Forum:Sysop trial periods

Something that recently came to my attention was Sysop activity times. While I can understand a user having to become inactive due to personal reasons, users that choose to stop editing because they don't want to any more can be an issue. For example, Capt. Miller recently made a blog proclaiming he was thniking of going inactive soon, as he sees no reason to continue editing; "Since I'm an admin, reached 10000 edits and crossed off nearly all of my targets, I feel I have fully finished wiki editing, and don't need to edit anymore. This is the same thing that happened to me in Call of Duty: Black Ops II. When I reached the elusive rank of Prestige Master, I barely touch the game anymore, and rarely play it.". Now frankly, admin rights should be given to users that are going to use the wiki to better it, not as some kind of achievement. Furthermore, Miller only received these user rights last month, so him leaving now has hardly made use of said rights, meaning while there's no issue with having multiple sysops, we do now have another inactive one that we may never see again. For this reason, I feel any user that gets given sysop rights should maintain an acceptable level of activeness for a set of time in order to keep said rights, a similar method is used in job placements to prevent people from simply joining for a few days and then leaving. Now this will bear in mind personal predicaments, as well if people are going on holiday and such, so we won' start revoking rights if a user is suddenly rushed into hospital, or has a holiday planned, or is currently doing tests or anything that is an acceptable reason to have lowered acticity. But for instances such as this, where a user is leaving purely because they don't feel there is nothing more to do, which with the release of AW coming up is pretty much the opposite right now, is just a detriment to the wiki, and makes giving out the user rights seemingly pointless if said user has no real desire to stick around and actually use them. 15:43, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Right now, I believe a 2-3 month trial period would be fair to give to new sysops.

Sounds fair to me. I feel that sysop rights should be given out to users who want to help out the wiki over a longer period of time, not users who just want to be recognized for their work. After looking through the inactive sysop list, all of them besides maybe one went inactive much later than they originally got the rights. If this becomes a trend of people getting the rights just because "they deserve them", this list will potentially be much larger. The 2-3 month proposal that Sam stated seems fair, as anybody who states that they will become inactive during this time probably shouldn't have made a RfA in the first place. 16:07, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Per Anti, and the nominator Sam. Although personal problems may plague the new admin, leaving for as Anti said, "not users who just want to be recognized for their work" is not acceptable. A 2-3 month trial period seems fair. 16:27, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal issues will be accounted for should a user let us know. If a user knows they are about to become inactive, then that may put off a nomination until they are free. But if something comes up after the nomination, then as long as they let us know, we can account for that. 16:34, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

What would after the after the trial period? Does the user keep the rights or can they choose to be demoted post-trial? 17:07, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * After the trial is up, it means they keep the rights with no issues. With luck this should mean that only the users that make it past those set months they'll stick around, since it seems unlikely a user will ask for user rights, stay for a few months then leave for no good reason. As with the case with Miller, once you've got the rights you need nothing more really, this simply allows us to have a bit more control over the rights, so not only does it show they're right for the rights by passing the RfA, but also shows their actual desire to have the rights by remaining active. 20:22, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also, while a lot of our users are protected by grandfather clauses, I feel Miller should have to follow this policy/guideline should it pass. Because, frankly, I do not feel comfortable adding a 1 month old admin to "Inactive". Since a sysop is expected to check the War Room, he should see this notice and it should not come as any shock to him. 20:27, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, um, I've thought about it, and am not leaving. The blog I made was that I felt I might consider it soon. Also, just to note, I didn't decide to stay after viewing this Forum. Capt. Miller  01:03, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I can revoke my above statement. But I still feel putting a guideline/policy like this in place can help prevent a similar occurrence happening. 01:04, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * i think this is a good idea but maybe instead it should be 1 month to 1 and a half month.  RisingSun2013 01:18, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 month seems a bit short for activity, and in fact one reason why I made this was because it had only been 1 month since Miller got the rights. That's why I feel 2-3 months is a lot more apt. 02:47, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * maybe 2 months then, but 3 seems like a little too much to me.  RisingSun2013 03:05, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Two-three months does seems like a perfect period of time. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 06:12, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

