UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Inactive Sysops

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Overview

This policy creates the requirement for sysops to have an active role in the community. The idea is not to punish people who might have problems in their personal life, but to have an administrative staff that is active. This gives a sysop three full months (approximately ninety days) in which to make one administrative edit for the wiki. A demoted sysop is free to re-run once they have the time to dedicate at least one edit in service of the wiki every three months.

The proposed rules

  • A Sysop that hasn't made a single administrative edit in three months is considered as inactive and loses his status as sysop.
  • An administrative edit is anything that a sysop can do, in which a normal user cannot or should not. Such as ruling on Vandalism cases, cycling deletions, performing protections, processing undeletions, etc
  • Once demoted, the former sysop is free to reapply using the usual method for applying for a sysop, but only has to apply for a week. During that time the former sysop should familiarize themselves with any changes or updates to the policies and proceedures as well as communicate with the current sysops to get an idea of how the wiki currently runs.

Summary

Any Sysop who goes inactive on the wiki for 3 full months will automatically be demoted back to general user status.

NOTE: This policy does not effect any account that Kevan may use as a wiki admin account.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. Author Vote. --Akule School's in session. 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. For - Why not? Reasons on talk, pick one. --  AHLGTG 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. For- Vantar 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. For - Toejam 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. For - Encourages sysops to do their job.--Karekmaps?! 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. For --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. For I've long campaigned for the removal of mod powers for inactives. The fact that we're now sysops doesn't change that. If you can't find a deletion to make or page to move in 3 months, you aren't doing your job. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. For it just bugs me having those people with powers just sit there doing nothing.--'BPTmz 06:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. For - Funt's concern that sysops will just start making up shit to sysop in order to get an edit in every three months? Valid, though it sounds like a non-issue when requests sit on the less-patrolled admin pages for days. But seriously, if a sysop is so disinterested that s/he can't show up to do the job, is s/he really gonna bother with an edit every three months? -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. For - Z. slay3r Talk  15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. For --~~~~ [talk] 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. For - Works for me. --Amanu Jaku 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. For - This is better than what we have, which is keeping sysops even though we know they're not coming back. It's not perfect however, 3 months is not long enough -- boxy talki 12:18 8 December 2007 (BST)
  15. For --The Envoy 07:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. For i'm meaty--Atahalne 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. For --Tumu 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. For--James Madley 01:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. for--Ser Vicious 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. For--Mayor FittingTalk RR01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)(my time stamp needs to stop doing that)
  21. For--c138 RR - PKer 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. For--Ahote 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. For--User:Axe27/Sig 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. For --FrozenFlame 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. For --Calypso 23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. For  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against- Because.-- BKM 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Against - Didn't this need to stay in discussion for a couple more days?--Jorm 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Against - Discussion wouldn't have convinced me. -- Rutherford 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Against - 3 months seems a little short, especially with claims in the discussion it's aimed at folks who have not been active well over a year. -- Bisfan 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Against - what Bisfan said. --Barroom Hero 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Against - Because I can't trust the Author not to have a darker motive behind this. --Rogue 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Against - once again, concerns brought up in the discussion have been ignored. You'll note that this demands that a sysop makes sysop-specific edits within the three-month period, whether any are needed or not. So, any activity as a normal user is not counted, which hardly seems fair. Also, there is evidence of sysops returning after long periods of absence (sometimes not within their control) and picking up perfectly well where they left off. This would essentially create a conflict of interest, whereby a sysop might make sysop-specific edits just so that they remain active, whether such edits are required or not. They could then be accused of misconduct. The current system, of course, has not been shown to create any specific problem on the wiki, so this change is not required at all. It is, in effect, an ego-policy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to discussion page -- boxy talki 12:10 8 December 2007 (BST)
  8. Against - what AL said. -- Grogh 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Against - Completely ignores normal wiki edits and contributions. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to discussion page -- boxy talki 12:11 8 December 2007 (BST)
  11. Against - Funt brought up a few points I completely missed in discussion. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Against - Thats Mama Luigi to you Mario. Omega 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Against - The policy is encirlced with bands of drama and menaces with spikes of stupidity--Wooty 05:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Agaignst There is no harm at all in apparently having more sysops than has been arbitarily deemed as neccisary. Sysops provide , amongst other things a certain defence agaignst vandals as well as providing janitor duties on the wiki. There can, and should be a level of redundancy built into a system such as this due to the fact that 1) They're not actualy doing any harm if they're not using their sysop powers 2) Greater redundacy provides more saftey againgst vandals. THere's more likely to be a sysop online during a vandal attack 3) Seeing as we don't pay sysops we might as well have as many as possible good sysops. There's realy no downside to it. --SeventythreeTalk 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to discussion page -- boxy talki 12:13 8 December 2007 (BST)
  15. Against - A lot of issues have been summarily ignored by the creator of this Policy; whether by fault or simple disinterest. Until a lot of the points that have been made on the discussion page - and now in the Against votes- have been dealt with, I am going to vote against this. I still think that the concept is, in and of itself, a good one. However, the lack of concession regarding the Policy irritates me. --Ryiis 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Against - Forces Sysops to make a change, even if one isn't needed. Less bureaucracy, please - this place is already more complicated than the federal budget.--Actingupagain 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Against - annoying and a waste of time.----Sexualharrison ה QSGTStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. against - as per funt and ryiis --WanYao 02:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Against - As per Funt, 73, Dux, and Bisfan. --Karlsbad 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. simply no. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Against - I could go into great lengths about why this is a bad Idea...but I'm not active enough to put forth that effort ;) Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Against Diablo 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Against - Because the reasons given are ridiculous and it will only hurt the wiki. --ZaruthustraMod 07:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Against - As Bisfan --Beauxdeigh 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Against - As above. And I'm just generally anti-Akule. Sorry kid. --Stephen Colbert DFA 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Voting closed. Policy fails, 26 For to 25 Against. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
advertisements