Forum:Reviews for Special Rights holders

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Reviews for Special Rights holders

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 Editors

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 discussion

Crying Wolf

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 discussion

Reviews

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 discussion

Overview

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.

Comments

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. ^{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. ^{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. ^{morituri 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? ^{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)