks do things down into just a few: Either they achieve some gain from doing it, or they avoid the consequences of not doing it. This gives us three ways to change people's behavior: Stick, carrot or stick and carrot together. Now, before anybody else says "Gunny, you've smoked one cigar too many. We're only talking about giving folks feedback on the job they're doing", I'm gonna call a spade a spade. This is simply another measure with the long term goal of finding a way to remove rights from folks who don't use them. You can call it what you like, but you won't fool anyone. So the question is begged: If we truly want the inactive folks to contribute more, what is the best method to do so? No one likes to be threatened. Especially at a place like a wiki where everything is done on a volunteer basis. Incentives to contribute will more likely achieve the end goal here better than threats will.
Find a carrot, folks. We already have a stick, hell, two sticks. We've got the inactive policy, and we've got the vote of confidence policy. If you don't use them, that's your problem, not mine. Goodness knows I've taken craploads of people's rights away this year. If you think the stick isn't big enough, then work at altering that policy. You want to give someone feedback on the job they're doing, write them a message. Frankly, if you wait for some yearly review when you have reservations about the job they're doing, you've waited too damn long in my humble opinion.
Now, if folks still don't understand where I'm coming from, I reckon they never will. I recognize that not all folks think or process alike. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:13, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
Thats a damn good point. This is kinda where I wish were were independent of wikia/curse/anyone else really, as we could have some means of building a "fighting fund" that could be used to run an incentive programme (Anyone want to buy a Nukapedia Email address? Could register that and get that running fairly cheaply, and use any surplus to run an incentive programme). Agent c (talk) 01:23, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, here is summary for the three subjects we're trying to discuss here:

  1. Should we ignore when Special Rights holders bypass the inactivity policies we set a while back by making a few minor edits every now and again?
  2. Should we do something about Special Rights holders when they threaten to leave?
  3. Should we have yearly community reviews so the community has a chance to consistently give feedback and criticism to the leadership that they voted in?

It's as simple as that. We are not discussing the removal of rights, or even threatening to remove rights. We are not discussing some singular method of allowing the community to have their say. The yearly reviews would merely be a chance for everyone to get together and have their say. The reviews are not replacing other means of getting into contact with leadership over their performance.

And just to reiterate, this is not some idea that will evolve into some power-scheme where we use reviews to remove Special Rights. It is even stated as such above, in that only extreme cases will ever result in a loss of rights. So, for example: It is revealed during a yearly review that an Admin posts porn in chat while no other Special Rights users are around to see it. Since everyone seems so focused on the review section, I am going to state this as plainly as I can - We are only seeking for a way to streamline the processes involved for community hearings.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's it. Our wiki has a communication problem. Whether it's Admin to Admin, regular user to Admin, etc. etc. etc. We are trying to address this issue by creating an intuitive system that is easily accessible to those that wish to have a voice. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:30, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I don't really like the idea of yearly reviews. They should come up on a as need per user basis (as is the current system IIRC). If someone thinks I'm doing a bad job, they should bring it up now, instead of at the end of the year.
The thing is, this would probably amount to "yeah, he's alright" on reviews for the most part. My biggest gripe certainly is the idea that activity in adminship or moderating is the same as editing, as I brought up above (and similar to what King Clyde said) editing isn't exactly at a peak now, certainly for those lacking the tools. Being an Admin isn't about having the most fallout knowledge or the ability to take screenshots or get audio.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:38, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

But ultimately, we are discussing removal of rights, because thats where this ultimately ends... Unless the review is just going to issue you a nice grade and have no real effect. If an admin is posting porn in chat when noone else is around, I would expect that to be reported to a crat by one of our well meaning users anyway - not just in some review. Agent c (talk) 01:48, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Of course it means something. It gives the community a chance to openly discuss their concerns and feedback for those they've already voted in. The community here at Nukapedia is the reason why any Special Rights holder has their tools. We should continue to respect their trust by listening to them if they ever feel the need to have their voices heard. And yes, they still can have their voices heard outside of some mass review. But I'm not going to reiterate on that any further since I already explained my rationale multiple times as seen reading above.
As for the porn example I used... you're not understanding my point. I'm just saying that if such actions were revealed in a review, then that would qualify as an "extreme" case which would warrant rights removal. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:51, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. While removal of rights is a possible end result, it is not the ultimate intention of such reviews. --Skire (talk) 01:56, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
So this reviews, are they to be conducted in poll format with comments? What would be the procedure?--Kingclyde (talk) 08:44, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
I think given recent events on the wiki, its rather obvious that the "poll" system is not suitable for this. It would have to be in the format of a regular rights request. Agent c (talk) 13:56, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
Good question. The reviews would be non-binding, and they would just be set up at the end of every year for those with Special Rights that are eligible, and anyone can just pop in and say what's on their mind in a non-mandatory manner. There won't be anything like polls or voting sections. The reviews will just be a channel for the users to speak with their leadership and share their critique/feedback should they feel like having their voices heard. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 14:07, December 21, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there will actually be no votes, just comments on what other users think of the performance over the past year of the user being reviewed. --Skire (talk) 17:51, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Moving OnEdit

