| Hey! Let's talk this out!
This is an active forum. Please participate if you wish to make changes to the subject at hand. Remember to remain calm and civil throughout the discussion!
Well, hi. I really hate to be that guy and I know that many people will not like this forum but it's something that must be done. To go on topic, I have noticed that many people with user rights have gone inactive for a long period of time or simply don't use their rights. Before saying more i have to make two clarifications. First, I'm not talking about users that go inactive temporarily because, since it's summer, people should go inactive in order to relax and all. Second clarification: I'm not talking about admins. This forum is aimed to rollbacks and chat moderators. And no, I'm not making this to whore myself if that's what you think. I just believe that inactive people shouldn't have rights while some other, active people could use them way better than these people do.
About the inactive rollbacks, in Special:ListUsers/rollback you can see that many rollbacks, that are supposed to edit regularly, haven't edited for a long period of time and even if they have, if you check their contributions you'll see that most of them rarely or never use their rights. But there are active users that could have the rights instead and make a way better use of them.
About mods, first of all editing has nothing to do with modership. After making this clear, I'd also like to mention that we don't not need any more chat moderators, not at the moment at least. Anyway, back to the purpose of this forum, even thought most mods get in chat daily and don't let spam or vandalism happen, some of them never join. And that's bad because we cannot rely on them if one of the active mods goes inactive temporarily or permanently. And anyway I don't get why people that never join the chat should have chat moderator status.
Please tell me your opinion and don't hate me for making this forum. If I didn't do it, nobody would. Thanks.18:17, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about rollbacks, but I do know Kuro and Ryu are rarely on chat these days. It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 18:18, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If it's not harming anything, don't complain about it.18:21, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
Then what's the point of them having the rights, if their not going to use them or not bothering to fullfill their comitment?18:38, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. It may not be broken, but it's not being used, to extend the metaphor. There are more active users who would be more useful with rollback or mod rights than some of those who currently have them. It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 18:54, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it". It is broken. Since inactive people have these rights, active ones that could do a way better usage of them can't have them. And as a bureaucrat, it is pretty much your responsibility to fix this. Why do you need a mod that never joins the chat? To say that you have many? Then give his rights to some other person that will actually use them. Why do you need a rollback that never reverts edits or renames images instead of giving the rights to someone that will do both daily? Half of our rollbacks and at lest two mods shouldn't have rights.20:00, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, whether or not they're demoted wouldn't affect the wiki much, but the appointment of active mods would definitely be better to keep chat in line when there aren't any active mods to do so. As for rollbacks, if new ones or replacements are needed, then I'm all for it.23:10, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
First off staw, when you said "we don't not need anymore mods" did you mean "we don't need anymore mods" because we dont need more mods. second off, i wholeheartedly agree that we should definitely cut down about half of our mods, as i've noticed that though most of them have been editing recently, only you (Staw-Hat Luffy), Galaxy9000, Justsomedude... and Besty17 have been really active and using your rollback powers. As for the chat moderators i think we should also cut down 3 or 4 of them, though i am not always on chat and i don't really know which mods are the most active so i cant really suggest which ones should be cut. Finally i think no new mods or rollbacks should be appointed to replace the ones we may or may not demote, unless a need arises for more mods or rollbacks.--23:52, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
First of all, even if we demote mods, I certainly doubt that we need to replace them, not right now at least. The chat might be modless now but once panda is back it will be back to normal. Although, the same doesn't apply to rollbacks. As a fellow rollback I honestly like seeing people getting this right because that means that more people are willing to edit a lot and more people are willing to edit regularly. And especially now that we have additional rights, we really shouldn't make it too hard to get rollback cause if that happens, nobody will request it. The way we do it now which is getting it by telling a bureaucrat and letting him decide is just fine.
Anyway, back to the topic of the forum, I'm not suggesting demoting people especially when they are active. Out of the mods, only two of them are inactive and out of the rollbacks, half of them are. But I'm not saying that a bureaucrat should go ahead and demote them. Not the semi active ones at least. When it comes to people like PX that hasn't logged in since April 3, then yes I don't see a reason why we should keep him as a rollback or why we should give him a warning first since he obviously doesn't care or when it comes to mods that join the chat once every month or so, then yes I don't see a reason why we should warn them before demoting them. Because that will do nothing since they will promise to become active and will probably be active for a couple of weeks or so but they will eventually go inactive again. I've seen that before. But of course, is somebody does prove me wrong, I'll be glad to see him back and I won't ask for his demotion as long as he is active enough.
