Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20140220220301/@comment-9062114-20140221161813

Eganogard wrote:

Zippertrain85 wrote:

Eganogard wrote:

TombRaiser wrote: If the whole basis of the re-evaluation is removing a users rights based on them not being active for a while, I don't think that's the way to go. Now that I think of it, this probably needed more discussion before it was put out there.

We've always had the Semi-active and Inactive list for staff members. We would list them there until they came back, the only thing removed from them (if they were not active in 30 days) was the coloration of their name. But there was never any set time of how long one should be left on the inactive staff list with their user rights. So far many of the opposing votes on all the staff consensuses are siting inactivity as a reason. It's easy to oppose people who are not here right now to defend themselves. I question whether this type of vote prevents people from being honest -- I find it difficult to believe that the only staff members who people have an issue with are those who are currently inactive. I wonder if being forced to publicly discuss their grievances with staff members prevents people from expressing themselves openly. Fear of confrontation and fear of reprisal may also discourage people from voting, especially for the patrollers and admins.

I think it's a great concept to see how the community feels about the staff, but I doubt this method will achieve any results beyond attempts to vote-out people who are inactive at the moment. Most of those opposed didn't have many enemies, as a matter of fact, most were actually popular in the community, they simply weren't there. Most people don't believe that a staff position should be given to a user who isn't doing there job by simply not being there. Which is why most of the opposes were because of inactivity. That's a very shortsighted view. Patrollers and admins have earned their positions through hard work. Not being here today doesn't discount what they've done yesterday, nor mean that they won't be back tomorrow. Very few people are going to be active twelve months a year, and it's completely arbitrary who is inactive at the moment that a vote is taken. If this was done three months ago or three months from now, the results would be different. I don't think that quality staff members such as Tomb should loose their admin status if they take a leave to do something else for a few months. That's why we have inactive lists.

But my point is that we're talking about people, something different than a discussion on article layout or other wiki policies. It is personal by its very nature, and not everyone is going to be comfortable with publicly listing their reasons for opposing someone. To me, it is like going to work and getting on the intercom to tell the entire company why you think someone is bad at their job and/or has a negative impact on the workplace. Requiring that people do the equivalent on the wiki in order to place an opposing vote may be asking too much. I think it taints the results in the positive direction, and that there would be more participation if the voting were handled in a discrete manner. When someone decides to become a member of the staff here, they're opening themselves up to these things. Quality tests are especially important with higher positions since if they go "Rogue" and abuse there power it could be very bad for the Wiki.