Forum:Vote:Inactivity policy referendum

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Vote:Inactivity policy referendum

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?

Poll finished on 1:30 am May 21, 2014 (UTC).

• 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 user's votes.

Yes

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. I am still of the opinion that rights should only be removed for misconduct. Great Mara (talk) 19:47, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. An anachronistic relic that already served its purpose. Reconfirmations will do in a pinch.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
7. I personally think there is more to take into account and a more definitive rule to put in place before this happens. But hey, thats just lil ole me :) "Even In Death May You Be Triumphant" 16:06, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
8. It makes a subjective issue solved by subjective means. And I can't think of any better way to approach it. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:36, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
9. I'm with Nic. There needs to be a clearly defined, black and white rule that cannot be challenged or circumvented. The current policy needs to go. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:21, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
10. I have full trust in the bureaucrat's decisions while an inactivity policy is absent, until such time when one is properly drawn up. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (Talk) 01:31, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
11. It served it's purpose; now it needs to go or be rewritten. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 01:53, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
12. Been looking into the options available, and I have come to my conclusion. I definitely support this rule being removed entirely. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:03, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
13. I dislike the existing policy and have had the displeasure of attempting to implement it. It, in a word, sucks. In order of preference, I would rather have A: A simple one year and completely gone policy; B: No policy at all; C: My eyes poked out with a sharp stick; D: Any form of policy that puts subjective quotas or arbitrary time limits.  The Gunny   23:36, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
14. The timed policy does not work. It cannot be made to work. Its just a magnet for abuse. Agent c (talk) 22:35, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. There should be a timer for consistent activity for any user, with any sort of special rights... 02:08, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
2. See comments.  A Follower  Talk  19:41, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
3. See comments ---bleep196- (talk) 00:10, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
4. We have three bureaucrats active on recent changes and in chat, and they can judge well when an added rights user has become inactive. Best I'd want is to extend it to a year, and still the bc's call to when exact, not the community. We got our position for a good reason. With no rule we will get extra "bureaucracy" if we want even patrollers and mods demoted if they are over a year inactive with reconfirmations and votes of no confidence. What a fuss. I understand people have obligations in real life, and can't be active anymore (or lose interest), but we've should move on with people that are active. If I were gone for a year, I'd completely understand I'd lose my rights. That's how I think about it. Jspoel 21:24, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
5. Yes, I agree that people that the former administrators that worked here will never come back, even if they are warned. However, I cannot see why we would have a reconfirmation request, since those users can still regain their tools. In my opinion, the reconfirmation requests shouldn't be applied to these cases. It should be simple and plain as possible. If the bureaucrats (with some third-parts admins, if needed) agree that a user with special rights is inactive, then so be it. Energy X 22:34, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Excluded Votes

1. 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

1. Doesn't affect me and I won't give a damn if it does. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."
2. Eh...I can see the good points in keeping the old rule and the good points in getting rid of it, so I'm just going to remain neutral on this one. Leea (talk) 22:43, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

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:

“Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers.”

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:

“Note: This page has been locked so only registered users can edit it.”

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)

After being enlightened on the matter, I rescind this reservation and resume my default advocacy. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:36, May 16, 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)

That is already covered through our Administration Policy page - FW:AP ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:37, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

What??? What is going on, why on earth are we voting to repeal this policy when we have no framework, no anything to replace/contend with special rights users going inactive? Adjusting the current policies to reflect/better cover the issue at hand and to put a more specific and fair handed as well as well defined policy into place is one thing, and I would understand this vote more if that were the case, but it seems to me as if this vote was just thrown out there because someone wanted it repealed really badly? I'm not sure I'm comfortable leaving inactivity solely to the judgement of Bureaucrats (they have a lot of power as it is, and it's not that I don't trust their judgement, but they have enough to deal with as it is, and this is just one more thing we are stacking on top of them). I cannot in good conscience support this vote unless we have a set of guidelines/policies to deal with inactivity. WE NEED them going forward, and it's important that we settle them now, rather than repealing our only inactivity policy and leaving us with individual opinion on the matter. ---bleep196- (talk) 00:08, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity would not be left to the Bureaucrats. If this policy is repealed, determining whether or not you want to be classified as inactive is left up to each individual Special Rights holder. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:11, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Votes of no confidence and reconfirmation requests can be used to remove rights as need and determined by the community. Richie9999 (talk) 00:23, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

...but it seems to me as if this vote was just thrown out there because someone wanted it repealed really badly? -- Clearly you did not bother to read the preceding forum discussion wherein several users agreed in principle to move to this vote. --Skire (talk) 01:16, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

@Toci To clarify upon my position, I have never said that I support the Bureaucrats having de-facto rule over removing those that are inactive. What I support is removing the inactivity policy, so that we may follow what we do have in FW:AP, which states that in any case of rights misuse or community loss of faith, that a forum/hearing may be enacted in which the Bureaucrats then make a decision based off of how the community feels or how gross the misuse of rights was. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:25, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

I meant to quote Andrew, not you. Sorry. >.< _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:26, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Well, in any case, my point still holds: removing the inactivity policy does not give Bureaucrats de-facto rule over inactivity. We simply revert to having to follow FW:AP when cases of inactivity arises. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:28, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

What Will Happen if the Inactivity Policy is Repealed?

I have now seen multiple comments/votes that are clearly misinformed on what will happen should this vote pass in its intention. So I am going to take this chance to explain the changes that will be made so everyone can make a clear and knowledgeable decision, as bad votes are bad votes, regardless of whether they help a good vote pass. So, here is the deal:

If the inactivity policy is removed, full control of inactivity issues will be passed down to our Administration Policy page, also known as FW:AP. What this means that in the case of severe inactivity, our community may begin a motion of no confidence, in which the entire community gets together and expresses their concerns and/or support. While the Bureaucrats were given the right to make a final deliberation based off of their own perceptions, our Administration Policies clearly states that motions of no confidence are a community matter, in which the community's voice will be the major factor in regards to whether or not an inactive Special Rights holder loses their rights or not, with Bureaucrats reserving the right to overrule the community decision in the special cases where important evidence or scenarios were not taken into account during the vote. When it comes to our Administration page, our Special Rights holders will also have the right to move and remove themselves from the inactive list as they see fit, exactly as we did it before the inactivity policy was enacted.

I felt it necessary to write this passage, specifically because I have seen comments and votes suggesting a general belief that should the inactivity policy be repealed, that Bureaucrats will be given full rights to deal with inactivity as they see fit, when this is clearly not the case as outlined by our surviving policies. I hope this will help amend votes and educate those that have not made a vote yet. Thank you for reading. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:47, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

GB just wrote what I was going to reaffirm. BCs will not be given discretionary powers over removing rights, for inactivity reasons or any other for that matter. If it were so, I'd be the first one to rise against it. Without the inactivity policy, the only way to remove someone's rights will be through reconfirmations and votes of no confidence. The BCs role in it will be restricted to the standard post-vote endorsement or veto of the result. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope this becomes crystal-clear to everybody.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 02:20, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Vote still stands. _{Don't give up the ship!} 02:30, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Just as a postscript to Limmie, the Admin policy also indicates that on the third offence of a special rights user breaking the rules, rights should also permanently be removed. Agent c (talk) 21:35, May 17, 2014 (UTC)