I know that everyone has a life, I know that everyone wants to spent time with his friends and family, I know that everyone wants to relax and I know that now that school starts again, most users will not be as active as they used to be, including myself of course. But you should realize that and if you believe that you will be busy with real life and will not have much time left to fulfill your duties or if you are simply uninterested, please do say it. Once you are active again, believe me, we'll be glad to give you your rights back.04:06, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
First off, I'd disagree that Ryu and Kuro are never in chat. I've seen them several times in the past couple weeks. I do not believe any of our chat moderators are inactive.
Secondly, I believe there is no harm in letting inactive users retain rollback rights. The reason is because the basic purpose of the right (quickly combating vandalism) is not very special. All it does is allow for quicker undoing of edits. It is very difficult for a user to misuse rollback rights. (I sincerely doubt anyone could misuse the image renaming privilege) And if for any reason a rollback is misused, a regular editor may undo the rollback. The reasons we worry about things like inactive admins are that 1) we worry that the work that needs to be done by them is not getting completed, or 2) we worry that a returning inactive admin may be ignorant of changed rules and policies. However, as far as rollbacks are concerned, vandalism never changes. So if there are enough rollbacks to handle the regular vandalism, we should not be concerned with the amount of rollback users. If a user is inactive for 6 months, comes back on a whim and checks the wiki activity and finds there's been vandalism at a time when no other admins or rollbacks are on, that's a great situation and isn't harmful at all. Rollback users are given their rights because they have proven to be trustworthy, and unless that trust is somehow broken (inactivity does not break that trust in my mind) they should keep their rights.
That being said, if a rollback user knows they aren't active enough to be using their rights, I would strongly encourage them to give them up, as well as recommend another user who could be trusted who should be given the rights. I did that once, and I was given rollback rights again at a time when I could use them effectively once more. Also, if anyone does read this and decide to give up rights, I've always though User:Zodiaque would be a great rollback user, because he is in a very different timezone from most of our rollbacks, and is a very high quality editor. Way back when rollbacks were first appointed, I was going to nominate him for the job, but he went inactive for some time then. Talk | 13:08, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with you. Having rights is not a matter of trust or what. By your logic, we also trust MF, Angel, Tipota and everyone else that helped build the wiki. Why don't you give them rights? Why did we demote the inactive bureaucrats? Cause they are inactive! If you think that having rights is a matter of trust, you are totally wrong. Trust is important, yes. But the only factor? No, no. Activity is just as important as trust. For instance, you can't give mod rights to a user that you know will abuse it no matter how many hours he spends on chat per day but you can't give them to people that never join the chat either. All the people with rights did deserve them when they took them, that's not doubtful. But they don't deserve them anymore. If somebody goes inactive temporarily of course he will not lose his rights. But when somebody goes inactive for months and months without notifying the community or something, he really deserves demotion. The fact that he "might" come back doesn't mean that he should keep his rights. We are an active community and if you want it to work properly, inactive people must not hold back the wiki.
What I said above about rollback users applies to mods as well. But right now we don't have many inactive mods. Two months ago half of them were inactive. Now, even Kuro has started to join the chat daily again and if he keeps doing that, of course he should keep his mod position. Right now, the only really inactive mod imo is Ruy. Joining the chat every two or three weeks and staying for less than ten minutes isn't considered active. If Ruy changes and starts being active again, then I don't mind him keeping his rights. But if not, demotion is unavoidable.13:37, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I believe that it's time to make things more personal so I'll tell you my opinion on every mod and rollback and if I believe he should be demoted or not. I'll start with the rollbacks since I am one.
- Me, Staw-Hat Luffy:If you look at my contributions you will see that i probably have reverted more edits than any other rollback since May 15, when I got my rights. In addition, I have renamed tons of images using rollbacks' additional rights which I introduced. Therefore, I believe that I should not be demoted as I am probably the one that uses his powers the most.
- Besty17:Even though he is our newest rollback addition, he has used his rollback rights to revert many edits and he has renamed hundreds of images despite having rollback for less than two weeks. That said, I believe that Besty should also keep his rights.
- Jademing:She has her rights for about a year and even though she might not revert edits daily, she fixes whatever she sees plus she has renamed tons of images also. So I say let her keep her rights as well.
- JustSomeDude...:Despite the fact that he hasn't used his rollback to rename images yet, he is a user that regularly uses his power to revert edits so i say let him keep it.
- Galaxy9000:Also one of the newest additions and also one of the most active ones. Leave his rights.
- Calua:Calu is a semi active editor but by looking at her contributions I see that she rarely uses her rollback. I am fine with letting her keep it as long as she doesn't go inactive but if you want to demote her, I don't care either.