I feel okay with this. I remember some users getting sysop pretty early and becoming noticeably less active after. 12:16, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * That crossed my mind as well. I agree with 2-3 month trial periods. 19:05, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Legos. 2-3 months seems good. Higaboi21 (talk) 02:58, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

This seems like another unnecessary set of rules that will only aid in making this place a ghost town. You can't deem how long someone is supposed to stay active, shit happens in life. Seems very unnecessary. KλT 19:57, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how imposing a guideline to make people stay longer will make the wiki any less active. Job placements do the exact same thing, and last I went to a shop, it wasn't understaffed because no one wanted to stay on. And I mentioned many times above that most situations will be accounted for. But people choosing to leave with no reason given will be ones we are looking out for. 20:07, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * at the end of the day this is a volunteer position, not a paid job dude. we don't need to put time restraints on people, nobody would apply for adminship again. KλT 20:26, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * But apparently ensuring that people know they need to commit if they volunteer is bad. 20:48, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, what's the point in giving someone these rights that you have to earn and be trustworthy enough to get if you can just leave less than a month after receiving them and have no penalty. And you can still get fired from a volunteer position if you do a shit job at it. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 21:14, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody on here has the right to fire someone. That's not how the wiki works. KλT 05:33, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of volunteer work in general, since you said no one can get fired for volunteer work. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 08:10, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I volunteer for wikia, and i'm not obligated to put a set amount of time into anti-spam/vandalism tasks. Volunteering by nature is, well, volunteering. I don't work a set amount of hours, i put as much time into it as I'm willing to. I don't really see your point, the wiki isn't a business, its a collaborative encyclopedia. This idea is ludicrous. KλT 21:51, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Again: I was speaking of volunteer work in general, since you said no one can get fired for volunteer work. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 22:21, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think typical volunteer work in general(i.e volunteering at a pet shelter etc) relates to the wiki. And volunteers can be fired, usually only when they royally fuck up and like, go psycho and go on a rampage. KλT 22:31, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this as necessary at all. It simply seems like an overreaction to one case. We don't need to hound new admins every time one gets elected, and we don't need new admins feeling hounded. All that will lead too is people overworking themselves and trying to do more than they should, which can be just as detrimental as someone doing nothing at all. A rule like this would add no value to the wiki. All it does is turn the RFA system into a popular vote, with the admins acting as the electoral college. I say no. 04:33, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * ^ KλT 06:03, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * ...How? 08:05, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sam's proposal literally asks for a "Trial Period" which presents a huge number of issues.
 * 1. It effectively gives the admins, or whoever would judge the new admins activity levels, too much power. There is no outline of requirements for Sam's proposal, just "stay active". What does that mean? Keep editting? Just show up and lurk in chat so that the other admins know your still around? Participate in every war room? Without a clear definition of requirements, new admins can be pretty easily confused by what they have to do, and could lead to removals of potentially good admins just because they didn't realize just how "active" they had too be.
 * 2. It completely removes the point of RfA's. The community votes and decides as a whole who becomes an admin, no exceptions. It's part of the AEAE policy (which seems to get more and more ignored everyday) that everyone should have an equal say. Allowing users to vote, only to then say "Yeah, but we have the final say" is a gross mis-use of power which fractures the userbase between two sides.
 * 3. I just touched a little bit on it above, but it violates AEAE even further. There are a bunch of admins protected by Grandfather clauses, and they basically get to judge whether or not the new admins deserve to keep their rights?
 * 4. A "trial" period could easily lead to unproductive work. Uncesesarry editting of pages just so you keep showing up in the RC, writing "Per All" on War Room forums you haven't even read, making a bunch of shit blog comments just so everyone knows your active in the community. Maybe even hovering that mouse over the "Kick" or "Ban" options in chat so people know your paying attention and can take charge whenever you need too.
 * 5. Say everything worked out perfectly, what would this accomplish? Tell people they have to work their asses off for two months and then relax, like pretty much every other admin does? Yeah, a lot of us stay active, edit, chat and stuff but we don't religiously do it all day long. We do it when we feel we need too or want too. Why do we have to force new admins to prove their worth by working their asses off when we don't even do so? Just seems ridiculous.