Alright everyone - here's the deal: I'm going to be mostly gone here while visiting some family until the 2nd-3rd, and the feedback has already tottered off since a couple/few days ago. I'm going to be wrapping this up for the voting stages once I get back, and we really need more input on all three of the topics, not just one of them, or else we're going to have to work with the Bureaucrats to dictate how the vote will turn out after the New Years.

So let's get the ideas flowing! Looking forward to what everyone has had to say once I get back. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:03, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that people lose interest as there is nothing else to do but wait for the news for the new Fallout game. I, for one, don't have much here to do and go to the other sites to edit while waiting here for the news. It must be taken in consideration that people wait, so they may not show their editing avalability right now. Energy X 01:10, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot to do here. You can help with projects, upload audio, help with infoboxes, or help remove first person perspective. It's not fair to the community if special rights holders are only going to be here in the glory days when we've got massive amounts of content to add when there's so much more going on. 69.l25 (talk) 01:20, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
If you don't have Fallout on PC or access to the GECK the first three (depending on the project, most need files or data that can;'t be seen in the normal game) are out and running from page to page hunting for first person perspective isn't the most effective technique and certainly wont give all our admins and moderators a 100 edits per year quota. Also, just because you don't have 100 edits a year doesn't mean you're not here, it just means you're not editing and TBH (as I have said above) admins job is not to edit.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:23, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Editing is a way to measure that you're here. How else can we determine if someone is active? Seeing if they sit around in chat? And are you suggesting that you'd be fine with an admin who doesn't make more than 100 edits a year - someone who can't be bothered to make one small edit once every three days? 69.l25 (talk) 01:29, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Can't be bothered too and lacks the skills/means/information needed to make edits are two different things. Until I got New Vegas on PC i didn't do much editing because there was nothing I could personally edit, short of checking every page for spelling errors and such on the off chance. It wasn't until I founded the audio project or participated in making the graffiti page that I really not back in to editing because that was the time I actually had the TOOLS to edit.
As I have said many times, admins don't need yo edit to do their jobs, look at Chad, he isn't exactly a big main space editor but he is one of our best users, same with Gunny, there are many ways to tell if someone is here and yes, actually, checking in chat is a way you can see if people are here, especially if they are chat moderators (which for some reason you also seem to think need to edit regularly) despite being charged with, well, MODERATING CHAT not editing. If these rolls were just for people who would edit loads they would - A) be called Editors and not Administrators or (chat) moderators) and B) they wouldn't have the ability to ban people, they would just have the abilities to edit. Why should I need to have 100 edits a year to prove I come to the wiki when chat logs can prove otherwise? Being here and editing are very different things, we may as well have a ban quota at this rate.
I'm pretty sure that Gunny has a way of telling when people log on to the wiki anyway, so the concept of having to have people edit to prove they exist is even more illogical and, at a push, you could easily just have people check in or out or something. Making edits is not what we were elected to do and I don't think that is how you should gauge our activity, not to mention that you seem to only be interested in the mainspace (or template, file, ect) edits to prove we're here and not looking at forum, blog, user or talk page edits, all of which would actually still prove that we were on the wiki at that given time. Take Leea for example, I know they're an active user because I see them comment on blogs regularly, sure they may not be an admin or moderator but if this is just to see if we're here or not, then the system still stands. Was I active on the wiki today? Can't tell, I didn't edit an article, just a couple of forums, which don't count.
The pure idea that we should have a quota is idiotic and I won't pretend otherwise, yes inactivity is a problem but I can tell a user isn't here without checking if they made 100 edits in the past year. All this quota would cause is more useless or boosting edits from people afraid of loosing their rights over not reaching the quota. Yeah, this isn't about removing rights but that is the end game of all this, why have a system to tell if people with rights are active or not and then not follow it up? Why put a quota in place that has negative repercussions?
I certainly didn't run for chat moderator rights just so I could be forced to fill an edit count, which would take my attention away from the job at hand; moderating chat. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:47, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do believe the moderator quota should be slightly lowered, considering the chat moderator aspect of the job... But I should note that I do not have GECK access nor do I have any FO game on PC. Notwithstanding, I have still made around 2000 article edits... I don't believe these quotas are too unreasonable. --Skire (talk) 02:24, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that the only reason I personally have moderator status over chat moderator (and thus would be forced to get the 100 edits a year instead of the apparent none) is because I gained "rollback rights" before chat or patroller even existed and, when it came time to run for Chat Mod, I became a moderator as per procedure.
Now, skire, do you believe that you have to edit in order to be administrating the wiki?JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:27, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Using edit counts as a barometer for admin or moderator rights use is like making a policeman take a driving test to see if he's doing his job right. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 03:37, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Please put a stop to this topic. Next to nothing about this forum is about forcing people to have a certain edit count. That is not what these topics are really about. Yes, edit-count does dictate whether a review is thrown up prematurely or not regarding this forum's ultimate intention. Our inactivity policy covers edit counts per year nicely, and the only topic adding onto the inactivity policy here is the one over whether or not Special Rights users should get away with purposefully skirting the inactivity policy. A perfect example is a certain Chat Moderator. Most of you will know of whom I speak about. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:42, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