- Uknownada:Even though nada has his rollback rights for months, he hasn't reverted more than ten edits and all of them were reverted when he was temp admin. Plus the last two months he is inactive and he only randomly comes back, makes an edit and leaves again. I believe that he should be demoted.
- WonderfulUnicorn:Pretty much like nada, WU has had his rights for quit some time but he hasn't used it more than 10 times. Plus he hasn't edited since August 27.
- Pacifista15:Inactive since April 3, nothing else to say here. I support demotion.
Now, about the mods, I won't make reviews of them like i did with rollbacks because everyone that joins the chat regularly knows that right now the only inactive mods are Ruy and Kuro. But Kuro has started to be active again as he joins the chat daily and if he is willing to stay active, I don't support demotion. On the other hand, I can tell that ever since I joined the wiki, I haven't seen Ruy in chat more than 15 times and whenever he joins, he leaves immediately. That's not a mod's attitude. I fully support demotion here.
Please remember that this is my opinion and if you disagree with something, please do not hesitate to say it.17:09, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
I think the minimum threshold for reverting a user's rights should be two months inactivity with no reason given for the lapse. And I've seen Ryu in chat more than Kuro - it depends on time zones. It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 17:12, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Just commenting to say that I fully agree with Staw-Hat Luffy. Inactive users shouldn't retain their rights just because they're "trustworthy" etc. And I disagree with Nova, there should not be a minimum threshold. If there was, the inactive users could simply pop in every two months and then continue their inactivity. Awaikage Talk 17:43, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree with Kage.17:45, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's a good point. I'll concede that. It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 17:48, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
"We are an active community and if you want it to work properly, inactive people must not hold back the wiki." -Staw
And how exactly do inactive rollbackers "hold back the wiki" if there are sufficient active rollbackers? If the work is getting done, I don't see how they are harmful.
By my count, you suggest keeping 6 active rollbackers, though most of the rollbacking work is done by more active rollbackers like yourself. Seems to me like the work is really only covered by 3 or 4 rollbackers. So what do you think of the rollbackers who are active, but not necessarily sharing in the workload? Are they also "holding the wiki back"? Or is it possible that rollbacking is such a trivial thing that it doesn't matter if people who don't use it (or don't use it enough) have the right?
I personally think rollbacking rights are an incredibly trivial right and it doesn't matter who has them. It's a very different issue from Admins or Mods, which is why unlike them, rollbacks rights are given out like candy to any decent editor who asks an admin. The fact that we don't elect rollbacks shows how much more trivial and useless the right really is. Don't make a big fuss about it, because it's not worth the effort. And to anyone reading this forum who has even the slightest thought in their head that if we demote some rollbackers, they might just get rollbacking rights: The workload is being covered sufficiently and there will not be any new rollbackers needed. It's not a big deal to have the right, and there is no authority gained by having the position. Talk | 18:04, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
If you consider rollback a useless right, go demote yourself.18:08, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
You've missed my point. My point is that rollbacking isn't nearly as important to the survival of the wiki as Administrating or Moderating. And since it's not that important, it doesn't matter if inactive users have the right or not. If there aren't enough active rollbackers, promote more. But there is no good reason to demote the inactive one. And please respond to my question Staw: How exactly do inactive rollbackers "hold back the wiki" if there are sufficient active rollbackers? Talk | 18:16, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
I have already answered your question with my above posts. Give their rights to other people or promote the entire wiki. And rollbacks are way more important to the wiki than moderators because imo the chat is different than the rest of the wiki.18:22, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Is the workload being covered? To it seems as me, Staw & Jade. Revert vandilism then get around to spending mintues or even hours, renaming files and then making sure we try to get all of pages those files belong to. Theirs always more work being stacked up for us, who go out our away to make difference. So it isn't exactly being covered when other rollbacks don't pull their own weight, or don't even bother to make a difference. Montouring for activity, is more important than a chat. A chat room won't effect if a user vadlises a page or not. Rollback is the second must important role a can user can have, you of all people JSD should know this.18:36, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
I've re-read the entire forum and nowhere do you mention the negative consequences of letting inactive users retain their rollback rights. You only state that they "don't deserve" or "souldn't have" rollback rights. Please elaborate as to why they do not deserve such rights 'and state what the negative consequences of letting them keep the rights are. Thank you.