 * 6. This is a huge overreaction to one case, and should have been handled with that one admin since he seems to have used Adminship as a goal rather than a tool, and now it's leading to an unecesarry policy which I am blown away is getting as much support as it is. 15:32, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "don't quit the wiki the same month you received your adminship" would result in someone overworking themselves. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 08:10, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything about minimum activity levels though. It just says "don't quit as soon as you get it." 15:38, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * So then what does this post accomplish? At all? "Don't quit the wiki", so don't make a blog saying your leaving? That's it? That's what this whole forum is about? Makes this forum even more pointless and even more of a problem that should be looked at case-by-base. 15:59, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel obliged to agree with Damac. I don't see the point to this. How often will this actually happen/has this actually happened? Capt. Miller may have only had the rights for a month, but he's put them to good use. He's one of the best editors on the wiki (it's why he got the adminship in the first place). Doing this will only put off other great editors who want to become admins and use the tools at their exposal for the better of the wiki. If you have to force potential admins to be active, then you might as well just not have them voted for. 16:19, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * A few times actually. I do agree with Damac's reasoning, however, I don't think it is right to simply give the rights to a user if they choose to leave or whatever right after they acquire the rights. Even through the RFA. 16:24, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we look at it on a case by case basis. We don't need a policy that hounds new admins and gives old ones too much power. 18:24, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to many of the things you said. Firstly, I don't think it would give other admins too much power. I doubt he current admins are going to descend on the new admins like hawks if they don't edit every 5 minutes. And if activity does drop, and its something that multiple users feel, they can just ask the user if there's anything causing that. Remain active isn't majorly hard, we have lots of uers, such as Legos and Risingsun that maintain quite a strong presence, even without joining chat. Secondly, it in no way removes the point of an RfA. The RfA is in palce to ensure the user is fit for the role, basically like the interview. If it removed the point of the RfA then we could just make any old user admin and go "Right, if you stay here a month you can keep those". The RfA is still highly important, the trial period will just be in place to ensure when we've gone though the work of an RfA that user doesn't suddenly vanish off somewhere. Fourthly, you can see my above comment about Legos and Risingsun, other good examples for a sysop point of view are MLG and CoaZ, since neither of them are active chat users, but still maintain a very strong active presence, it's a bit weaker for MLG since he is currently on a semi-active role, but certainly CoaZ remains active without unnecessary edits, so we're well aware that both normal users and sysop users can maintain a presence without resorting to edit boosting. Fifthly, we're not telling them to work then relax, we're telling them "Right, we think you've got what it takes to have these rights, now keep hold of them for a while so we know you are good with them". Otherwise, it's basically like passing a driving test but not getting a car, it makes the point of the test pointless. Maybe it seems ridiculous to make users stay for a while, but in my view it seems ridiculous to give users rights like this, then watch them ride off into the sunset because that's all the hard work done since they passed their RfA. Lastly, I understand this looks like an over reaction, but when I brought up the forum to a friend in Skype, they pointed out how the whole thing felt off, and mentioned how he thought another user had done the same thing before, because of that reaction, I believed a forum to counter the issue occurring again would be the best bet. Also by passing it in a forum so there's a consensus stops an argument later when should a similar occurrence happen, but unlike now the user doesn't come back, and then we talk about removing those user rights. If the system was in place then it would be resolved simply, but if we dealt with the issue at the time there would likely be a huge debate over taking user rights off people, which would likely cycle out of control and gain nothing. So amybe this could be seen as an over reaction, but at least its far more temperate and n-topic than if I had simply suggested removing a user's user rights all together and not bother with a guideline polciy. 08:55, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Your first point literally adresses my main concern. Why does their have to be a policy? Why do their have to be requirements? Why can't we just get a few admins together and try to contact the user in question and talk to him? Lack of communication has caused a sea of issues in the past for the wiki and making a policy which basically says "Hey, I haven't heard from this user in awhile, let me talk to the other admins and see if we can get his rights removed" only increases those issues.
 * 2. It does, in fact, remove the point of an RfA. An RfA is a system used to allow the community to come together and determine whether or not they feel a user is ready to handle administrative tools. It is not a system to give a user a two month trial and then force him to be active, lest he lose those tools. Things come up in life, Jobs, Family, Personal issues, School, and sometimes things aren't timed perfectly. Just because a persons activity drops after an RfA doesn't mean they should have their rights, that were granted to them by the community at large, taken away.
 * 3. You skipped a thirdly :P
 * 4. But what is the point of having to show that they'll stick around? Would you honestly remove a great admins rights if he was awesome for a month than inexpicably disappeared. Kylet brought up how, yes, Miller has only had his rights for a short time but he has put them to great use in that short amount of time. So if we had a great admin, doing great work, but stopped showing up due to some exterior issue, do you actually find it fair to remove his rights?
 * 5. This just goes back to your above point, why is time a factor? Why do we need to demand their time for a volunteer position? It just seems ludicrous to dictate their behavior in such a way.
 * 6. You keep not answering my question. WHY DO WE NEED A SYSTEM? Why is it so mind blowing that Admins could act like rational people and deal with each incident on a case by case basis. What was stopping someone saying, "Hey guys, I'm not really comfortable with Miller leaving a month after he got his rights, do you think we could talk to him?". I partially understand your point of wanting some kind of policy to back yourself up, but there's a big difference between proposing a rational solution to a problem, and shouting "GUYS X ADMIN HASN'T EDITED RECENTLY, I THINK WE NEED TO REMOVE HIS RIGHTS." You don't need a policy, the system has worked for years and years since the wiki's founding. You just need to approach the situation rationally and actually communicate with the various parties in question.
