Forum:Rights holder activity

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Due to a lack of a current codified process for the removal of additional tools from inactive users or requirements for activity, the following is proposed as a guideline for these proceedings moving forward. Please leave comments and suggestions below.

Proposed policy

The following outlines the expectations of staff members and the process of removing access to moderation tools due to inactivity. Updating these rights on Nukapedia and its Discord are dictated by the following guidelines and are subject to administrative discretion. Process[] Similar to the requirements for qualifying for additional tools on Nukapedia, staff members must maintain those activities after tools are granted. Users who are inactive do not necessitate tools to serve the wiki or its chat functionality by the very nature of inactivity. Updating these routinely ensures our internal controls are secure and consistent. Timeframe[] If a staff member does not edit, contribute to their applicable section of the community such as chat or discussions, or use moderation tools for two months, they will receive a talk page message. At three months, a warning that tools may be removed at four months. In the case of bureaucrat inactivity, the wiki representative will assist in updating rights. 2 months 3 months 4 months Talk page message Notice removal may occur at 4 months Eligible for rights removal Bureaucrat activity[] In addition, in order to maintain rights, bureaucrats are required to meet a regular level of productivity. In any six month timespan, bureaucrats must make at least 200 edits or discussion posts as well as utilize their administrative tools at least once. Bureaucrats may elect to receive administrator rights in lieu of meeting the productivity requirements, thereafter subject to timeframe requirements only. Reappointment[] Should a user return to the wiki after a period of inactivity and wish to regain their access to tools, they may do so without acquiring or running for prerequisite roles by demonstrating one month of activity in their corresponding section of the wiki and holding a forum vote per normal application process. Does not cover rights removed due to resignation or as a result of conduct policy proceedings.

Comments[]

Yup, unsurprinsingly I am in favor. People act way to entitled these days, holding rights is not an actual title that gets passed on to your kids one day, it is supposed to be a set of additional tools to use when interacting on the wiki / with the community on Discord or Discussions. You decide that you only show up every 6 months or after years? - Well, then you do not really need those tools.

If anything, inactive users holding rights is an unnecessary security risk. You do not resign as bank director, but get to keep the keys to the safe room. No one would think that to be a good idea in the real-world, yet we do this nonsense on the wiki? We have literally a list of 30 or so people, who likely will never get back here, yet they need their rights...for what?

In my opinion, this should be formulated into a vote asap.
–Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 06:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a fine change to me. I am a little confused as to some of the wording though. Must users use their tools within a two month period to demonstrate activity or is being active in other ways, such as participating on Discussions or Discord without using any of their tools enough to remain active? Also do they need a vote or not to reacquire their rights? It first says that they do not need to, then it says they will be granted following a forum vote.

Aside from those two minor sources of confusion, the only room for discussion is the timeline and the bureaucrat addition. I think 2/3/4 months is reasonable for inactivity. As I'm not and never have been a bureaucrat nor a major editor (I edit here and there, but not under massive projects or anything), I do not have a very good understanding of whether 200 edits or Discussion posts in a 6 month period is a lot. - Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 13:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

At least for the editing side, I can say that 200 edits in 6 months is close to nothing as a requirement. Kate and Jan usually pull 800+ edits in a single week, so there should not be any issues for them. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 14:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am super in favor of this, but what would determine inactivity? Is it at the discretion/vote of other rights-holders? Just admins or crats? The community?
Katy Webb A better future, underground! 13:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the older rationales for keeping inactive staff on hand, was in hopes they would return with subsequent Fallout releases; that with heaps of new content, there would be such a great deal of need, that we could not otherwise have any information collected and correctly added to the wiki without old hands coming back, and a belief that surely these folks who had been invested, would rise to the occasion when needed. But we have two great examples of how this has not worked at all as intended, between Fallout 76 as a drive for content and with the recent trolling shenanigans in Discussions.

The release of 76 saw no great return of staff, but it (and each of its updates) did see heaps of characters, locations, quests, etc. introduced. When actually tested, this belief in the importance of indefinitely held user rights ultimately failed to hold water. There are no guarantees that Fallout 5 will be any better received than 76 was or that old fans of the series who have moved on, will suddenly flock back to the wiki after years of absence. More importantly, what we did see was the desire from new, active and interested editors and users to breath life back in to the community. Folks who learned from the bottom up and earned their place as staff members, were the ones to upload and add the content which was needed. And long gone staff? Stayed long gone. Additionally, there are other impracticalities of this older belief concerning the ever improving standards, changes in templates, and new types of content unheard of in past games, which would virtually all have old staff needing to essentially be retrained or monitored and patrolled more closely until finding their groove. If you have been gone a year, 5 years, or 10 years and your frame of reference for what is correct is outdated, there is no practical benefit to having you as staff, when you could just as easily make do with the tools of a normal editor.