In-fact, I feel that I should reiterate: Originally, we were wanting to make every Special Rights with a yearly review. But we wanted to give those that work hard more leeway. But if you guys are really so fixated on the edit-count aspect, which actually doesn't mean anything along the seemingly popular assumption here, then we can revert the topic to just making yearly reviews for everyone with no extensions given for hard-work. Which way would you guys rather us continue onwards with? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:52, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
The reason why edit count was selected for this purpose in the first place is because it is virtually the only quantifiable measurement of an extra UR holder's actual activity... But since it seems that this is not appropriate (for valid reasons), a review for everyone would be the non-discriminative way to go. --Skire (talk) 03:55, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I thought people would enjoy having the reviews extended should they put in a minimum effort. But maybe just making it non-discriminate would be best. People might think the whole deal is unfair and playing favourites, anyways. And we don't want that. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:59, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Have you guys ever thought that maybe folks just don't think we need some new overly bureaucratic process to "give feedback". If, as you all say, this has nothing to do with rights removal, then why the hell don't we just advertise that folks leave immediate input when they have it, rather than wait a year? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 04:07, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is that it was the community's responsibility to put their leadership in a position for them to acquire their extra rights and tools. I believe it is our responsibility in turn to give the community an intuitive and condensed forum chance at least yearly to once again provide feedback and criticism. Since they are the reason why we received our positions, after all. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:09, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
And Gunny... I already mentioned that this won't replace other means of giving feedback and criticism. This is merely opening up the opportunity for the community to get together to discuss with their leadership concerns and ideas. Like I mentioned earlier: Most people do not open their mouths by themselves unless given a chance to do so. You have done administrative/leadership work as I have (a much greater scale on your end. Please don't take this as patronizing or anything). I can imagine that you know what I say to be quite true. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:12, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Roger. OK. I'll do as you ask then, and address the three problems you laid out, from my perspective on how they would be best solved:

  • Should we ignore when Special Rights holders bypass the inactivity policies we set a while back by making a few minor edits every now and again?
    • No, we should not. Keep in mind, this is coming from the guy that has to go through edit histories to make that determination. In order to fix this we need to have a productive discussion on what really defines use, or lack thereof, of those extra rights granted. Should it be mainspace edits? How many? Use of the tools? How often? There are pitfalls all over this discussion, but we can do better than allowing someone to stay "active" with one blog comment in 6 months.
  • Should we do something about Special Rights holders when they threaten to leave?
    • Yes, we should. And I do. Any time I hear of an extra rights user threatening to leave, I immediately ask them to leave me a talk page message asking me to remove their rights. Ask around. Plenty of folks have gotten this message from me. I will not have extra rights users taking their ball and going home in a fit without some kind of ramifications. My intent is to make them reflect on their threat to leave, but I also don't hesitate to remove those rights if they do leave. Do we need any further policy to strengthen this? I don't think so. I think if I make it a point to leave that message on their talk pages, rather than in chat, it will be there for all to see. That should suffice, no?
  • Should we have yearly community reviews so the community has a chance to consistently give feedback and criticism to the leadership that they voted in?
    • We *could* have yearly reviews, with or without thresholds (again, how do we determine those thresholds? See all the above discussion). That is, if the community want to do this. Or, we could simply be more transparent and make certain everyone knows that extra rights users feedback should be immediate. I point again to why should we wait a year? Is the additional gain of yearly input going to worth the additional bureaucracy? Or will these reviews just become popularity contests filled with Billy Ocean style vote spam?