And at its heart, rollbacking is not more important than chat moderating. Rollbacking's only ability (besides the new image renaming, which I will address in my next paragraph) is to revert vandalism 'more quickly than other users. Instead of reverting edits with 3 clicks and 2 pages loaded, a rollback user may revert edits in one click and one page loaded. Regular users can still revert vandalism, it is not a task solely for rollback users. Chat moderating however, can only be done by admins and chat moderators, and it requires much more responsibility and trust to use the rights properly. and While not as important as editing, the chat is an important part of the wiki, and is helpful in getting new users interested in editing. The basic rollback right is not something other editors can't do, and it is not as important of a responsibility.
Now in regard to the new right rollbackers have to rename images, I have some things to say as well. It is my understanding from the tone of this that myself and other rollbackers are being judged for not renaming many (or any) images. Here's why that's completely unfair:
- This right was only perfected last week. It is not right to judge anyone for their activity over the course of a single week, when real-world responsibilities can get in the way of editing.
- No current rollbacker "signed up" for the rights when the option to rename images was there, and was not part of the work they agreed to do at that time.
- After the last 30 or so images are renamed, image renaming changes from frantically working to decrease a category with 500 images to merely regular maintenance of the wiki. It is unknown what the pace of that regular maintenance will be, so it is unfair to require all rollback users to do that work yet.
And if you are personally after me for not renaming images, let me remind you that I have proven myself to be more than capable of renaming images when I renamed around 400 images as a temporary admin. (And that's without the aid of automation). I many not have renamed as many images as others recently due to troubles in my real life in the past week, but I am clearly capable of the work. The same goes for Nada.
Lastly, it is an absolute misuse of rollback rights to use them in an edit war. In that act, Staw-Hat Luffy has actively avoided attempting to deal with an issue appropriately (going to a talk page or seeking other means of discussion). By rollbacking instead of discussing he has left me feeling that he does not value my opinion and does not think he needs to discuss problems. This misuse of authority should be noted, and if he continues to act like this in the future, his rights should be removed. Talk | 19:47, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
It's not an edit war. You break the page and I fix it. If you want to edit war, that's not my fault.19:52, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not an edit war now because I am mature enough to take the issue elsewhere. But if I didn't stop to take the conversation elsewhere, it very well could have been. At the very least you completely disregarded the legitimacy of my opinion by not discussing the issue further. And you continue to disregard my opinon by saying that I "broke the page" instead of attempting to see my side of the argument. Talk | 20:03, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
JSD SAVED THE DAY! HE SAVED THE WIKI FROM A HORRIBLE EDIT WAR! AMAZING! *clap clap*20:04, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Please refrain from being sarcastic. It do not contribute to discussions, and only make conflicts worse. You (and unfortunately, quite a few other users) should be aware of that already, Staw >_> 20:06, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
- If you want me to be serious in discussions, don't give me that kind of posts. 20:16, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Just a note, rollabacking in an edit war it's the same as undoing. Rollback just undo all the edits of the last user, so if the last user did just one edit (after another one) it's the same as undoing. Rollbacking it's just a shortcut, you can do it (even undoing multiple edits at once from the history) with normal rights. leviathan_89 20:19, 11 September, 2013 (UTC)
- Rollbacking differs in one other way though: It does not show the rollback edit or the edits that are rollbacked in the feed on Special:WikiActivity. So if you use that instead of Special:Recentchanges, like I do (I rely on the activity because of it's ability to show when images/categories are added), the only way to know if your edit was rollbacked is to check the changes or the history of the page. In this way, it in effect "hides" that the edit was made and can deceive users into thinking the edit war is over. And again, it's highly disrespectful to respond to an undone edit with no explanation given. Talk | 20:57, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
The chat, in no shape or form influces people to start edting. The chat is their chat, or to sort out issues between users. Users edit because they want to edit, not because someone thinks they should do something, other than talking in the chat. New users join everyday. Sometimes the ones who join to edit, don't access the chat. So about it bringing in users is wrong. If rollback is not a important responsibility, why do we have it? why do the admins give it out? I belive Staw is judging people based off more than a week a go, otherwise we wouldn't be here right now. If those who already had rollback rights before the image ablity was introduced, they could could of told others users, they never "signed up" to be dealing with images. It takes two to start an edit war. So instead of reverting back and forth, use a god damn talk page. That's why we have them. If people continue edit wars by reverting all the time, they should lose rights, as their abusing them.20:44, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Well, rollback is a privilege, and anyone who requests for it should live up to the commitment, like an admin. Maybe we should ask those inactive ones to see if they want to forfeit their rights.23:22, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
well if they're inactive, won't it take a while for them to respond back? and don't we want to resolve this issue rather quickly?--23:26, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with asking the inactive ones if they're fine with giving up their rights right now. Though I wouldn't want to set a precedent that they should always be active. If they do respond and give up their rights, then we can avoid this issue entirely for now, and everyone will be happy. Talk | 23:35, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and asked Nada and PX. Talk | 23:51, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you guys do the same thing I did for inactive admins, and set a deadline for the inactive rollbacks to reply to the message? If they don't reply to the message, assume that they don't want the right anymore and demote them. If they reply yes, they will be active again, let them keep the right, and if they reply no, they wanted to be demoted, then demote them.23:53, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
