UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Another Inactive Ops Policy

Talky talk

So you want the time limit for sysops being considered inactive reduced from 4 months to 1 month, and you want to change it from just "edits" to "significant edits". I'd just like a clarification on what a "significant edit" is. I'm assuming you mean anything requiring sysop powers or sysop granted authority? - User:Whitehouse 00:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

"Significant edits", hue? Any chance we'll ever get a definition on that? Or can we expect more of the same that goes on under Suggestions? Where we get all sorts of vague terms that people refuse to officially define so that anyone and everyone can have their own definition. Giving rise to endless drama and epic arguments over what means what and we can give Troll SysOps like CyberClown even more leeway to abuse their powers.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:55 18 July 2009(BST)

still qqing after your only altercation with him, cute. --ϑϑℜ 01:28, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Has nothing to do with any 'altercation" with me, heh, but his obvious failings as a SysOp. I'm actually responding to his actions against other users. But that doesn't fit into your fantasy world, does it? I like how you ignore your own habit of making snarky comments in response to pretty much everything I say since your own "altercations" with me, though. One rule for you and another for everyone else I guess. Wonderful SysOp material there, let me tell you. :) --

| T | BALLS! | 01:36 18 July 2009(BST)

Didn't know snideness was a rule now? My pardons. Don't deny it though, don't you also find the amazing timing between when he snapped at you, and when you found him "not fit for the humour" suspiciously neat? ;) --ϑϑℜ 02:12, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Answered on my Talk Page to avoid spamming up the real discussion. --

| T | BALLS! | 02:36 18 July 2009(BST)

Again, cute. --ϑϑℜ 03:14, 18 July 2009 (BST)

(Also @ Whitehouse) The reason for "significant" is to remove the possibilty of someone trying to worm their way out of it by updating their user page, their talk page, etc. with just minor edits. It's basically trading the drama of "I made edits! You can't demote me!" for "What constitutes 'significant?'" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'm a little worried about adding the extra power to crats, because they get the position through popular vote, not through community discussion. Maybe up it to two months, and add a benchmark on what should be considered a significant edit (many users like swiers come in and make significant edits, but only in the space of half an hour each 4 months, that's the main problem). I also think 6 months is too long for the hiatus, make it 4 or 5 months would be better. --ϑϑℜ 01:28, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Addressing a bunch of points of everyone's here.

• A definition would be nice. A little help here? I'm not looking for a certain kind of edit. Just edits that are more than those few edits some certain ops do every couple of months to keep their position and look like they care. So, they don't have to have a hundred edits a month, but certainly more than 2 every 2 months. Throw some stuff out, other ideas would be nice.
• Everyone can have their own definition of what they consider inactive, but that's why I ultimately left it up to the 'crats to decide if said op is really contributing or is just saving their position. CB can claim whoever he wants as an inactive user, but eventually it will be considered spam, and besides it'll take a 'crat all of 15 seconds to type a reply saying he's stupid said op is active.
• I left it up to the 'crats because while they're popularly promoted, they're still pretty good at their job. Of course there are exceptions, but thats an endless argument with a problem that can't be fixed.

--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:53, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I suppose raising the number of edits required would just encourage the user to make hundreds of minor edits in a few hours to avoid demotion. Crats don't need any more power consolidated though, IMO. Put it up to popular vote. In fact, we should probably install some sort of system that allows regular users to call for a popular vote to demote any SysOp, regardless of their number of edits. There would have to be some sort of guidelines in place to avoid constant votes being called, such a single user can't call for such a vote more than once a month, or that a single SysOp can't be called to the carpet more than one per month, etc.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:08 18 July 2009(BST)

Raising it would cause that, yes, which is why they have to be "significant", so an op can't make a couple dozen edits that aren't really contributive and be assured of his position.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

A few things:

• I'm concerned that a month is a bit too short - computers break and real-life issues happen. Up it to two months and I'll be sold. Alternativily add "beuracrats should take the sysop's long term activity into account - if they've suddenly gone inactive then a warning will probably suffice."
• I'm fine with the "significant controbution" wording - now it's fine as it stops people just doing a ton of minor edits to avoid demontion
• At DDR - most positions should be through discussion, but that can't work for 'crats as there isn't anyone really sutible to "decide" the discussion. Which would lead for constant drama.