If you pose those three points separately, and we discuss them separately, I think we could get something done here. Right now, we've got too much bleed over on the individual points. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 04:30, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Those are excellent points and I believe I can safely say that I agree with every point. For the first two points, I think it would be best just to use common sense and discuss when these occurrences show up. I think the main problem there is that there's a lot of talk, but never much action. I think outside of the inactivity policy, we've only removed the rights of one person skirting them.

As for the threats to leave, I never intended to have rules made out for it. Just a community approves proclamation addressing users that do make such threats. Consider this discussion and vote as a chance for us to set a precedent, instead of making actual rules governing action taken in the future.

With the reviews, I thought that monthly or even every 6 months would get tedious. 1-3 years just seems like a good foundation to settle on, which would give the community one option out of their many options to take. For leadership no longer wanted by the community? Reconfirmation request. Have immediate concerns and ideas? Leave the Special Rights holder in question a personal message, talk to them in chat, or even start a forum/blog. Want the chance to get together as a community to have proper discussions with the leadership they voted in? Make something like a yearly review for everyone to get their thoughts out. As for the Billy example, I can imagine we'd have guidelines in place to remove non-desirable messages that violate common decency. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:44, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Stage IIIEdit

Alright, messages have been sent out to mostly/entirely inactive Special Rights holders. They are simply asking them to reiterate upon their future intentions, as well as forwarding them the discuss being had here. Keep in mind everyone that the messages sent out were not official requests, although they were discussed thoroughly between multiple parties before being sent out. It is our hope that the responses received will help us determine the necessity of further inactivity precedents, and so we will only begin moving onto the voting stages once we have received replies from everyone (or, after a week should we not hear back from someone). Thanks for your patience everyone! ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:56, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Voting for what? I could have sworn you kept telling me this isn't about removing people's rights? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:15, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote 1 - Should we have yearly community reviews available at the end of every year for Special Rights holders? These reviews would be non-binding and non-mandatory.
  • Vote 2 - Should we set a precedent action for Special Rights holders that threaten to leave the wiki?
  • Vote 3 - Should we set a precedent action for Special Rights holders that avoid the inactivity policy set in place by the community? This would involve those that, for instance, might make one minor edit per month, or maybe even a Chat Moderator that sits in chat and never says anything under the guise of actually moderating so they keep their rights.

