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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 24 edits to admin pages over a three month span on 24 separate days makes you eligible for review by the admin team. edrtain Sysops like Swiers and D can be exempted by consensus agreement (margin tbd). Any thoughts? Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 15:29, 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)