i think the deadline for them to respond should be no more then a week, and if they do respond and wish to continue editing regularly we need to define how often they should be editing--00:03, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
I'm still against the forced removal of their rights. I'd say give it a few days at least to see if they respond. If they don't, we can always add on a deadline later if the discussion decides to do so (and we can make the deadline retroactive from when I sent out the messages tonight). And two weeks seems more reasonable, given that these users are inactive, and that's the same amount of time we gave the admins in the inactive admins forum. Talk | 01:10, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
"The chat, in no shape or form influences people to start editing." Besty that is bogus, many users join the chat and get to know people before they start contributing to the wiki. I know this, I did the same myself. Not that I have many edits to show for it, but still. As far as the rollback right go I don't have any say really seeing as I never edit but I do agree with JSD for the most part, except in the case of PX. He has been gone for months there's no need for him to have it, give it to someone who will use it. And now the chat, as far as chat mods goes at this point all the mods have been fairly active except Ryu (FFS Staw it's not Ruy). At this point that chat has been fairly crowded for the most part and I see it being like this for a fair while, so I don't see any point in removing mod rights at this point maybe if it starts to quieten down again this should be looked at. But if we did remove rights (yes I realize I will probably be bitched about and/or attacked for saying this but it's the truth) Myself, Calu, Panda and X are more than enough to cover the chat in all time zones.02:03, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
First of all, about me being in your list, Staw, many of my rollbacks were from when I wasn't an admin. You'd have to look harder, since I did much more than 10. Just pointing that out. Second, I have been inactive for the past couple of months but I'm slowly going back in. The reason I haven't been doing any rollbacks at all is because I haven't seen any edits that SHOULD be rollbacked lately. Remember, the job of a rollbacker is completely dependent on people who make multiple edits in a row. If there are no edits, there's nothing to undo. So my reasoning for not rollbacking is basically because I don't see anything to rollback. I haven't read this whole forum yet, by the way. I'm just putting in my two-cents. I'm against forced removal.02:54, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
What the actual hell, people? I've been in the chat every day for the past two weeks. I mean, I don't know what else to say. Maybe it's a timezone thing. I've been chatting, I've been moderating, I've even kicked a fake account. I'm doing my job, why is everybody treating me like Dumbledore in the Order of the Pheonix? 03:57, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
JSD, Canuck, Yata and whoever else commented about the deadlines, I think that we should give them one week time to respond. If they don't respond, remove their rights. But even if they do respond and promise to be more active, I think we should have a discussion about each one of them personally since I'm sure that some people will not trust them.
SHB, if the mods are active, we should not demote them unless they ask. I don't see why a mod that joins the chat daily for much time should be demoted. Mods are always needed on chat. 4 mods in such a big wiki isn't good, if even just one of them goes temporary inactive, the chat will be modless for hours. Even now that we have seven and panda is away it is always modless in the afternoon, my time.
Nada, you have your rollback since March 6 and by looking at your contributions, I see that you have reverted about 20 or 30 edits, the last one in July 3, 2013 and as I said most of them were reverted when you were temporary admin. Plus you have yet to use your renaming rights. If you don't use it, what's the reason to have it?
And Ryu, you are not the only one with that timezone, are you? Whenever I see you in chat you don't stay more than 10 or 15 minutes and you don't join daily. So, no, that's not what I call and active mod.09:57, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Staw you should read things more clearly, I never said we should demod anyone now. I said maybe we should take another look at it when it has begun quieten down. I even said we shouldn't demod anyone at this point of time. Also Ryu I see you come on for maybe 10-15 minutes every couple of days or so and others I asked said similar, I could be wrong I guess.11:15, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you meant, I wasn't clear enough I guess.11:22, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem as informed as you act like you are. My admin job is on-and-off, and I even demoted myself from it when I went inactive a few months back. Many of my rollbacks were from when I wasn't admin, but even if they were it's a bit irrelevant to this whole thing. And like I said, for a rollback to do anything, there needs to be an edit to rollback. Sometimes there aren't any edits to rollback at all. Also, I don't see why rollbackers are more or less "trustworthy". As others have said, it's merely a shortcut; there's a couple more parts about it, but nothing major. As for the chat mods, I see many of them have participated on chat lately. There's hardly a time when there are no mods at all. I don't see why any of them deserves a demotion.18:47, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
There are dates. I said that most of the edits you rollbacked were reverted when you were temp admin. And the "I don't see any edits to revert argument" means that you don't stay long enough on the wiki since other rollbacks and not only rollbacks but every active editor sees vandalism very, very often. Vandalism happens many times per day on the wiki so the fact that you don't see it only implies that you aren't active enough to see it. And I honestly don't get why you want rollback if you are neither willing to rename images nor to regularly check the wiki for vandalism. You can still revert edits without rollback. It shouldn't be a problem for you since as you said you rarely see vandalism.18:57, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Nearly all of my rollbacks are to undo single edits faster than an undo, while I believe Nada only uses them for multiple edits, making it so that he uses the option less frequently than others. I'm sure if Nada started using them for single edits, you would see an equal amount of rollbacks as the others.