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:18, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really up for the yearly reviews bit (and think that 3 should be tweaked a little) but for the most part 2 and 3 are solid. Only real gripe I hate is that it does imply that edits make the admin. In the case of both admins and chat mods they should both be considered under "do they neither edit (be it main space, blogs or forums) or chat regularly, but instead avoid the inactivity policy by making an edit every few months or lurking in chat under the guise of moderating?". Really the issue is less "do they edit or ban people" and more "are they here?" If someone thinks that someone has been skirting around the inactivity policy in such ways, they can propose a "activity review" be thrown up. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:27, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Tell you what: if you can wait until tomorrow, we can jump into chat and discuss this a bit. I've seen how passionate you are about the points presented here and in 69's forum, and it'll be good to get some additional input before the vote comes out. If we come up with anything, I'll make sure to add our thoughts here so others can discuss with us. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:38, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
I did not understand what your message to the others had to do with any vote on this, based on the content of the message you sent them. You've been told already that you (or whatever group of people you are representing) are not acting in any official capacity when discussing the inactivity of those folks, and were also asked to stop those communications. Press ahead with this forum and/or a vote on the points, but do not tie any of this to any specific user and their activity or lack thereof. By the way the policy is written, the burden to interpret inactively as defined in the policy, and to enforce that, is on the bureaucrats, no one else. We, as of today, have not defined anyone as being inactive to the point where their rights up for review. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:53, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
The messages sent our were an experiment. They were told that they were inactive, were referred to these forum discussions, and then were asked their intentions. The experiment is to see how they would react and respond to the messages, to help determine if review forums, which would tackle such questions, would ultimately work. So far, Al and TPA have responded, and both occurrences were civil and positive. Now we're just waiting to see how the others respond so we can paint a clearer picture over whether or not the review forums are a plausible ideal (with the added benefit of possibly motivating our inactive Special Rights holders to edit again with a little poke). ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:00, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I kind of don't appreciate the assumption you presented being thrown around, and not just by yourself. It's a bit disruptive, and in no way have any of us claimed our messages to be in an official capacity, or even that their intent were to remove rights. We simply asked them a question - a question in which no matter how they respond, will never have any consequences. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:03, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't see the reason to modify the current system. We already take away rights after a certain period, and unless the person encroaches upon the policies severely, they keep their rights. They are the same person we elected, and we trust them with these rights indefinitely. I think it fine to designate them inactive if they aren't here, they aren't on top of the admin board, therefore users don't go to them, they go to the active admins. It just seems like it would be a lot of fuss to hold a review every year. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 02:08, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Please read the forums. :( The yearly reviews would never be about removing rights. They would be one of many methods of getting the community as a whole into touch with the leadership they voted in, in the form of community reviews which are both non-binding and non-mandatory, in which the community and each respective Special Rights holder can discuss feedback and criticisms. Like mentioned, the only time rights would ever be removed due to yearly reviews would be in extreme circumstances, such as someone coming onto the review and revealing that, for instance, a Chat Mod was linking porn to people in private messages. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:11, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Very understandable concerns, and one I myself think about a lot is the fuss that might be created with these reviews. But we need to remember that this isn't a mass-trial; it's simply a centralised forum where users can go to provide feedback on their staff whom they've elected. And also, I don't believe people stay the same, especially after a long time. Not only does the person change, but the community they are meant to be serving also changes. --Skire (talk) 02:12, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Of course of course. I just think it would be easier to have this porn linking chat mod be dealt with as he commits the offense. It isn't like people don't report that sort of thing already. Believe me I'm not against a review, I think we all review each other constantly in our discussions already. It just seems a bit superfluous is all. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 02:20, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Well, the porn example I used wouldn't be restrictive to having to be revealed in a review. I was just using that as an example that only something like that would ever result in someone's rights being stripped due to content in a yearly review. As for the rest, I can agree with that sentiment a bit. But a lot of us are friends, and so we're comfortable talking with each other publicly and privately. For the rest of our community, however, we're hoping to address them since so many of them seem unwilling to come forth and talk with those they voted in, or came in at a time where it was too late to help decide who their leadership would be. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!
Is kind of bitter over being used to make a point, without knowledge of intent MadeMan2 "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We linked you to these forums which we said motivated the questions asked. Our intent was never hidden. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 18:09, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, I'm going to be honest here, and this is nothing against you or your ideas (some of which I will fully admit to agreeing with), but I have read this entire forum, and the one preceding it, and I think I can speak for many people when I say I do not clearly understand your intent with this. Clearly there is a problem here, but through all of this I can barely discern what your proposed solution is, or how you plan to implement it. I also question why you needed to message our currently semi-active users, when it seems like we haven't even yet devised a solution to the problem. I think some clarity is needed for many on the problem, your proposed solution, and the implementation of the former. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:45, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to summarize everything:
  • One vote will be put up for the community to determine whether Special Rights holders should be held accountable for threatening to leave. This will not be an addition to our policies/guidelines. Merely a precedent to refer to.
  • Another of our votes will be put put up in the exact same way as the previous vote, except it will be to determine whether we should have a precedent to point to in dealing with users that do the bare minimum to skirt the inactivity policy. For instance, when a certain Chat Moderator started jumping in chat and then went afk immediately every time after being notified that their rights were about to removed.
  • And the final vote will be over whether or not a Special Rights reviews should be held yearly. No one would be obligated to participate in the reviews, and no rights will be removed due to the reviews themselves. They would simply exist to give the community a chance to get together at least once a year and discuss their thoughts with the leadership they voted in. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:01, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • As for our intent, we are simply looking to fix a few cracks here. With the review aspect of the discussions, we are hoping to give our community more of a voice. Friends and veterans have no problems speaking their minds. But those that are new or anonymous simply don't have a proper channel to relate with when looking to express themselves. The reviews we propose are hoping to rectify this. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:02, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The primary goal is to improve the quality of our administration here; this we hope to achieve by creating a centralised forum for public feedback that will reflect the community's opinion on our administrators' performance throughout the last year. --Skire (talk) 02:14, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
While that does clarify the majority of the mis-information here, I still fail to see the reason for messaging semi-active users within your current plan... FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  02:40, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
Well, for one, we were simply curious about their inactivity, and we wanted to refer them to these forums since we didn't want them blind-sighted to possible changes coming up in the future. And secondly, I, personally (although others helped write the messages with me), wanted to see how they'd react to being asked such questions, which would be common questions asked of inactive leadership should the yearly reviews become a reality. Since we were already on the topic of inactivity here, I figured it'd be appropriate, and it would have provided some feedback into how Special Rights holders would respond. So far, it has gone very well. Although, admittedly, only two have answered us back so far. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:48, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I did not answer back is because I felt Gunny responded to those ill advised messages very well. If I would have responded I feel it would have gone bad. As Gunny stated, you made it sound very official as if it came from "us" the bc's. When you said "we" I still am not sure who "we" is. Is we this click of friends you have or is "we" supposed to represent us the bc's incorrectly. And I still think as do many other that no matter how much you deny it this will end it reconfimation requests (I already know one is slated for me). What really urks me is that I have to come in here and punch a fucking time clock in order to keep my rights. Rights that I actual earned. After the split we had no bc. So who stood up and took charge when no one would? Me, no one else. And if it comes down to people bitching about mainspace edit counts. Sure Leon you have I higher overall edit count than I do but I lead you be 3k in Mainspace edits. I lurk, when I do edit they are minor edits. I check in and check stuff. The messages you left were out of line and were not your job to place. I do not care if they were an "experiment" as you stated on Gunny's page. It is not your job to jump the gun when these topics haven't even been voted on yet. Maybe just a link similar to what Chad leaves with a small note would have sufficed. Anyways thats all for now.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:39, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