 * 7. And finally, for me, what is the big deal with letting inactive-new admins keep their rights? If they're gone, they're gone. They aren't hurting anybody. And they could easily comeback and continue to edit just as some admins have done in the past. I don't know, this all seems like a poor and useless solution to a non-problem. 16:52, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of Damac's last statement, I'd actually like to ask a question as well. What about users who are sysops and have been for a long time but haven't been active for whatever amount of time? Should their rights be taken because of their dormancy? 18:11, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, 3 months seems a bit excessive to me. I would support this if it was a max of 2 months, but I'm going to have to agree on with Damac. Also, I apologise to Sam for my reasoning for thinking of becoming inactive. I never had Adminship as a goal, but as the sort of person I am, I sometimes internally think of it as a goal, not a set of important tools. I was just a bit worried I might forget about the wiki. Capt. Miller  07:30, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 months does seem like a good median. 08:55, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * ^ 15:07, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a 0 month requirement. KλT 18:40, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you at least try and take this seriously? We get it, you're against the proposal. That does not mean you have to come in and shit on every single attempt to compromise that people make. 18:43, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * please point out where I'm shitting over every attempt someone makes at compromising, cause from this angle it seems like i just left this comment, and then the above thread where i left my opinion. I think you're being a tad bit disingenuous. KλT 18:57, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Is leaving an unnecessary sarcastic comment still something you had to do? Granted, you didn't shit on every single attempt but you did shit on this one which is not nice. 23:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the whole idea of what determines activeness is being completely blown out of portion here. The forum was made because of a user wanting to leave the wiki, not drop in activity. From looking at previous admins and their activity after they got the rights, nothing in the past was similar to the situation in the OP. The idea of removing admin rights for not being active enough is both judgmental and unfair, although this isn't what was proposed. The phrase "an appropriate level of activeness" was used in Sam's proposal, which seems perfectly fair for what it is. If we were to have a hard line for admin activeness, then I would strongly oppose this. This is different though, as basically any activity (even chat?) shows that you are still active and deserving of the rights. 19:21, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * That was mostly my assumption; that it was a "make sure users aren't going to disappear straight after a successful RfA", not a "new admins must make X edits per day/week or get desysoped". 19:38, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 19:44, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * So then what is the point of having a entirely useless policy that stemmed out of a single situation and who's entire guideline is "stay active" when that's what 99.9% of admins have ever done and the admin in question didn't even end up doing, when it can just be handled on a case by fucking case basis? 19:59, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Because if we did this on a case basis every answer would be the same. Because there's so much riding on the RfA once it passes no one would want to remove those rights unless something major happened. If Miller hadn't chose to come back and this was instead a forum stating we should remove his user rights for not remaining active how many people would have supported that? Then after that if it happened again, the same thing would happen again and again eventually to a stage where no one would think the issue worth contributing on. This guideline will still ensure we take users on a case to case basis, we won't give them a black and white view on what is and isn't active, but if they choose to leave the wiki because "why not" then we'll have something in place to stop that. But judging by what you said earlier, we won't be doing this if the user has a proper reason to lowered activity such as school, hospital appointment, friends over or whatever. 20:05, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would it have to be a forum? Why can't it be a formal discussion on skype, or chat, or even IRC? It doesn't have to be a forum and it doesn't have to be between you and one more, unnamed source before you make a decision. I just find this idea completely ridiculous and I don't understand the fear of simple discussion. Not every situation needs a policy, especially when it's one as based in common sense and as full of different variables as this one. 20:09, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had contacted you in Skype before making this forum asking "Should we remove this users rights because he's inactive" what would you have said? 20:12, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggestion one on one conversations, i'm suggesting round table group discussions. 20:21, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what we're achieving now by holding this discussion? 20:42, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Raven's and Anti, most of the opposition now make it seem like the proposal is pressuring new admins into forceful editing instead of its original intention to have them stay somehow active instead of "yay I got admin kthxbye" happening, to show admin tools are tools instead of a status or a personal milestone. If I'm to use the "volunteering for a real job" metaphor, if you go on a trial period they also don't just put you into straight 12hr/d labor work and lay you off if you don't work hard enough, or you have food poisoning and thus can't work for a day. Also, users being highly active then dropping it after getting admin has happened before, Sp3c and Icepacks off the top of my head, it's not the case of "AMG THIS USER SAID HE'LL GO INACTIVE MUST CREATE FORUM". 23:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought Spec went semiactive after gaining adminship, not fully inactive? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 00:58, September 1, 2014 (UTC)