Apologies in advance for any typos - I'm typing this on a netbook while I'm away. I'll be back to a "real" computer tommorow. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)

anti-condraka policy

cmon! several members of this community have already shown that they dont respect conndraka's opinion anymore, but you dont need to create a policy targeting him that will only be bad for the rest of the sysop team. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 02:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

It's not targeting Conn so much as people like Daranz, the General, and swiers. They barely edit, 'cept a few edits every other month or so (not exactly true, but a good enough approximation methinks). If they can't keep up a decent level of activity, they should resign from the position instead of keeping it as a badge to use when you want to throw your weight around (General), play around in the admin pages out of boredom (Daranz), or just have it for the sake of it (Swiers). Not to mention it will help keep sysops active in the future.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)

in swiers defense, he always said he wanted to have access to the tools that come with the position, but that he had no interest of actually exercising it. The community always trusted him not to fuck with these tools, and imho should remain trusting. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 02:56, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I might be batshit insane to suggest such a thing, but maybe a vote on sysops where if 80%+ of both users and other administrators are in favor a sysop can be made immune to auto-demotion due to inactivity like Kevan? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)

batshit insane --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:04, 18 July 2009 (BST)

^--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:08, 18 July 2009 (BST)

The community's opinion of a sysop can change overnight, as recent drama has shown. It's a bad idea for that reason (as are any "sysop review" policies.) Linkthewindow  Talk  12:12, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Why don't you make the policy to specifically target consistently inactive sysops then, not ones that have been inactive (or even less active) for only 1 month? because if this is put into policy, it will be used as justification for the demotion of "unpopular" sysops (and let's face it, all sysops are unpopular at one time or another to some sections of the community), even if they've only dropped out for the month -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:23 18 July 2009 (BST)

Or my way, where users like swiers and daranz, who only edit so they can keep themselves in technical sysop status, can be misconductable for grossly neglecting their duties as sysops. --ϑϑℜ 12:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)

No need for misconduct. It's hardly abusive, and A/M = drama. Those sysops you've mentioned have contributed to this wiki in the past.
I don't actually see them doing much harm, as long as they are around every now and then -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:21 18 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah I can't see the point of misconduct either. Swiers has always been kind of a nothing, but he's hardly actively hurting the wiki. It would be nice if we could figure out some way of stimulating the ones who make a few cursory edits every couple of months into more regular contribution, but yeah - not worth misconduct. --Cyberbob 14:25, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Swiers was and is one of, if not the best, sysop his wiki has ever seen. Not only does he possess the skills like none of you poseurs, but he is also mature and reasonable on this wiki in a way that very few of us (yes, myself included) could ever aspire to be. The fact that IRL and, I presume, the constant petty drama have causde him to back away from the wiki in no way justifies your petty name-calling, cyberbob. You will never, ever be half the sysop swiers is/was.

Once again... the community needs a way "impeach" sysops. Come on... what are you scared of? If you're doing your job properly, you should never be impeached... --WanYao 16:05, 18 July 2009 (BST)

So, Swiers is one of the best sysops because he doesn't hurt anyone's feelings by actually doing anything? He never votes on A/M, A/VB, A/D, A/SD, or any A page. That's a great quality for a sysop. Total avoidance of the Administration pages that they are supposed to be responsible for. He doesn't even use Sysop powers (delete/move). So, by your logic if we just gave you the title of sysop, but none of the access you would be a great sysop! Actually, you would be because you go inactive for so long that people forget how narrow minded and petty you really are. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you spout insanity like this? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:23, 21 July 2009 (BST)

One month is too short a time, some people holiday for that long! Make it 2 or 3 and its much better. As for the rest... I would prefer it if all sysops had to be reviewed every 12-18 months and a new promotion bid made. The overall decision laying with the serving crats to avoid the risk of being voted down just for unpopularity. Any sysop with little activity is almost certain to get very little support unless they can do a decent job of justifying them self. --Honestmistake 12:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Giving the crats free reign to disregard the community's wishes on what they deem 'reactionary' is a bad idea, in my opinion. --ϑϑℜ 12:47, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Can you see any crat ignoring a massive majority for their own selfish reasons? Crats rotate on a frequent enough basis that they will soon be facing the scrutiny of the "vouching public" themselves so they will not last long if they fuck about. In any case, Crats already have this power in regards to normal promotion bids.... I am just suggesting that they should exercise the power in a new way, ie: confirming sysops in position on an annual(ish) basis. Oh and I say 12-18 months so we don't have constant bids to review but its a pretty arbitrary number really.--Honestmistake 18:32, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Or everyone can just put themselves up for a review at a time in the future, like I plan to do in, what, like a week?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:47, 18 July 2009 (BST)