"We", which is referring to those of us that created, and are moving forward these forums that I linked to in the messages: Myself, Danny, and 69. As for the rest, you are bringing up a lot of stuff that does not belong here, and we can address those elsewhere, with just one exception: we had every right to send those messages. We were curious and wanting to move these forums further, and so we sent out legitimate messages that even standard users without Special Rights would have the right to ask of their leadership. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:57, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
Everything I brought up here is absolutely relevant. How are the edit counts not relevant? How is the reconfirmations not relevant which will happen not matter how much you deny this. And how is the fact that you guys want me to punch a time clock basically not relevant in this discussion?--Kingclyde (talk) 21:07, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
Two reason: that you're bringing up edit-counts on this forum, is irrelevant. The edit-count idea was scrapped a long time ago, and now the discussion is whether or not we should have yearly reviews for all Special Rights holders, except for Patrollers. The second reason why it's irrelevant here is because the messages we sent out were only sent out to inactive Special Rights holders that would have been possibly affected by the changes being discussed here, which we did not want them blind-sighted to.
No one has denied that there might be reconfirmations further down the road should the two precedents we put forward pass. Absolutely no one. But we are not discussing reconfirmations here. Especially in the case of the yearly reviews, which will never result in reconfirmations. Note the examples I used above for the only exception to this.
We have our inactivity policies for a reason. Those that strive for a leadership position, should remain viable leaders. If I went off into the military, for instance (which I almost did a bit back), I would fully expect my rights to removed, as I would no longer have the means to be the leader that I was voted in to be, and I would simply run again once I could come back to Nukapedia.
Point of order. I feel the need to clarify something here: "The second reason why it's irrelevant here is because the messages we sent out were only sent out to inactive Special Rights holders". This is your own personal interpretation of the inactive users policy. Regardless of what you personally believe is the threshold for "inactive", none of the users you contacted have been defined as "inactive" by the only people who are to make that determination, the BCs, using the currently applied definition we use of "inactive". Under no circumstances should anyone consider these users inactive based solely off of your own personal interpretation of the policy. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:13, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not. I picked everyone that was listed as inactive on our Administration page. Clyde was the only exception to this. And I think I should clarify that Bureaucrats were never given the ultimate authority to determine what constitutes as inactive or not. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:19, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
Only the BCs can tick the box. While it does not spell out that only we have the authority, only we have the ability to tick the box. It also does not say any group of three users has the authority to determine it also. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:28, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
The Bureaucrats can tick the box, but the community is what allows you all to do so, and it's the community that has the only authority. Bureaucrats were never given ultimate authority. Ever. I sent messages out to everyone that has been declared as inactive, and has inactive on their user-pages. Clyde was the only exception to this. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:30, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

( ...And as much as you might protest it... Its that "exception" that proves him right.

I think this is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to "get at" Clyde. I think you're using this to put pressure on him to resign. Its no secret that you two dont seem to get along, one need only take a short glance at your talk pages. Again, your only "exception" is the thing that proves this to me, and your use of self declared inactives (not procedurally declared or declared by any written rule) I think is just an attempt to use cover.

Maybe there is an argument about how active and visible members of the leadership team need to be, but I am growing increasingly wary of this whole process... it seems almost Machiavellian, the efforts that are being taken to ramp up the pressure.

I'm going to say this outright and clear. I believe you were beyond your authority when you sent those. They were worded in a way that implies official status through your use of pronouns - you didnt make clear who we or us were, and that you were not speaking in any official capacity, but were just wondering as a user (or collection of other users who didnt put their name to it).

I am also annoyed with your overhanded attempts to control the conversation. This is meant to be a discussion thread, not the 9:01 to Asusa, Anehiem and Cucamunga. If people want to discuss what you feel are tangents or not the key issue you want to discuss, TS. It is up to those who are discussing it to decide what thy think are the valid points and concerns.