And in terms of old staff being useful in the event of an emergency? Over the last week or so, there was a troll over in /d who threw something like 20 alt accounts (no exaggeration, may have actually been more) at the platform, as a tantrum for having received a 3 day ban. There were attempts at mild doxxing, threats, misc trolling, and about all you can reasonable expect from someone so dedicated. And who was there to respond to that? Sax and Aish, the only two active /d mods, and myself, an admin who started as a /d mod. When we needed assistance, as work and real life started to conflict with our ability to be ever present during day two of the barrage, who did we lean on for help? Kate and Katy, 2 new staff (relative to old accounts, idle for months or years), and then we reached out to trusted members of the community to serve as temp mods. Members of the community, who have performed admirably and were more than happy to help. And even our Fandom rep, Mr Pie, got in on the action to lend a hand. You know who did nothing at all? Our collection of inactive or idle mods and admin, some of whom were more than happy to participate in casual conversation in the Security Desk, the staff Discord channel, but never did anything to actually assist anyone. The same users who were last active when Wikia was cause for strife, were useless, having been gone so long, that our relationship with Fandom has taken a complete 180 degree turn for the better, so much so that Fandom positively impacted the course of events.

And as Finda already said, having earned the rights once is not an entitlement to a lifelong position. These are tools to help the wiki and the community, not a birthright. If you do not perform the duty you signed up for, there is no reason you should be trusted with the tools. I have also heard that rights should not be removed as a courtesy to those who once earned them, but no such courtesy was extended by these inactive staff to the users who remained and have had to pick up the slack. If they just want recognition for work once done, we can make them little tag for their profile page to thank them.

As far as what determines active? I would say the best litmus test would be their peers. If mods are complaining that a staff member "exists" but does nothing or only has activity on platforms completely unrelated to their rights and are not providing benefit or substance, that they be eligible for marking as inactive. This can be measured up to stats, such as rights use, for auditing purposes. If the person continues to fail to meet expectations of their peers, then they should be removed. This goes doubly for users who remain as little more than a thorn in the side of existing staff who actually do perform their duties. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The timeframe is too strict, 2 months is way too short. I'd make it 4, 5 and 6 months, maybe even a little more like we proposed in 2012. Otherwise I think I'd be good to reinstate it again. Who's keeping an eye on chat-activity? Jspoel 15:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Defining what inactive is will be not be that easy, is a bureaucrat to decide that, or should we add a number of edits to it? Jspoel 15:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the proposal, it would be 4 months not just two. The 2 month marker would be to post a check in with the user, the 3 month marker would be a second message letting them know that within the course of the next month the user could lose rights, and at 4 months (and after the two different talk page messages) the user would be eligible to have rights removed based on inactivity. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we still have active military staff members? They can be on deployment for a minimum of six months with potentially no internet access. Great Mara (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes we do. And also I am not against this but it does need tweaked quite a bit. I'm not saying I have all the answers but I'm glad we're finally having this discussion on a forum. I think Jspoel is closer to realistic but like he said it may need to be longer or may need some exceptions placed. Also 200 edits isn't much in 6 months I agree but I would argue that timeline needs to be much longer too. A year is closer to what I'm thinking. If a member of the military gets deployed for 9-12 months (which is common) and has very little or no access to internet (and when they do, with all due respect to the wiki, they're priorities are likely connecting with their family) it's kind of a slap in the face if they come home and find out they've lost all tools and have to regain the respect and trust of the community. But even in normal cases I'd say 2, 3, 4 months is too short. I'm fine with an activity rule since it seems to grind some active people the wrong way when someone comes back and uses their tools (understandably in most cases). But this definitely needs tweaked before going to vote or I'd have to give it a firm no vote. Respectfully. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 16:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that if something like this gets pushed through users who currently fit the billet should get the talk page notice and month or so process before losing the rights if that wasn't already the idea. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)