FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Vote: Exception to inactivity policy
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki

Preface

Following this forum discussion, and after a period of time to track developments on the matter, it has been decided that a formal referendum is perhaps the best way to bring closure to this matter at hand.

User:Porter21, despite his impressive catalogue of contributions here, is no exception to the inactivity policy found on FW:ADMIN.

Besides a random file edit in June 2013, Porter has not edited on this wiki since September 2012 (over 15 months ago). If he should, for whatever reason, return to Nukapedia in the future, he may reapply for administrator rights. Given his highly refined skill set, regaining his admin rights should be rather easy...

It should also be noted that Porter has recently become inactive on The Vault as well.

For the vote below, please consider the following question: Should Porter21 be made an exception to the current inactivity policy?

Vote

Poll finished on 1:54 am January 20, 2014 (UTC).
Poll
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

Yes

  1. Icon check For now - as the proper actions have not yet been taken to remove his rights in accordance with our policy. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:58, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Icon check I don't believe either Ausir nor Porter have done anything to warrant removal of rights. I think the act of promoting and demoting administrators has become all too common within this community, considering the notion of a "reconfirmation request" was based off a forum created by an infamously troublesome sockpuppet who was trying to piss off Tagaziel. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 05:39, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Icon check ya know ya boy gotta vote for Porter to keep his rights. if yall aint done it before, why do it now? Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 06:39, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Icon check Explained in the comment below. If he returns and sees his rights intact, we'll have a better chance of him doing work for us, then we would if we remove them. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:07, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Icon check Peace'n Hugs (talk)
  6. Icon check I'm swayed by the argument that he would be more likely to return and contribute if he retains his rights. It seems that it does little harm to have the rights stay, and he seems like a special enough case that the "slippery slope" of granting exceptions for others won't happen. FFIX (talk)
  7. Icon check I believe due to the massive technical knowledge he has he will be invaluable if he does indeed decide to lend his help again. Besides, I agree with Yes Man on his point.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:45, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Icon check Free Tibet Dead Gunner's SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 00:30, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Icon check Voting anything else would be pretty disingenuous, since I've been a part of basically granting this extension already. Like some of the others above, I'm starting to get concerned about the tone we're striking as a whole. We rely on volunteers here. This isn't a corporation. If it is, I expect some serious back-pay. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:04, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

No

  1. Icon cross --Skire (talk) 01:54, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross He is inactive and does not need his rights. 69.l25 (talk) 01:59, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross He has long been inactive. If Porter ever does return, then he can reapply for adminship. --MountHail (talk) 02:02, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross The community put forth the policies in play here, and it's our duty to abide by them. A message has been sent to Porter, and should he not answer, then he will become official bound by our inactivity policy. It's unfortunate, but it's counter-productive to contradict and sweep our policies under the rug. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:32, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross He has not been an active presence on the wiki and has no use for the tools. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 05:20, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross He's inactive, if he comes back, he can reapply. Secondly, seems like he's migrated to The Vault anyway. There's tons more of activity from him there, only about 50 edits here. User OfficialLolGuy  OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  06:46, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross There is no sign that he will return and if he did it would just be a matter of giving him the rights back. What's the point of the policy if we don't enforce it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 00:47, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Icon cross No one is or should be excluded no matter how much they contributed here. If they truly wish to rejoin us, then they'll understand that they'll have to reapply for rights as if they were anybody else. Porter (or anyone else for this matter) can always use their reputation to win them some bonus points should they reapply. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:28, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Icon cross As much as I want him to come back, and as much as he has done for this wiki, he is not a founder. I knew porter when he was here and he did a huge amount for the wiki, but in the end he is another volunteer like the rest of us, and as such he is subject to the same rules and policies that govern the rest of the us. ---bleep196- (talk) 01:21, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Icon cross I'm not convinced there are valid reasons to enact such exception.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪
  11. Icon cross He's inactive. Be gone. Enclavesymbol 21:34, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Icon cross Not even sure why this is being debated. We have a rule about this. Besides, Ausir can't even use his rights. We all want Porter back but that clearly isn't happening, so there's no point in him having rights. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 00:33, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Excluded votes

Neutral

  1. Icon neutral I am gonna sit on neutral on this. We should counsel Porter himself and ask if he is going to return. RangerSequoia "Some say this user used to be a Patroller..." Wiki 03:56, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Excluded votes
  • Icon neutral Carry out the policy despite it being late. Then see what happens. If he loses his rights and wants to come back, then he can always reapply for admin and work his way up to BC if he commits. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 22:44, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Um, before we vote to remove rights, has anyone actually contacted Porter to find out what he thinks?

