Template:Dbtop Hi Folks.
As you might remember, we introduced a rule a little while back on inactivity. For the most part, it seems when inactive users are contacted they're happy enough to release rights.
Inactivty seems to be well defined, either you stop editing, or declare yourself inactive.
The question seems to be how to define "un-inactivity" if I may invent a word... What does a user become "active" again.... It it something that can just be decided by the user themselves, or is it something that requires some "proof of action".
There seem to be three position types to consider, Patroller, Chat moderator, and "hybrid" positions (Full Mod, Admin and 'Crat) that combine edit-based stuff and chat-based stuff.
Now with patroller, it seems to be easy. We either go by "declaration", or we look for some edits. Should be simple enough to check that in the edit log. As such, I think the edit log should be the prefered method of determining patroller activity - but how much?
Chat Moderator seems to be one where a little creativity is required. We do have a log, but it can be spotty sometimes; the ban log can also be used, but the ideal situation is to moderate without banning. How much "activity" make an inactive chatmod active? Is "activity" regularity, or using powers?
For "Hybrid" positions where Chatmod and editing duties are combined, should we be looking for people to meet one criterion, or both?
Any thoughts on this? Agent c (talk) 23:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
- For Admin I think one should look at a little bit of both, but put heavy emphasis on the amount of edits they are making. For the 'Crats, Edits are the key figure. Chat should not be considered for activity when looking at the 'Crats. As for Moderators, I think it is going to be more on a situation by situation basis. Activity is going to depend more on the user, and what there normal editing habits are. There are times where I will go weeks without making edits just because there is nothing for me to edit. That's just a personal example for me, everyone does things differently. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:11, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there should be a quota on edits for admins or we'd just have loads of admins boosting for edits, as long as we know that they've been here regularly and consistently that's enough for me. Alot of users are often stuck for things to edit, especially if they play on PS3 or Xbox systems and thus cant get good screenshots and the like. Moderators certainly shouldn't have to fill any ban quota or anything either I only have moderator instead of chat mod because I got "roll back" back in like 2010, so I don;t think it would be rights of I lost chat powers because I don't keep making edits all day. Hawk doesn't really work at all but he's here and he's active. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"
23:26, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there should be a quota on edits for admins or we'd just have loads of admins boosting for edits, as long as we know that they've been here regularly and consistently that's enough for me. Alot of users are often stuck for things to edit, especially if they play on PS3 or Xbox systems and thus cant get good screenshots and the like. Moderators certainly shouldn't have to fill any ban quota or anything either I only have moderator instead of chat mod because I got "roll back" back in like 2010, so I don;t think it would be rights of I lost chat powers because I don't keep making edits all day. Hawk doesn't really work at all but he's here and he's active. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"
- For Admin I think one should look at a little bit of both, but put heavy emphasis on the amount of edits they are making. For the 'Crats, Edits are the key figure. Chat should not be considered for activity when looking at the 'Crats. As for Moderators, I think it is going to be more on a situation by situation basis. Activity is going to depend more on the user, and what there normal editing habits are. There are times where I will go weeks without making edits just because there is nothing for me to edit. That's just a personal example for me, everyone does things differently. ---bleep196- (talk) 23:11, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
If someone turns up once every 9 months and changed a "won't" in to a "will not" and then disappears off in to the darkness again or just pops in to chat for like 5 minutes twice a year they're inactive. Many people who run for mod or adminship are shot down on grounds of "we have enough/too many mods/admins already" so it's unfair on them. If someone is in active for 9 or so months (i.e not here) they lose their rights. If they want them back, they can run again after being active for some time (they need to show commitment).
"Re-activity" can be something very simple like editing for a few days in a row or over the course of 2 or three wikis. In terms of chat it could be just being in chat for longer than an hour 3 times a week for a couple of weeks.
Activity as a whole is hard to define. One edit per 9 months isn't enough. If someone doesn't visit at all (in a way we can measure; edits, comments, chat) for those 9 months they're inactive. If someone only pops in top chat like once a month for a few minutes just to keep their rights it's pretty clear that as an admin or chatmod they're not doing their job anymore so a recom request is needed to see if the community still knows and trusts this person (or perhaps it would be better to have fellow admins/cmods discuss it themselves).
It may sound unfair, but if someone isnt here they;re not doing their job and, even if they don't feel they need to anymore, others who want to do this job can't because everyone says "we have too many admins already".
In short, 9 months of total lack of community appearance (through comments, edits or chat) is inactivity. Very inconsistent and general lack of presence (so maybe an edit every 3 months or spending 5 minutes in chat once every 1 month) is also worthy of inactivity. Those who return would need to spend 3 months active before they can re-run for admin/modship.
Patrollers don't really need the inactivity rule, to me, but if we're to condsider them it should be the same; 9 months of no or highly limited appearance is inactive, but they can easy ask for their rights back when they return.
JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"
23:22, May 12, 2013 (UTC)