And again, it is extremely unfair to criticize Nada or any other rollback user for not renaming images since we've had the ability to do so for less than a week. Also, to further add to the madness of that, the category for misnamed images is empty except for 6 images that require an admin to rename. Talk | 19:12, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
I never said that the fact that he doesn't want to rename images is the reason why I support his demotion. The fact that he never uses his rights is the cause of my opinion. If he was active and reverted edits regularly I wouldn't care if he renames images but when he does neither, I honestly don't see a single reason why he should keep his rights.19:17, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
- How about how he said he will become more active? You can't even give him a chance to make good on that? We gave Deva a chance, and that has worked out very well for us as a wiki. Talk | 19:23, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
Ah late to the forum. First of all, I have to side with leaving their rights because they are much smaller rights than admins when you think about. Also, please stop referring back to admins, that is a completely different case. Chat mods have only one right; banning users from the chat. Meanwhile, rollback has three; easier method of reverting, renaming pictures, and deleting the redirects of pictures.
"Calua:Calu is a semi active editor but by looking at her contributions I see that she rarely uses her rollback. I am fine with letting her keep it as long as she doesn't go inactive but if you want to demote her, I don't care either."
I absolutely feel the love. Did you ever think that some people get beaten to reverting an edit? Because I swear, that always happens to me. So, I'm sorry that I currently have the rights and rarely use them?... You've just recently gotten the rollback rights. I was one of the first to get rollback, and been using it correctly, trusted with it like several others. If they are trusted by admins and users to be given the right, then that's good enough for me. Some new additions were just added to clear an entire category. Just because we have those new additions we should just remove their rights? Why? Because we have too much in someone's perspective? We shouldn't care if we have too much, we should just care that they are improving the wiki. That's the entire point of a wiki, to improve it, and give the readers information. ❖ 21:54, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
i still think that unless PX or WU agree to become active again and actually follow through on that promise we should remove their rights if they dont respond to the messages on their talk page--22:27, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
- According to his userpage, WU has problems with his internet connection. That's why he's inactive. A demotion isn't necessary because he has an excuse. 23:13, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, if you check the log with all the rollbacks, it says that WU has logged on today. As for PX, he said that he uses his school's laptop that they lend him for the school year. We don't know if his school has already started or not. Also, if you check the history, he wrote that message on July 30th and has ever since edited couple of times. I do recall WU saying that he will fill in for PX, but I don't know about that now. ❖ 00:27, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
look WU is a great user and an awesome person, but he asked Yata for rollback rights so that he may take over for PX, yet since gaining them he hasnt been active and whats more i dont really think we needed someone to take over for PX as i think that we really dont need 9 rollbacks and that WU and PX should both have their rollback rights taken away--00:43, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need 10 rollbacks... I mean nothing against Videogamep, he's a good editor but we are one of the biggest wikis and as a result we have many active and trusted users...we can't promote all of them... Seriously people when I got rollback we only had five users an they were more than enough. And as JSD told, he even gave his rollback to PX when he thought he would not be active enough to fulfill his duties, something that I truly respect since, as you can see for yourselves, not many people would do that. And even though I said that I like seeing people getting this right, we can't promote new people every week...