not an anti-condraka policy

No...I don't think this is an anti-conn policy. I actually happen to agree with it, for the most part. I think it would be best to qualify what constitutes a couple of the factors though. I think the number of edits needs to be spelled out as well as the pages that qualify. Personally Im of the opinion: An Average of 8 days of edits per month to the Admin pages specifically. i.e. If you make 14 posts on A/VB it only counts as 1 day. This would be calculated on the previous three months...in other words less than 24 edits to admin pages over a three month span on 24 separate days makes you eligible for review by the admin team. certain Sysops like Swiers and D can be exempted by consensus agreement (margin tbd). Any thoughts? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 15:29, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Well that'll be good if you just want to demote people because they'll be so confused by the complexity of the policy they have absolutely zero chance of following it. --xoxo 15:32, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I think its pretty obvious to those who actually can handle the duties of sysop..even marginally. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 15:35, 18 July 2009 (BST)

lol, so not you either then? --xoxo 15:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Considering you notably scout the admin pages and only post when there is drama, I'd suggest you were trying to add some clauses that allowed for your poor performance standards to seep through legitimately. Also, something like this could support spamming admin pages unnecessarily at the last minute, or over a long period of time to mask their laziness or lack of meaningful contribution. --ϑϑℜ 15:41, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Hiatus

fuck that clause. Just demote them and they can rerun when they return. If they don't get in well then obviously the community no longer wants them. I'd much rather see them reprove (word?) themselves then just stick on a template and walk away for 6 months.--xoxo 14:13, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I think if it's going to be one month then there should be a chance for hiatus but 6 months is way too long. 2 and a half to 3 months would be my suggestion. --ϑϑℜ 15:50, 18 July 2009 (BST)

the real issue here ....

.... is who watches the watchmen?

Translation for the wilfully ignorant: the sysop team is incapable of adaquately policing itself; therefore, the general wiki community needs an established procedure for "impeaching" and "recalling" (demoting) a sysop. Such a procedure could also cover recalls of inactive sysops. --WanYao 15:58, 18 July 2009 (BST)

(All the rest of above generally tl;dnr ... especially considering that issue, at its heart, is so simple...) --WanYao 15:59, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Hmm. That's another policy entirely, Wan. --ϑϑℜ 16:08, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Duuuuuuuuuuuuh... But it's a related issue.

Anyway... I propose that such a recall vote would require a 75% majority of Yes votes (Abstentions are ignored in the vote); and a certain quorum of votes cast to be valid. This would make it very difficult to "impeach" a sysop. Only a sysop who had genuinely lost the support of the community -- for whatever reason, be it inactivity, turning "mad dog", whatever -- could be impeached/recalled under these terms. --WanYao 16:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Again, that's an entire other policy. I don't think there's much point in discussing it here because by the looks of it, you'd fair better making a policy page now and adding these concepts to it? --ϑϑℜ 16:12, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Make your own damn page and quit stealing my talk you damn thief! :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:21, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Stuffs.

• There is a hiatus template for a reason. If you're going to be on vacation for a couple of months, you're covered. If you're comp breaks, I'm sure you can make it somewhere that has 'nets to slap the template on, or send an email or something.
• Abuse of this power is misconductable, So using it to demote unpopular sysops (Which they'd have to be inactive from the start) would be pretty hard to get away with when you take our frothing community into account.
• Quantifying the number of edits I feel is a bad idea, because it's really a combination of quantity and quality.
• Misconduct is a dumb idea for this, because they aren't really doing anything wrong, the problem is that they aren't doing much of anything else either. If they actually edited on a semi-regular basis, I'd be fine with them all keeping their powers. But they don't, not really. And they haven't done so in quite some time.

I think I hit everything.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:37, 18 July 2009 (BST)

If your second point is aimed at Wan I believe he is looking to create a separate policy to this one aimed at setting up a sysop review system. I would guess that such a system would sort of by definition cover the issues this one is looking at as people would be able to use insufficient contribution as a reason to vote against a given sysop. --Cyberbob 17:43, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, too bad it was a reply to boxy up there. :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:57, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Bugger. Well, at least I won't have to worry about writing another post like it in case you do make such a reply to Wan :< --Cyberbob 18:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I don't plan to. sorry, I was done when I told him to make his own policy. :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Pedantic Header

The decision of A member of the admin staff? Care to explain the decision behind that wording? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:09, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Are you meaning how any 'op can put forth a inactivity request? Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:18, 20 July 2009 (BST)

