Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-25075055-20140616212248/@comment-3523404-20140627224503

SuperSajuuk wrote: Deyvid Petteys wrote: It is standard policy on the wiki to vote anyone out of their current staff position. This will not be circumvented based on inactivity. That disrupts the very structure of this wiki. Since there are only two active bureaucrats at present, I highly doubt any of these demotions will occur without consensus. I absolutely will not.

colored names help new users locate staff members. I have always advocated the use of bright, contrasting colors, and I have not found a persuasive argument countering my philosophy on this to date. Obviously didn't read the post, too interested in writing a reply. If you actually read my post, I made it clear that coloured names are staying. >_>

And there's no reason to vote people out of their position when they are so obviously inactive that they disappeared years ago. Or are you telling me that they'll just appear out of nowhere and defend themselves when a thread is made to ask they have their rights updated? >_>

I find your tone rather rude. I did, in fact, read everything, and I found it imperative to iterate my point regardless.

In regards to mass de-sopping of staff members, I see little use in it. Inactive members have their usernames returned to the standard blue; their highlights are removed from the system. Some of them probably need updating. Regardless, I think doing so is futile and is quite petty to focus on. I understand the political problems the wiki has experienced lately. Many users have considered the administrative team bourgeois for quite some time. If admins are needed, I may be willing to over-look the requirement where admins must recommend an editor before voting can commence. If there is a conflict with a staff member, removing their tools can be voted upon. However, again, I see little use in de-sopping inactive administrators. They are trusted members of the community, inactive or incessantly editing. If they chose to return, they rightfully deserve their tools upon their return. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I do not understand your point on giving tools to those who are asking to have people blocked or articles deleted. If sysops are slow to respond (which appears to be a problem now, it never was before). That user who is keen enough to know when to perform a block, delete, or rollback, they should be nominated and given the tools. ALL staff positions need to be voted on. We need to verify an editors ability and character, lest they go rogue and need to have their tools removed. Voting and consensus has a purpose; it's not just slow bureaucracy. It's done as a preventative measure; it's not a popularity contest. If I understood your meaning, please elaborate politely. Because, as of yet, I fail to see how this will do anything but harm a wiki process that is not in need of fixing.

So, I am leaning towards a strong oppose.

In regards to staff re-evaluation, I agree, but I do not think it should be mandatory for all members. Not all members are active, and as I stated above, I do not believe that inactivity is sufficient grounds for de-sopping. Re-evaluations should be done on a case-by-case instance when an issue arises that warrants a possible de-sopping. For example, a sysop who is incessantly rude to users. Even that is a poor example, as people can always improve. I think coaching is better than immediate removal of administrative tools. For example, there have been admins on other wikis who are terrible community role models (one of the requirements for sysops, patrollers, and mods alike on this wiki), yet they were extremely efficient at blocking troublesome users according to that wiki's block policy, they correctly deleted articles and unused/inappropriate files etc. They performed all of the duties expected for their position, save one. In scenarios like that, we can issue workings and help them improve. But, again, I am not of the opinion that inactivity should warranty tool removal. We move inactive sysops and patrollers to a specific category and remove their coloration. Anything else seems ludicrous, and I believe your rationalization is insufficient, almost suspicious.