Also Calu I honestly knew that you get beaten on reverts many times. It happens to everyone :P, so as I said I don't think that you should be demoted.08:32, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, forget the first paragraph of what I said. By looking at his contributions I see that even though he has his rights for not even a day, he has already used them several times. So, that's cool. I'm glad to see that. 11:13, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
This is only tangentially related, but I'm assuming all the rollbacks are reading these thread and there isn't really anywhere better for it to go. When you're renaming SBS Images, could you please follow the systematic naming system I was using, or at least some form of systematic naming? My system is SBS[Volume Number] [SBS Page Number] [Description].png (eg. SBS60 2 Ivankov Hair.png), although if you think SBS Vol 60 or SBS Volume 60 is better then use that, as long as every image in the category has the same prefix (decide amongst yourselves). At the moment the category's completely out of order because different systems are used for different volumes, and I don't want to upload the rest of the missing images from earlier SBSs until it's all sorted out. I saw that Videogamep recently renamed one of them to File:Oda's Avatar SBS Volume 62.png, which mucks up the ordering completely. 13:45, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, when the images are tagged, I give them the suggested name without thinking twice. If you don't like the naming system of these pics, please mark just one of them to be renamed and I will rename all the others accordingly.13:51, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
- If they're all going to be renamed, I'd go with the system "SBS Vol(Page) Description.png", so for SBS Volume 34:
- SBS Vol 34 01.jpg → SBS 34(1) Luffy's Abs.png
- SBS Vol 34 05.jpg → SBS 34(1) Sanji in Love.png
- SBS Vol 34 06.jpg → SBS 34(2) Afro Luffy.png
- SBS Vol 34 07.jpg → SBS 34(2) Super Sparrow Diet.png
- SBS Vol 34 08.jpg → SBS 34(3) Rumble Ball Advertisement.png
- SBS Vol 34 11.jpg → SBS 34(3) Pudding Pudding.png
- Princess Purin.png → SBS 34(3) Princess Pudding.png
- SBS Vol 34 02.png → SBS 34(4) Wig Selection.png
- SBS Vol 34 03.png → SBS 34(4) Bishojo Senshi.png
- SBS Vol 34 10.jpg → SBS 34(4) Peanuts.png
- SBS Vol 34 09.jpg → SBS 34(5) Negikuma.png
- BS Vol 34 04.png → SBS 34(5) Nola's Eye.png
- I'd prefer to rename them myself at the same time as I go through volume by volume and put in missing images, but judging by this thread you'll keep whinging if yet another rollback is added, so have fun. 16:44, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, i would really like to see you as a rollback because you have proven that you deserve it. Plus you will give them better names than I will, that's for sure :D. You should just tell a bureaucrat, I am certain that nobody will refuse to give it to you.17:01, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I think rollback is a trivial right, and as long as the work is being done, and being done well, I don't care how many rollbacks there are. And also as I said above, Zodiaque would make a great rollback b/c he's a very skilled and knowledgable editor, and is in a veyr different timeszone from the rest of us rollbackers. Talk | 17:03, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Zodiaque should get rollback.
As for demoting the old ones, it isn't a position of power, therefore, it doesn't matter if they don't use the power. Rollbacks should only be demoted if they abuse their powers.17:05, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't get why inactive people must have rights. It's just wrong. Anyway, as I see it, me, besty, kage, fin, nova, yata and canuck want to demote people while DP, JSD, Gal, nada and calu don't want that. Dunno about levi's, jade's, ryu's and zodiaque's opinion. I say have a poll about whether we will demote inactive people with rights or not. If we decide not to demote them, we close this forum and keep giving away rights to people that don't deserve them. If we decide to demote people, we will agree on who is inactive and who is not and then have polls for each inactive user personally. Do you agree or not?17:18, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to move in the poll direction, I want to make a few notes:
- We should separately poll the issue of revoking the rights of Chat mods and Rollbacks. As Gal said, Rollback isn't a position of power, while chat mod is, so they should be voted on separately.
- Before anyone's rights are revoked now, or in the future, an attempt to contact them first should be made and time should be given for them to respond. That action should happen before the opening of any forum or poll. And we should be lenient if they do respond and promise to be more active.
If we go ahead with those in mind, I'm fine with whatever the community decides. Talk | 17:26, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Sure have two polls. And of course we will notify all the inactive people but I believe that we should still poll their rights even if they promise to be more active. They will have much time from now till the poll about themselves is up and if they do as they promised, that time is more than enough for them to prove it. Also I believe we don't have to notify the people that have already commented here since they already know about the situation. And if I recall correctly, you said you contacted PX so that leaves only WU. If you want to contact him go ahead, if not I'm gonna do it.17:35, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
I agree, let's have two polls and get this done.18:34, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
If we give people a 2-week deadline to respond, and they respond on the 13th day, and you start their poll on the 15th day, I hardly think that's "enough time" for them to prove anything. If someone says they'll edit more, give em a good two weeks to actually prove it. You can't judge someone's editing based only on a few days of activity, it should be done over time, otherwise someone could edit 400 times on the day that they find out their rights are in jeopardy, and then only edit 7 times for the next two weeks. If it turns out they can't make good on their promise, then we can treat the case differently, but you have to give them at least one chance.