I think we need to stay this conversation if this is not the case. Agent c (talk) 23:58, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Do we have a proper way to contact him? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:03, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
His talk page perhaps? Agent c (talk) 00:08, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
We've tried that before, but I suppose another try wouldn't hurt. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:13, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to comment in that, Porter is currently violating our policies. I know it sucks that he's gone inactive, but the fact is that everyone has to abide by the polices our community put into place. I, along with most everyone here, will keep hoping that he'll come back some day. But until then, we really don't need to be ignoring our own policies just to make an exception for someone that hasn't been here for over 15 months. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:01, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

  • Porter is not breaching the policies. The bureaucrat team may be in not removing the rights, but Porter himself is not.
  • My understanding is that it is typical for bureaucrats to contact users close to the inactivity point to tell them that deadlines are approaching and to ask about their intentions. Some seem to be conveniently ignoring this.
  • Removal of rights from inactivity is a bureaucratic action, not a community one as per the guidelines. The communities option is a motion of confidence, which means that contacting Porter is a requirement. Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
    • Good point.
    • Another good point.
    • A third good point.
      • So why hasn't any of this been done? This is an open question, not one directed at you. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:13, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
As I recall, Clyde sent out messages to "all" inactive sysops in October of 2012, notifying them of the inactive policy and how it would be applied to them. Those who did not respond had their rights removed, and those who did and became more active did not (Dotz being one of them). This would be the appropriate course of action, in my opinion. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  00:16, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

(Setting up a vote of no confidence is in practice ruining our chances with him definitely. Then contacting him about how he feels about it/what his plans are, is a better option. Although silently letting him keep his rights and see if he returns with Fallout 4 is still the best in my opinion. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 00:13, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

While in theory that is an appropriate course of action, it sets the wrong precedent, thus undermining the policy we are ignoring, as well as all the policies which we as a wiki have instituted. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:12, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

"Appropriate course of action"? The appropriate course of action is to enforce our policies that were approved by our community and our bureaucrats. The inactivity policy has no clause for exceptions, and I am not convinced as to why Porter should be an exception. He has recently gone dark at The Vault and has never, to my knowledge, showed an interest in returning here. --Skire (talk) 00:18, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

@Jspoelstra If Porter wants to return, he can, at any time. I have no doubt this community will quickly allow him to have his admin rights back after a quick reapplication. That is, after all, what the policy prescribes. --Skire (talk) 00:21, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