Also, you are misusing the term precendent. Legislated change does not create a precedent, judicial rulings do. Example, Tesla's requests created a precedent that Bureaucrats can not follow a user rights request poll.Agent c (talk) 22:43, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

That's funny, seeing as in how I wasn't the one that started this. You want my reasons for this forum? I'll tell you: for a long time, 69 has been attempting to enforce our policies, especially around the areas of inactivity and those with Special Rights that are never here. But 69 kept getting ignored by everyone except a select few of us. Eventually, 69 made the forum that led into this one, and once again, everyone ignored it. I got absolutely sick and tired of seeing even our own Bureaucrats ignoring one of our most promising editors, to the point where he had to take a short break out of frustration, and so I showed him that at least some of us have the initiative to see proposals through, and not just ignore the inconvenient ones, or the ones that might affect me since I have Special Rights (I don't covet my rights, so I have no reason to worry about such discussions and votes).
Second, I don't need this to call Clyde out. For 6 months now, I have been hearing people complain about Clyde's inactivity. In-fact, I'm going to call you two out since you guys are attempting to make assumptions of my motives and throw me under the bus while you're at it: Both Gunny and Chad have spoken with me, have discussed with me on how to deal with Clyde's inactivity, and Chad was even willing to write out a statement to use in a reconfirmation request, but backed out because he didn't want it to affect his Bureaucrat request. And want to know why I don't need this forum to call out Clyde? Look at his TP: I've already asked him to step down.
As for the rest, I am controlling this conversation, because it keeps going down alleys of complete and utter irrelevancy. This forum is for three matters: Should we set two additional precedent for our inactivity policies, and should we have yearly, non mandatory and non binding reviews for Special Rights holders? This forum is not discussing reconfirmation requests. This forum is not for baseless accusations. This forum is not about some mandatory edit-count which never existed in the first place. And this forum is exactly as it has been worded out since 69 started it. I don't appreciate the accusations being made that this forum isn't as it seems, when many of us have put a lot of hard work and thought into it. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:56, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • 69 wasn't ignored. But I believe you "saw it as an opportunity" the moment 69 posted it...
  • As for Clyde... Now you're twisting reality. Let take this statement "Gunny and Chad have spoken with me", worded in a way that implies we approached you - this never happened (at least on my part), and given that I know there have been other statements of his that you've twisted beyond all recognition from reality, I don't believe Gunny approached you either. You came to me seeking help to remove Clyde, and I believe (but have no personal knowledge to say either way) you went to Gunny to discuss it further.
  • To my best recollection I never gave a commitment to write such a statement, however a potential request was discussed. When I decided to run on Christmas it no longer became appropriate for me to be a part of any discussion (given that I would be on the bureaucrat team at that point) on the matter given your original timescales.
  • No, you are controlling the conversation, like many of the other forums you start, because you want your goal to be achieved, and achieved your way. Thats why you're trying to shut down these other avenues of discussion. Agent c (talk) 23:10, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, he was.
  • I never said anyone approached me. You're the one twisting reality by saying that I did. I did approach you and Gunny. Doesn't change the conversations had, and what led up to us finally determining anything.
  • I have all of my conversations on Skype saved. If you're going to make assumptions of our motives and attempt to throw me under the bus to derail this forum, then I have no issues with stating that.
  • I said I was controlling the conversation. Stop putting words in my mouth, once again, and saying otherwise. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:13, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
Tell me how this forum wasn't ignored? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:17, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
While some deviation from the main topic is acceptable, we must remember that this forum is about reviews. I support the idea of a simple, yearly review, and so Leon and I have decided to bring up another forum following 69.l25's initial forum that was largely ignored. The messages we sent were simple, respectfully worded, non-binding questions to gauge the reactions users would have to a question, which would give us an idea about how users would react to questions regarding their extra user rights. It was not targeted at Clyde specifically. --Skire (talk) 23:21, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean the Forum that got 4 long replies, and is the reason why we are here? Funny definition of ignored.
  • Then be a little more honest in your wording in the future. We didnt speak with you, you spoke with us.
  • Its not the forum I'm trying to derail... its more of a put up or shut up. Come out of the shadows, stop hiding your true intentions.
  • And I have a problem with your control. This is a conversation, not a freight train. Stop trying to railroad it.
  • Skire - if its not targeted at Clyde, then why is he the only non self declared inactive on the list? Agent c (talk) 23:26, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to answer you one more time, and then I am not replying to anything here that is off-topic (you can take those to my TP).