"A Sysop that does not make a significant contribution to the community in 1 month will be considered for demotion. A member of the Administration will judge whether or not another sysops contributions in the past month have been significant or not, and if they are found to be wanting, they can then request a Bureaucrat's judgment." Why A crat, singular?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:22, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Coz he's planning on demoting link and taking over the wiki.--xoxo 12:27, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I made it like that because i wasn't paying attention to my singularities. Any op can request it, but I think a 'crat consensus would be needed for a demote. And besides, no point in using this to demote link, because he'll lose his 'crat status to 'crat inactivity before this would take it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:26, 22 July 2009 (BST)

But I would like opinions on what people think would be better, both 'crats or just one in case the other is inactive or something.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:28, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Question

Why does a user have to have 500 edits in the past six months to become a sysop (in order to display activity in the community), but only one edit every four months once they become one? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:17, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Because our systems are pretty borked altogether?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Because the users need something to base their vouch/against on. Seriously, who would advocate promoting someone that hadn't made significant edits in the past 6 months? Half the wiki wouldn't know them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:05 22 July 2009 (BST)

Half? We ten to forget someone within a month, let alone six. :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 07:09, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Don't tell me you've forgotten Lach already :'( But seriously, I was more thinking of how half the wiki wouldn't have ever known them at all, given the turnover rate of users -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:15 22 July 2009 (BST)

Lach? Sounds familiar. :) But yeah, people come and go quite a bit here.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:49, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Gee, I wonder why.--

| T | BALLS! | 06:18 27 July 2009(BST)

Because it's a wiki for an online game. Most people don't even stay with the game long enough to fully level their characters -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:09 27 July 2009 (BST)

Well, of course, that makes some sense, but it also, obviously, does not apply across the board. There are plenty of long time player that refuse to step foot on the Wiki.--

| T | BALLS! | 09:23 27 July 2009(BST)

Maybe it's because the user base is so antagonistic and paranoid. Hmmm. Or it could be the constant screaming about balls and such.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 07:05, 27 July 2009 (BST)

And here i was blaming the administration...--xoxo 08:05, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Boxy's reason is good too.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 09:19, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Or maybe part of it is a certain Admin base that acts like Xenophobes and treats any new users (that don't suck their balls and swallow their dogmatic spew) like barbarians at the gate of their personal little fiefdom. Oh shit, I said balls. We probably just lost another 50 new users.--

| T | BALLS! | 09:23 27 July 2009(BST)

Or maybe it's the baseless accusations that are thrown around by everyone, not just these so called xenophobic admins. But no, go ahead and blame the problem on the administration without thinking of the shit that you "perfect users" pull. God the hypocrisy coming from you is practically unbearable.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 09:34, 27 July 2009 (BST)

What shit would that be? Nobody is perfect, but we should expect a little higher standard from Admin. And don't bother waving the magic "SysOps are not Mods" excuse wand at me. New users need to see impartial Admin doing their jobs, but they generally don't see that. What they see is a bunch of old users constantly grinding old axes and using their power to push forward their own agenda, which at the moment seems to be figuring out a way to declare themselves dictators for life of a Wiki for a game that, in some cases, they don't even play anymore.--

| T | BALLS! | 09:57 27 July 2009(BST)

Hell, one example from you is your constant shit on the suggestions page a few months ago. Screams of how everyone either zerged or was a giant gaping vagina? Yeah, that sure as hell attracted new users at the time. What about all that shit you started with Pesatyel? lolhypocrisy amirite?

What about the months of harrassment everyone suffered under Iscariot? Also a simple user. He sure as hell didn't drive anyone away, nope it was the corrupt admin team huh?

Izumi? Normal user. Yet we caused it, just because she couldn't adapt until way towards the end of her time here (thats including her ban evasion time) huh?

Yes, our admin team is so trying to take over the wiki, 'cuz you know, it's not the normal users (wanyao) suggesting policies to bloc vote out the sysops he doesn't like with a massive meat puppet swarm.

There's a few examples of the shit normal users cause to drive people away. A few. Now, I'm not saying every user is bad, hell not event he majority of them. Just a few problem users here and there who just can't follow the rules and guidelines. There's a small sampling of proof. Yet, from all the cries even during izzy's reign, no one has still shown evidence of where we're trying to take over the wiki. Are you trying to say that because I'm trying to set it up to where ops can't get promoted and then become almost non-existent in their activity? Please. Might as well just thank me for my input now, because it's not like you can show real proof of where we're trying to take over the wiki, or we're trying to push our own agenda's through. Also, crying about false corruption in the admin team makes you look stupid.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 11:15, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Points six and seven. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:05, 27 July 2009 (BST)

ergh, please don't group me with those comments.--xoxo 09:38, 27 July 2009 (BST)