@A Follower I will ask Porter what his plans are on his TP, and if he plans on coming back (soon), I'll withdraw the vote. Also, the results of this referendum do not stipulate any action, per se. So "correct steps" should be addressed more to the bureaucrats... --Skire (talk) 00:24, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a vote. "Definition of inactive for rights removal is nine months of a lack of editing." It's been nine months, and we've seen one edit; as per policy, his rights should have already been removed. There is no need for a vote. 69.l25 (talk) 00:24, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The only reason why this is a vote in the first place is because of my understanding of reluctance in removing his rights. The bureaucrats have neither sent a message to him (per the custom), nor have they actually removed his rights, although he is over a year inactive on this wiki. This vote is to solidify our resolve to take those appropriate actions. --Skire (talk) 00:30, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
That explanation just about summed up every thought of mine over this. We've essentially had to bring this to light the community way, since the proper way hasn't been upheld. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:37, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, there should only be a vote if an action being taken (or in this case, not being taken) is against established policy. In reality, we should be voting on whether or not to extend Porter's sysop rights indefinitely, not take them away (as that should already be done as per policy following an attempt to contact). If we were to phrase it differently, we would get a more binding decision. Voting no on this proposal will result in applying Porter an exemption to our policy; it should be a "yes" vote that does this instead. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:17, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
No, not every vote needs to be binding. As I explained above, this vote was created because of the bureaucrats' apparent reluctance in removing Porter's rights, even though he has gone over a year inactive. They haven't even sent a message. Obviously, if users vote no, it shows that the community doesn't want Porter's rights removed per policy. In my belief, that would effectively supersede policy. --Skire (talk) 01:20, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be binding, that was a poor choice of words. What we will get is a more accurate sampling of people's true opinions. What we are basically asking here is "should we apply an established policy to this user?". Seems like a pretty dumb question, because logically of course we should. But because there is some discourse on this we should be asking "should we make an exception to our policy" in the case of said user. Seems silly to ask if we should apply our rules. If rules aren't there to be applied, why have them at all? We have to enforce our policies our we undermine them in a vote like this by potentially voting to not enforce them - and that sets a precedent. But if we vote for an exception, it still maintains the validity of our policies, because the community voted to on creating said exception, instead of voting to not implement them. They are 2 different things that need to be distinguished. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:37, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A Follower's statement that we should be voting on whether not to extend Porter's rights. A vote to remove his rights-- as we have here-- is unnecessary; our policy outlines the situation in which a user must have their rights removed, and Porter is in this situation. We should remove his rights to adhere to policy, but if people truly feel he should keep them, they can come forward and propose that he should keep his rights. 69.l25 (talk) 01:42, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, the real question is "should we apply the rules for this specific case?" Voting no is effectively supporting an exception. Voting yes is reaffirming enforcement of the policy, hopefully to be carried out by our bureaucrats. It really is that simple. --Skire (talk) 01:46, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
The vote now is "should we follow our policy or not." If someone thinks that we shouldn't, they must bring that up, but the setup of this vote is backward. What has been brought up is a proposal to follow the rules, which is unnecessary. If we change it to "should Porter be exempt from the rules," that would be a different story. 69.l25 (talk) 01:49, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
It's honestly the same exact thing. If you don't want Porter's rights to be removed, you are ipso facto support him being an exception to policy. But if the wording is that big of a deal, I can go ahead and change it. Could you send out messages to voters that they need to re-cast their vote? --Skire (talk) 01:53, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
That's the thing Danny, voting no in this case isn't necessarily supporting an exemption. You have to spell that out specifically, and it hasn't been. Voting no is akin to voting to not apply the policy, and not applying the policy is not the same as creating an exemption. Voting to not apply a policy is a very dangerous precedent, whereas voting for an exemption establishes clearly, to everyone voting and for future instances, that the only result of the vote is an exemption (or not) in this specific case. I hope you can see that this is a huge distinction that needs to be made, and while I don't think any negative consequences will arise from it remaining the way it is, it's best to prevent a possible eventuality right now. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  01:55, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Creating an exception is indeed modifying the policy, as the policy itself has no mention of exceptions. Voting to not enforce the policy for this specific case is making an exception, more so than to support a violation of rules. That's how I see it. I do suppose there is merit in your argument though, so I have restarted the vote with new wording. I'm going to message voters to re-cast. --Skire (talk) 01:57, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is that we have too many pointless policies about pointless subjects.
Personal opinion, mind you, but making specific rules whenever something minor like this comes up just complicates everything. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 05:43, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument for taking away Porter's rights; why make a rule that he can keep his when this is not true for everyone else? 69.l25 (talk) 05:47, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to this forum in particular (although it is an example of over-complicating a simple matter). I just feel like there are a lot of policies that are being made for the sake of it. Call me old fashioned but things worked fine back in 2011 when I joined, and we didn't have half the rules that we do now. Now it seems like we only have these types of discussions to alleviate boredom or something. The wiki can survive without debates. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 06:03, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Summed about up my thoughts, Yessie. Too much attention for policy(changing), too little attention to improving the content. Things have changed the split... Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:59, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to argue the passing of a policy by the community. The topic at hand is whether or not someone should be exempt from policy enforcement because of their contributions in the distant past. While you may not agree, consistent enforcement, as one of our bureaucrats have said before, is very important. 98.110.205.3 14:26, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
We wouldn't need to shift the attention to this issue if one of the bureaucrats would carry out the policy agreed upon by the community; Porter is inactive, and his rights need to be removed immediately. If you want a focus on editing instead of policy, then don't propose that someone should be exempt. 69.l25 (talk) 21:09, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Policy enforcement is important, but so is reasonable discretion. I would challenge any Cmod, Mod or Admin to put their hand on their heart and swear that they have never used their discretion in the use of their powers - either to not enforce a rule, enforce it less harshly, or enforce it harsher. Agent c (talk) 21:09, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat, you have been chosen to represent the community when making user-rights decisions. If you want Porter to keep his rights, voice your opinion, but your responsibility as a bureaucrat is to carry out the policies the community has spelled out. If you have a problem with policies, voice them in a forum, but to make your own decisions about how things go is undermining our policy and putting yourself above the rules.
Remove Porter21's rights as per policy, and if this vote passes, he can get them back. This is the way our policy has been decided and you're making us look like fools by ignoring it. 69.l25 (talk) 21:21, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
One. I wrote the policy. Perhaps you should remember that.
Two. The job of any special rights user is not to be a mindless automaton. If you believe that it is, I will have to bear that in mind on your administrator request. The use of any power or right has to be balanced with discretion. This is how everything works in the real world - Wikis, Police, government, employment, the works.
Three. If you want me to enforce the policies, thats fine. I will close this entire vote and lock it for a violation of policy. Confidence votes are not to be called until the respondent has had enough time to state a defence. I used my discretion in not locking it last night to allow discussion to continue, and I am continuing to use it now as I think the discussion serves a useful purpose... But if you would prefer I lock it down now, I will. Does this please you? Agent c (talk) 21:46, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
We need to all step back for a second and re-think what is being discussed. Both of you have valid points. Discretion is fine but it isn't prescribed by the policy. In other words, it doesn't allow bureaucrats to make exceptions at their own discretion. This is why we are here to vote on whether or not such an exception should be made -- it hasn't been addressed in the policy itself. And this is not a motion of no confidence; it is a referendum to ask the community what they think of an exception to the inactivity policy. As such, and with all due respect, neither you nor anyone else has the right to shut it down. --Skire (talk) 21:52, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • You might have helped write the policy, but the community allowed its creation and implementation. Now we must abide by them - simple as.
  • Our jobs as Special Rights holders are to follow and enforce the policies put into place by those that allowed us to even have our Special Rights in the first place. As for your side comment, there, may I also point out that nowhere does it say we can't make decisions based on the quality of votes instead of the quantity? And I'd also like to point out that technically, the Bureaucrats don't have written in stone rights to be the final determiners of votes. So please leave the idle threats and let us keep this civil.
  • Do what you must. But like you even admitted earlier, we are only here now because the Bureaucrats failed to uphold their required duties, and chose to make an exemption to our policies without community consent. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:00, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I do resent your comment. I can honestly say that as an Administrator, I have only ever modified our guidelines for my personal discretion, and I have always followed our policies to the letter when utilizing them. Only two occasions have ever deviated from that, in which I used good faith to pardon a bad link in chat since I knew it was a an unintentional accident, and when I raised concerns over a policy, which I did agree with and come into compliance with once the community vote passed. If I am wrong, then feel free to correct me. But I take my position here seriously, and I will never intentionally twist our policies. So yes, I do expect my peers to follow the same policies that I do. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:04, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • You have upped bans for users who you felt have lied to you. This is not written policy.
  • Its not an idle threat. How someone might use the powers is a valid concern for bureaucrats to consider. It was on this grounds Tezzla was not promoted. Agent c (talk) 22:12, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • Ban discretion falls into guidelines, not policies. There is a huge difference between the two.
  • Yes, but you can be civil when making your points. 69 said nothing to warrant having his request brought up as an ultimatum chip of sorts. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:14, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you can clarify before we get off topic. Our policy is clear that Porter21's rights should be removed. Why are you not enforcing this policy, and, more importantly, why are you entitled to do this? 69.l25 (talk) 22:17, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am sorry for taking the bait. Let's keep this on-topic, and everything else can be taken to our respective talk-pages. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:20, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Leon - I have been civil. That you do not like the response doesn't stop if from being civil, and is to me about as civil as recent communication on your part. Its not an ultimatum chip at all - I am not saying that I would fail his request for any opinion expressed here, just that if he feels that an administrator should not ever use discretion, then then job is not for him. You upping a ban for lying is an example of discretion you are well known for.
69 - The policy was actually enforced about 50 minutes ago, but it seems to have escaped everyones attention. The Bureaucrat team works as a team, and we stand together. Agent c (talk) 22:25, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
The policy was not enforced. Porter is listed as having sysop rights. Have we sent a message to him? Yes. But that's just customary; it's completely absent from our policies, and given how uncustomary it's been to let him hold his rights for so long while not being here at all, I'm all in favor of moving forward with the actual policy without waiting for a response. After all, an "of course I'll be back to active editing soon" is hardly enough to componsate for the months of absence. 69.l25 (talk) 22:35, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Your position on this matter is understood and has been taken into consideration. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:39, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

