Preface
Following discussion here regarding possible changes to the current inactivity policy (found on FW:ADMIN), it was mentioned that said policy had already run its course and served its purpose nicely. Most if not all inactive users have had their rights removed while others have resumed regular activity. With the flaws in the policy's interpretation being brought to light recently, it has been considered that removing the policy at this point may be the best course of action.
The community may either decide to remove the inactivity policy completely or decide to keep it. If the latter is chosen, discussion on amending or modifying the policy will resume.
Poll
Question: Should the current inactivity policy found on FW:ADMIN be removed completely?
| ||||
Yes
If someone's been inactive too long and needs to lose their rights, then just put in a reconfirmation request or no confidence. Richie9999 (talk) 01:47, May 14, 2014 (UTC)- Removing the policy would solve the time issue tied to it and open the removal of rights to the community. I agree that a reconfirmation/vote of no confidence would be the best way to go about the issue of inactivity. --MountHail (talk) 02:25, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
I am still of the opinion that rights should only be removed for misconduct. Great Mara (talk) 19:47, May 14, 2014 (UTC)- At this point I feel it appropriate to let the policy give way to just using motions of no confidence for cases of severe inactivity/failure to perform duties. The inactive list is being over-emphasised and it seems to me that being moved under "inactive" is perhaps damaging to the ego but nothing else. --Skire (talk) 22:00, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- The original purpose of this policy has been accomplished. It seems to be doing more harm than good at this point. Unless someone could suggest a major rewrite for it, it should go. Paladin117>>iff bored; 03:37, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
No
- There should be a timer for consistent activity for any user, with any sort of special rights... 02:08, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- See comments. A Follower Talk 19:41, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Excluded Votes
-
I personally think it should stay. I will try and elaborate sometime soon. "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 02:04, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral
- Doesn't affect me and I won't give a damn if it does. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."
Comments
I cannot support repealing this policy until we have a framework of what to do moving forward. There are too many potential problems that I can see potentially happening for us to not have any policy in place - we do not have an autocratic leadership like Ausir any more to make decisions. Because of this, responsibility will fall to the community and to the bureaucrats, according to our own existing policies and definitions. Some examples of where this will fall short or have unintended consequences:
From the FW:ADMIN page:
Basically by removing the policy this gives bureaucrats both the de jure and de facto ability of removing people's rights at their discretion. I would hope they wouldn't do such a thing, but I'm not in favor of returning that power to them so blatantly.
Another example, shown when you edit the FW:ADMIN page:
Without a definition of when people are moved to inactive, the ability of moving people from the active list to the inactive list is de facto in the hands of any registered user who cares to edit the page. This makes an inactive list impossible to enforce and maintain.
Now, if we were to remove the inactive list to avoid this problem, we would have to list everyone regardless of activity. This would mean users like Ausir (who will never return), Crimson Frankie (who is almost 9 months inactive), and Mishaxhi would all be listed in the same list as active users, giving an inaccurate representation of active extra-rights users. Something would also have to be done about Ausir, as I cannot see why or how we could have him listed alongside the rest of our admins.
Based on all of this, there needs to be some framework to prevent these issues from arising. Repealing without taking this into account is not something I can support. 
A Follower Talk 19:56, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- The idea I had in mind when I endorsed removing the policy was that removal of rights would fall in the hands of votes of no confidence and/or periodic reviews. But we have indeed failed to define (or redefine) inactivity in this case which is part of the issue.
- As for the Bureaucrats, why, we'd have to redefine that as well. Should we do that in this vote or elsewhere at another time and then resume this? --The Ever Ruler (talk) 22:09, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not informed enough to make a decision. Until the next game in this series is given a reveal / release, there is going to be a massive amount of inactive people. I guess if I had edited like 25% of the wiki, and come back for Fallout 4 without admin, I'd be pretty discouraged. Are there a limited number of admins? If so, I can see how that could hold back admin power from banning trolls and other malcontents.
Regardless, I hope the wiki can continue to grow, and help out the players. A good wiki is a great supplement, helping folks get the most from the story, make better choices, and best of all: kill glitches. 71.237.151.80
If memory serves I pushed and wrote much of the policy. It doesn't work. It causes division, and people who don't need the rights anymore just check in enough to keep em. Lets just scrap the thing and be done with it... Agent c (talk) 22:13, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding point #1: "Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers. " means only that they are capable of removing rights, not that they are allowed to do so at their discretion. The same way that sysops are capable of promoting/demoting chat mods and banning people, but we can't do that without valid justification as predicted in the policies. At any rate, if we are to interpret that passage as giving discretionary power over the rights, then that is so with or without the inactivity policy, as it doesn't address rights removal other that by inactivity.
- As for point #2: The list predates the inactivity policy by several months. It was originally merely a reference list to differentiate the special rights users that happened to be absent, so that people looking for them wouldn't waste time messaging an admin/etc who wasn't going to read their TPs anytime soon. There was never any specific rules for said move, and it was mostly on a self appointed basis. Without the policy, the functioning of the list will simply revert to how it was originally (and might I add, never resulted in any problems).
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 22:16, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- To quote you directly Limmie, in regards to appointing/demoting chat mods, we can't do that without valid justification as predicted in the policies. Thats exactly my point. Without something in the policy in place, which covers all bases, the de facto result is what I stated above. And while trying not to sound overly bureaucratic, just because something can function a certain way does not imply that it will do so. In my opinion, having no policy at all is practically the same as having an extremely vague one. Heck, even something saying "extra rights are not removed except in cases of gross abuse or community consensus through a reconfirmation request' is better than leaving it blank. A Follower Talk 21:22, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
- To quote you directly Limmie, in regards to appointing/demoting chat mods, we can't do that without valid justification as predicted in the policies. Thats exactly my point. Without something in the policy in place, which covers all bases, the de facto result is what I stated above. And while trying not to sound overly bureaucratic, just because something can function a certain way does not imply that it will do so. In my opinion, having no policy at all is practically the same as having an extremely vague one. Heck, even something saying "extra rights are not removed except in cases of gross abuse or community consensus through a reconfirmation request' is better than leaving it blank.