If you want to deal with inactive editors, you have to give them time. You can't expect people to instantly drop everything to make time for editing. If inactive editors are going to be dealt with, it needs to be a slow process. Talk | 19:45, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
2 weeks seems a bit long, i think it should be one week max--21:30, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
- 2 weeks pretty much ensures the user isn't on vacation or something (most users here seem to take 1 week vacations), and gives at least 1 full weekend to respond. As someone who's spent time inactive, I can assure you it's a lot more difficult to stay away from the wiki for two weeks rather than 1. Talk | 21:45, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
>_> 2 weeks still seems too long, how about we compromise and say 10 days?--21:57, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. Sorry I'm late, but I just saw the message and I would like to resign. Various factors have persuaded me to leave this wiki, and I don't plan on coming back. In fact, the only reason I checked back was to see if someone had revoked my rollback rights yet. Sorry for causing a problem, and see ya. ••PX15..•• 00:57, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
well that takes care of fista (btw thanks for volunteering to step down, that was really cool of you) but it still leaves WU, so how much time should we give him to respond?--01:44, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, Pacifista 15's rollback rights removed. Any more resignations? I'd say 10 days to see who's inactive, sounds nicer than 7 days (short) or 14 (long).02:33, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
alright so we will give WU until September 24th 00:00:00 (UTC) to respond--02:43, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
10 is fine. Also PX it's bad to see you leaving. Take care!05:09, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, gonna make the test polls.10:38, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
Nobody contacted WU until I just did, so I'd say we should give him until the 28th. Staw's September 11th post of "Whatever happened to WU" isn't good enough for me, since it does not mention this forum or the urgency of the situation.
Also, we've fallen into the same trap of the admin forum where we need to define "inactivity". Are we going to discuss it before or after the polls? And if we do decide on lengths of time a user is absent to be considered inactive, I once again think the restriction should be different for chat mods and for rollbacks. Talk | 12:20, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
jsd as Yata pointed out 2 weeks is too long and 1 week is too short, though 2 weeks should be the amount of time we can let rollbacks be inactive without reason before we take away their rights--16:19, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
Two weeks is hardly a long time. In two weeks you can get sudden plans or assignments for school and can only get on the Wiki occasionally, just to find there are no edits to rollback at all. Seriously, this forum is going too fast for an issue that's much smaller than you're making it out to be. If you only have a two-week break limit for a job that's completely dependent on other edits, then frankly, the job isn't even worth it.23:48, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
We're talking about users that are already inactive or don't use their rights so ten days is more than enough. Anyway one day has passed so I'm gonna open the polls tomorrow. They will last for 10 days and after they are over, we will discuss who is inactive and who is not, we will vote for demotions and will set up a rules or something that defines inactivity for future reference. Is everybody ok with that?08:21, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
- No wait I messed up >_>. We're gonna wait until September 23 for responses and then open the polls that will last for one week? I'm kinda confused >_> 08:24, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
open the mod one, hold off on the rollback one t'ill after the deadline we gave WU--19:46, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
Right, opened.11:42, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
WU replied and I think he resigned so I'm gonna open the rollbacks' poll as well. And people, we're gonna define inactivity and decide who is inactive and who isn't after the polls end. Don't worry. We have as much time as we want to do that.18:31, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
I think you've got it wrong Staw... I said that if you think that there is other Users, more qualified for the Rollback Rights, then I'd freely step down. I will come back to editing normally, so that's not a problem anymore, is it? WU out -20:13, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
I feel like I should go into more detail about why I'm made uncomfortable voting w/o defining inactivity first. Yeah, we can decide what it means afterwards, but there's no guarantee that anyone's opinion on that issue will matter. I do support dismissal in extreme cases (like 6 months of inactivity), but since it hasn't been properly discussed, I have no idea if 80 people support dismissal after 2 days. I have no idea or guarantee that I can be happy with the result if I vote yes, so I must vote no.
Frankly, I'd support closing these polls and dealing with that issue first, or at least simultaneously. I think they were opened weeks too soon. I also think that 1 week is too short in this case for a poll's length, and that they should be two weeks. I was given no opportunity to discuss the length when they were opened, because the start/end times were listed as N/A before the poll was opened. I'm not happy about that... Talk | 12:55, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
|This is a poll regarding the demotion of inactive rollback users.|
Will we demote the inactive rollback users?
|This is a poll regarding the demotion of inactive chat moderators.|
Will we demote the inactive chat moderators?