UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Truly Inactive Sysops

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Discussion

Can't see any real problem with this. I expect there will be the usual argument that innactive sysops do no harm and might come back but this policy does not put a black mark against them for becoming innactive so it shouldn't be any problem for them! One thing that did amuse me though is this: "There is currently the potential for a further seven demotions to occur in mid to late April.".... Why not wait an extra week or so, then every sysop would have the "potential" to be demoted instead of just the 7 who haven't edited since christmas ;) --Honestmistake 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This will not pass for the same reasons any other policy to demote inactive sysops ever failed. All these users have already contributed to this community enough to prove themselves worthy to hold their sysop positions. It's not because they are inactive that they should lose this. Take Vista's example, he was away from the wiki for a really long period, and when he came back he managed to return to his daily administrative duties to the point where he was the most respected sysop in his time. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What special contribution did Morlock do again? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Most edits made by Morlock are not shown in his contributions, mostly because the wiki purge it's own history from time to time. As you can see in my contributions, i have only one edit in 2005, when back there i already was a strongly active user. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think that if he wants to come back, he can reapply. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And if this policy had been effective then, resuming of his sysop activities would have been delayed by approximately two whole weeks. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bait you, but if vista is the only example (given the four months inactivity this policy proposes as a measure), then it would seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. Please consider that this is meant to be a spring-cleaning policy, and not a punishment of any sort. Of particular note, any of the long-inactive sysops that do return would be able to reapply for the position - and that two week period of votes may be just what they need to get used to 4 months worth of changes in wiki policy and procedures. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

we had other sysops that returned from some time away to do good contributions, specially in administration areas. I for one still wait for the day BobHammero to return and blind us all with his awesomeness. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect people who tell us when they arn't available to do the job they are elected to. Anyone whose contributions to this wiki are made harder by this policy, arn't worth having their status maintained. They simply arn't doing anything on this wiki -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:26 11 January 2008 (BST)

I still think it should be administrative edits, but whatever.--Karek^maps?! 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Id like a hiatus mechanism, where the sysop can announce a period of long term inactivity (Due to technical problems and/or personal problems) and get a few extra months. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. What about a Sysop Hiatus template, that they could place in some prominent position (top of their talk page, maybe), with the date they expect to return (with some limit like a six month maximum). The template would effectively extend the time limit before the demotion warning hits. Does that sound okay? --Funt Solo ^QT 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It does. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this {{SysopHiatus}} template (which eschews a specific date, and just extends the limit to 6 months instead of 4):

I am on a sysop hiatus.

If I do not return within six months I will face potential demotion due to inactivity.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funt Solo (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Warning?

Would they get a warning? A message on their talk page saying. something after 3 months? Or would it be automatic?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. What does everyone else think? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought if we warn people for vandalism, why not this? Even if its just a line on their talk page? Although who would give the warning? Any sysop?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What good would a warning make if the policy text it's said that if the sysop makes a simple edit to dodge this he will be charged as misconduct ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to warn them - it would certainly cement whether or not they intend to return. I'm thinking once (to cut down on sysop duties), by a sysop (natch) at the 4 month limit, with a week to reply before auto-demotion. I'd appreciate feedback from any other interested parties before I update the proposal text. To answer Hagnat's concern, each case should be judged on the particular merits. If a sysop returns to reply to the edit that they wish to retain their activity, and then do so, there's no need then to demote them. (As I said above, this is a spring-cleaning policy, not a punishment.) If they return simply to avoid demotion but then take no other part in proceedings, then perhaps a Misconduct case could be brought with the intention of demoting them as inactive in any case. It would be up to the judgement of Misconduct. To be honest, I doubt any of the six this would immediately pertain to would even reply. They seem to have moved on to pastures new. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that if someone is trying to just skate by they would only do one edit and then vanish again. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assuming that they are stupid then! At the very least they are going to check a few of the admin pages, look at suggestions and say hello to old friends or whatever... Anyone trying to get round this with a single edit doesn't deserve Misconduct, they deserve shooting for the betterment of the gene pool! --Honestmistake 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps the section about misconduct should be removed so that only the truly inactive sysops are the only ones who get demoted. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that make it more vote friendly? I gather the reason this is under discussion it that the previous inactive sysop policy proposal failed to be adopted?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Answering two points from above:

• Removing the misconduct bit would just leave someone open to take the piss by making a single edit. All it's really there for is to stop an ex-sysop trying to be funneh. I'm not entirely against removing it, but I feel there should be something explicit there to stop an obvious, single-edit way around the policy. Some hardly-active sysops do pop up to vote against policies that suggest they should be more active (and then disappear off the radar again), so it's not just paranoia on my part. I'll say again, I don't want this policy as a punishment, but as spring cleaning. I don't really care if an inactive sysop goes to lots of effort to circumvent the demotion - at least they'd be partially active for a while in doing so.
• To answer Rosslessness, the reason the last policy failed, in my opinion, was that it was trying to remove sysops that weren't being sysops, rather than just sysops who weren't here at all. The other policy, you might say, was "do your job!", whereas this one is "I think you've left".

--Funt Solo ^QT 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Brain-wave

How about this: the warning (discussed in previous section) be made by a 'crat. The sysop gets one week to become active again. Whether or not the edits they make in that week count as reactivation is up to the 'crat. At the end of the week, the 'crat makes the decision to either demote the sysop, or start the four-month clock again. (I would remove the section on Misconduct from the policy.) Solution? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. Avoids having to drag peoples names through misconduct. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now updated with suggested changes in place. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine +1. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would have a small rant ready for any Policy Discussion. After having read this though, I think I like it... --Ryiis 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reinstatement

How about instead of making them go through the whole 2 week process, how about just a quick post on A/PM and the 'Crat rubber stamps it unless there's extraordinary cause for them not to.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to leave aside the question of reinstatement - so that it's simply covered by the current rules for promotion to sysop, two-week voting period and all. Let's face it - any sysop who goes inactive, without saying so in advance (see discussion with Grim in the first section, above) for four months, and then doesn't respond to a warning about demotion, is probably going off the radar for good. If they do come back, they'd be pretty out of it as regards current policy and procedures, so that two-week period of voting for reinstatement would help rather than hinder them. As the final decision of reinstatement rests with the 'crats, there's no way that grudge voters can keep them from regaining their post if they really want it / deserve it. --Funt Solo ^QT 01:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely you need to reapply? You need to get back up to speed, and theres the question of your commitment to the post. Its not a vote after all.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote ready?

This has been up for discussion for the mandatory three days, and debate has slowed to an absolute crawl. Are there any more changes people think I should make? Anything that would make it or break it for anyone? Let me know. If I don't get any feedback I'll go ahead and put it to the vote in a day or so. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-read, looks fine to me. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now that the misconduct bit is gone -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:04 14 January 2008 (BST)

Aye - thanks to Rosslessness, hagnat and akule for flagging that up. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good. Put it up for a vote.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Add something to limit crats from just ruling that a sysop they dont like is inactive regardless of how much they edit. not saying it will happen, but that its much better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that this bit ("The Bureaucrat is trusted to make a fair decision, and not to demote a sysop who clearly demonstrates a return to activity on the wiki.") covered that. And wouldn't the current Misconduct procedures cover the unlikely occurence of an unjust ruling? What say you? --Funt Solo ^QT 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification added:

• The Bureaucrat is trusted and bound to make a fair decision, and not to demote a sysop who clearly demonstrates a return to activity on the wiki.

• Any demonstrable abuse of this power by a Bureaucrat, however unlikely, could (as with any other abuse of specific powers) be grounds for a Misconduct case.

Okay or too scary? --Funt Solo ^QT 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bound as in "I took an oath to make the fair decision" or "I will make the fair decision"?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Either: same result. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmkay. Fine with me. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)