  • 4 replies that never went anywhere, because most everyone else refused to even acknowledge it. 4 people isn't enough, and you know it.
    • If it weren't for us (myself, Danny, 69) talking about it and reviving the forum, you all would have been perfectly content with letting the topic die even though it was following up on our need to enforce policies. Which, guess what? Is our jobs.
  • When have I ever hidden my intentions? Shall I remind you that I am one of the most blunt people on this wiki? And why would I need this forum to hide my intentions? Need I remind you to look at Clyde's TP? I've already asked him, flat-out, to step down.
  • I'm not trying to railroad it... we just put a lot of work into this, and I want to see it through. These off-topic comments, questions, and declarations are derailing it.
  • I refer you to my earlier point. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:33, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
You can't really say that's a "self-declared" list of inactive users. Many of our staff here move users there as they see fit, it really has no official meaning. We were just sending them out to users whom we thought were inactive enough. It was quite arbitrary, to be honest. These users coincided with those listed as inactive, plus Clyde. Some others returned or left recently and so we didn't see it necessary to send them one. --Skire (talk) 23:34, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to ask a very simple question: Have you, Leon, Danny or 69, ever considered that the earlier forum was ignored because no one agreed with the ideas put forth in it? Simple question, begs a simple answer. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 00:18, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
That makes it even worse, in my opinion. 69 was actively discussing established policies, and how there are some skirting it or even abusing it. As a Administrator, in which it is my job to uphold and clarify upon guidelines and policies, I consider it my job to address such concerns, whether I agree or not. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:48, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Is it customary to ignore something you disagree with? --Skire (talk) 01:00, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Answered question with a question. Skire, I honestly wanted to know if you had fully considered the reasons why the prior forum got no traction. There are many reasons why folks either contribute, or choose not, to a forum. One of those legitimate reasons is that others may not have agreed with the idea presented and choose to ignore it to let it die on the vine. Through this whole process, I've been interested to see how many people support what's been proposed. Out of a wiki full of folks, there's only 3 folks driving the bus on this. Do more support the idea of yearly reviews? Hell if I know, judging by how this convoluted forum has gone. Why don't we just cut to the chase and put up a forum vote to finally find out? If the community does not support the idea of yearly reviews, no matter how many folks disagree with not having them, the the issue is dead. If they do support it, then that's what we do. Is there any reason to delay voting on yearly reviews? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:14, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The question was rhetorical. I don't believe it's appropriate to ignore a forum discussion regarding policy simply because you disagree. This is especially so for members of our staff. And I have no issue with a vote right now to settle it. If, perchance, there isn't enough support, that will be the end. This forum did not need to get derailed in the first place. --Skire (talk) 01:17, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, we haven't moved on, because we're still waiting for Limmie's response to the message we sent out. After a bit more discussion, we'll figure out how we want to portray these topics in a vote. There's a lot to think about here. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:28, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Moving this to a voteEdit

I propose immediately moving the issue of yearly reviews for extra rights users to a formal vote. This is a simple issue. Either we do them or not. I suggest a three way poll, option 1 being yearly reviews for everyone, option 2 being yearly reviews based on the consensus position of whatever edit or rights use thresholds have been discussed above, and option 3 being no reviews. Is there reason why this can't be immediately put up? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:42, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I am working on proposals of my own, as this topic arguable got to the place this is because of the original forum I made. I have asked Leon to list what points will be voted on, and I will make my own. Then we can move forward with voting on my and Leon's proposals. 69.l25 (talk) 01:44, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the issue you want to bring up, redefining the thresholds for inactivity, or the other issue brought up in this forum, users threatening to leave. I'm only talking about bringing up the stated topic of this forum: "Reviews for special rights holders". We don't need to wrap that issue up with anything else, it can stand on it's own. If neither you, Leon or Skire don't want to write it up, I'll be happy to. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:51, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
My intention was to have one forum where the points brought up throughout the course of this discussion could be voted on. This would be the three Leon brought up and the two I plan on mentioning. If you want to go ahead and start a vote on reviews, I won't stop you, but Leon and I plan on having every proposal we made voted upon. 69.l25 (talk) 02:02, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Lumping too many issues has confused voters in the past. The major positions are all defined. Is there any reasonable reason why you feel that we can't press ahead on this issue alone? I think the merits have been debated to fruition. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:06, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
I plan on making my own proposals regarding the issues brought up in this forum. (There would only be two.) I can, however, just make a new forum as a follow up with my points, and we can go ahead and vote on what's been discussed here. Would you agree with that? 69.l25 (talk) 02:09, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
If those points are specific to yearly reviews, add them here. It's the forum for it after all. We can take your views into consideration with the views and consensus above. If they're for something not being discussed here, ie redefining "inactivity", they merit their own forum. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:14, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
No, they wouldn't be for yearly reviews specifically. I'll create a follow-up forum with them. I suppose we can go ahead and vote on reviews then. 69.l25 (talk) 02:16, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.