This is not about rights removal. We are discussing a possible exception to a policy that was proposed by Clyde and embraced by the vast majority of the community. If you don't want rights removal for inactive users, this policy shouldn't have passed. --Skire (talk) 00:01, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

As I remember it (don't ask me to find where it was said) Porter and Ausir were considered to be excempt from the inactivity policy at the time the policy passed. Appears it doesn't stand the test of time now. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 00:06, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
The policy says:
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.
If you make up an exemption and never officially mention it, of course the exemption is going to fade away. 69.l25 (talk) 00:14, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, J... I'm trying to look through the forum discussion about mentions of that, but it may just be implied or mentioned between the bureaucrats. If the exception were made with consensus, I wouldn't need to create a vote on it now. --Skire (talk) 00:18, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Update on action

Js has left Porter the preliminary message customary to assess intent prior to any rights removal. We will proceed with this process in our usual manner. As this forum has now been restyled with the question "Should we make an exception for Porter?", I believe that it should continue. If, for some reason, this vote results in an exception being made for Porter prior to any rights removal, we'll take that into consideration. Let's just press ahead with the vote here as worded and see what the community decides. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:28, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

Note that at this time, Porter has not yet responded to the message sent on 13 January. --Skire (talk) 23:24, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

There's been no response from Porter. His rights have been removed. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:06, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Result

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.