FANDOM


  • Senjumaru Shutara
    Senjumaru Shutara closed this thread because:
    Clean Up.
    04:27, May 11, 2015

    This isn't me going about saying that "OH. THERE ARE ONE - TWO BUREAUCRATS THAT ARE INACTIVE/DICKING AROUND ON THE CHAT/ANOTHER WIKI IN THIS COMMUNITY AND NOT DOING THE SITE WORK LIKE I WANT THEM TOO, MAYBE I SHOULD PROPOSE TO ADD-ON BUREAUCRATS ON THERE SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THIS SITE. AND SO THAT THEY'RE NOT ALONE, I'LL ADD ROLLBACKS TOO. SINCE THIS SITE HAS EXPERIENCED INACTIVE ROLLBACKS!" No. It isn't about that. It's about what happened today.

    I am here proposing that there should be an add-on, but not that tremendous of an add-on like adding bureaucrats and rollbacks to the inactivity guidelines. No. It's not that big of an add-on. I think that this can benefit the site tremendously in re-building its staff again, and that it can avoid the confusion or the sudden feel that they are ignoring policies because this wiki is understaffed.

    Today, Steam Phoenix had promoted a user back to admin after I had asked him to be promoted to a rollback. While I agree what she had done is a good idea of what she did because we are a bit understaffed by all rights on my opinion, it can cause some issues where the inactivity guidelines. It says on the admin/RCaDC part of the inactivity guidelines "Rights may be requested back within one month of return with some activity." SG hasn't really asked for his admin right back after he was demoted (or probably felt like he couldn't ask them again after an issue which it has been resolved) and it has been over a month when he was demoted, it breaks a little piece of the policy, and can possibly be bad if broken again.

    What's the purpose of this proposal? I am here proposing that the sentence "Rights may be requested back within *insert time period* of return with some activity." to be changed to "Rights may be returned by bureaucrat's discretion, or by request with some activity shown." This means that it is up the bureaucrat's discretion to allow users, who were demoted because of their inactivity, to regain their right by doing a lot of work on the site, or have it be requested for their right (but still showing some activity on the site). I think it'll help because it'll be much more easier to do that rather than going through that proposal stuff for the users to regain a right again, and that this site can regain some of the staff that it had lost by showing a lot of activity.

    And the maximum date for the time period before they have to do the right process again is the following:

    Admins: 5 months

    RCaDC members: 5 months

    Chat Mod: 2 months.

    But the bureaucrats can decide on the time that seems necessary to decline any promotions when they have built up their activity/requests.

    Support Support -
    {{Support}}
    Neutral Neutral -
    {{Neutral}}
    Oppose Oppose -
    {{Oppose}}
      Loading editor
    • Neutral Neutral -

      It's true that we could use another admin, but I think Callie/Phoenix would have been better approaching Guy and suggesting he ask for his rights back, rather than just granting him them. It'll end up being rather pointless, promoting someone if they themselves don't want it.

      While I don't think this revision would necessarily cause any problems, I don't think it's necessary, either; the rules are fine as they are.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Neutral Neutral -

      It's true that we could use another admin, but I think Callie/Phoenix would have been better approaching Guy and suggesting he ask for his rights back, rather than just granting him them. It'll end up being rather pointless, promoting someone if they themselves don't want it.

      While I don't think this revision would necessarily cause any problems, I don't think it's necessary, either; the rules are fine as they are.

      I did say that on her talk page that she should've asked SG if he wanted his rights back on here, rather than giving him the rights directly back to him. Because he could've not wanted the rights, but I did see his avie on the chat proved that he may want the right (or at least that he can have the same activity that he had before his demotion).

      I'm not saying that it was a bad decision, or a terrible decision. It was an okay decision where it could turn off meh if SG didn't want the right (at least it's not causing any drama on the site). We do need admins, and possibly another 'crat if things are going to go in the same direction where you're considered as the community leader on the site, while Callie is considered the community leader on the chat--if the trial doesn't really work and CPWC is still closed after the 16th. But I do think like you, and agree that she should've asked SG if he wanted the rights (like what happened during the first time Goddy demoted himself).

      But the reason for this was because I do think that it should be bureaucrat discretion to view their activity, or that they can request it. But I do see the trouble of it (unless if it was admin; admins can demote themselves). I think that if they don't want the right after being re-promoted after showing some improvement on their activity, they can just go on a bureaucrat's talk page and request them to revoke their right. Or just say "Hey. I'm back, and I know that you demoted me down to a rollback" (apparently if someone comes back, they're a rollback until they come back and request the right or their activity improves) "I don't want to be in this right anymore, or any right really."

      I can see where it can be pointless, but I did like the idea of what Callie had did with SG (or at least just ask for their rights back).

        Loading editor
    • Thing is, everything's already kind of at bureaucrat discretion, hence the redundancy. If one crat feels that a particular situation calls for an exception to a rule, all he/she need do is discuss it with another crat and, if a consensus is reached, the exception will typically be made.

        Loading editor
    • Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote: Thing is, everything's already kind of at bureaucrat discretion, hence the redundancy. If one crat feels that a particular situation calls for an exception to a rule, all he/she need do is discuss it with another crat and, if a consensus is reached, the exception will typically be made.

      Yeah. That's why I can see it being pointless to make the switch, since a lot of the polices go around with a bureaucrat discretion. Like updating the rules, and stuff that an admin can't do by him/herself unless if it was forgotten for a long time. But what happened was a bureaucrat discretion where it didn't follow a sentence of a rule. Yeah, it's a pointless sentence and no one other than myself and, maybe, the bureaucrats will recognize. Because it's a small wiki, and hardly anyone edits here other than 1/3 of the staff here.

      But it was a bureaucrat discretion to do what I am proposing here. Does it make right that it wasn't in the rules? Maybe. Maybe we can have more productivity. Maybe the user would demote himself, and it depends on if it causes drama or not. I'm not saying that it's not a bad thing to what I am proposing here, but with the stuff you said and what I said it's not a good thing. It's to avoid that confusion, or that teensy weensy policy break on a policy that no regular user other than staff members should care about (which possibly most don't know anyways).

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.