Forum:New Editing Policies

Forums: Index → Site Problems →  New Editing Policies

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3320 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
Do not add to it unless it really needs to be reopened. Consider creating a brand new forum instead.

Active

Resolved

What is an "Inactive User"?

Alright, so now that this poll has finished in favor of restricting voting on ban and election forums to active editors, we need to define what an "inactive editor" is. I'm not sure on this idea myself, but here's a couple thoughts I have:

• Any definition based on X edits in X days should lean towards being more forgiving, not strict. Like a timescale of at about 2 months. Don't know about the number of edits though, as that is kind of a shitty measure of activity.
• Any definition of inactive should be based on the date the poll opens. People shouldn't be able to make edits after the poll starts to meet the requirements. If they really care, they can get involved in the discussion or nomination phase (Ban and elections don't have "test polls")
• I think chat mods should be exempt from the rule, as long as they are still in the chat fairly regularly. It's their job to moderate the chat, not necessarily edit the wiki.

Anyways, anyone else have ideas on what we should here? JustSomeDude...  Talk | 19:22, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Any activity in the decided time period should count, not the amount of activity in it. The chat mods thing... well, I'm undecided on that one, at least for now.

It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 19:30, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

People who use chat should still be counted as active since they are still using the wiki. Some people join every day but rarely edit like Enrik. I'm also against the rule about them not being able to make edits to make the requirements and that would be a hypocritical rule since you even said somebody could make edits if they wanted to vote on this exact forum. SeaTerror (talk) 20:55, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Nova, any activity means that someone could come here, change "it's" to "it is" and be eligible to vote on a ban forum or election. Does that one edit really make them an active and informed member of the community?

It's impossible to monitor people's chat activity. It's slightly more possible for chat mods through the ban log (though that hasn't seen too much action lately). Only way to really measure it for other users is just pure memory. I have a hard time remembering who was in and out of chat 3 days ago, let alone a month.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about in that second part, ST. This is not a ban forum or election forum though.

Also, how about a simple rule that allows people to vote if they have taken part in the discussion in the forum the poll is in? So if people want to vote they need to either:

• Be an "active editor"

OR

• Take part in the discussion on the forum.

As long as either of those are done before the poll opens (I'd say nomination phase of elections is not "voting" so anyone can post then) I would believe that vote was done in good faith and not someone "recruiting" a vote from a long-inactive user. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 22:15, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good, although we still need to define active editor. I was thinking 10 edits per month/30 days (not counting user/user talk page edits and blogs/comments), although I agree with the exception for chat mods. 10 edits per month isn't asking too much and most active editors get more than that in a week or two, so it shouldn't be an issue. Videogamep Talk 22:03, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at least 10 edits in 30 days before the voting takes place would define that user as an active editor. But would we have to include blogs/comments in that or not? Forums and talk posts are okay in my opinion, as long as they aren't on misc. forums.  Jademing  Talk   22:14, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, blogs don't have much to do with actual editing so I'd say no. We also shouldn't count user pages and user talk pages since some inactive users occasionally come back just to leave a message on their friends' talk pages and then go back to being inactive. Videogamep Talk 23:01, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the 10 edits within 30 days, and not just adding a single space in articles. Chats and blogs shouldn't count, since they are not "official" enough. Yata ^{Talk to me} 23:03, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

What about reversing vandalism? Would they count as edits or not? I think this brings up a lot of questions, just what kind of edits are acceptable or not.  Jademing  Talk   23:04, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

10 edits in 30 days sounds forgiving enough. Regarding which edits are acceptable, I think the following should NOT count:

• Blogs
• Userpage or user subpage edits
• Non-wiki related user talk page edits
• Very minor edits, such as correcting "Luffys" to "Luffy's" and so on.

Also, I don't think chat activity should factor into this at all. Awaikage Talk 23:23, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to make a new poll for blog edits since the last poll about voting rules had them counting. Also an edit is an edit regardless if it's minor. SeaTerror (talk) 23:51, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

For once, I (partially) agree with ST. Even minor edits should count since this is just a measurement of how active the editor is and making minor edits is still a sign of activity. I still think comments shouldn't count, though. Videogamep Talk 23:56, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think most types of edits should count. These editors were active before and have already reached the other voting restrictions. If the general consensus on blogs is no, what about counting blog edits, but not counting blog comments? Writing a blog usually means you care enough to stick around for a response.

Some user/user subpage edits can also be wiki-related. There are a couple editors here who write up draft pages in subpages, or people like me who keep track of things done in subpages. Things like that should be ok.

I really think we shouldn't get too strict with this though, I don't want to have to look at every single change made in every single edit of someone's to see if each one fits all 25 restrictions or whatever.

And what about my proposal about allowing people to bypass these edit restrictions if they take part in the discussion before the poll is opened? JustSomeDude...  Talk | 00:09, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Certain blogs, such as JSD's current one, should definitely count towards the user's edit quota, since it contributes to wiki's overall development. As for the chat however, I'm not so sure. Sometimes we're actually productive there and we actually make some changes to the wiki as a result. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 00:17, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking as a chat moderator that chat activity should definitely not count. For one, it's far harder to gauge one's activity on the chat than it is by their editing activity. Another thing is that I had a period in which I was completely inactive as an editor or someone who participated in discussions, yet still regularly went on the chat, and I most definitely did not know what was going on in the wiki, unless people talked about it in the chat, since I didn't pay attention to the wiki's discussions at all at that time. Who is to say a lot of chat frequenters also are like me when I was an inactive editor? You can certainly go on the chat and not have any idea what is going on in the wiki. So I'm against having chat activity being counted.  Jademing  Talk   00:25, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Me too. It's just too hard to keep track of and quantify since there's no records. Videogamep Talk

People who use chat are still active on the wiki. I already mentioned Enrik. Also if you want to get rid of blog edits counting then that has to be a poll. Forum:The Magic 1000 rule SeaTerror (talk) 23:40, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Wasn’t this poll about preventing inactive users from voting in ban forums and admin elections? If so, then this entire discussion is pretty much pointless because we all just voted on another pole (two poles above this one) that allows administrators to ban veteran users without a forum. That pole pretty much resolves this one since inactive users only show up out of nowhere to rescue their friends during a ban forum. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 23:52, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

We're still going to have ban forums for more ambiguous cases like we did with ST and Gal. That rule only applies to clear cases of vandalism. Besides, there's still admin elections to consider. The last admin election was what prompted me to suggest this in the first place. As for that forum ST, the poll there only applies to the 300 edits required to vote in any poll. This is a completely new rule, not an amendment to that one. Videogamep Talk 04:15, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT MY PROPOSAL ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BYPASS EDIT RESTRICTIONS IF THEY TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSION BEFORE FOR THE POLL IS OPENED? I've mentioned it twice with no response, jesus... In case the bold and all caps wasn't enough of a hint: I'd like some responses to that.

And ST, we don't need to poll it if it's a clear majority in favor of it (though I'll admit that we probably will have to poll it, since people won't agree on exact restrictions). I'd also say that a clear majority for a rule change needs a fair amount of participants. Doesn't matter if it's a new rule, an amendment to an old one, or us declaring February 11th is national cheese day: If there's a clear majority, we don't need a poll. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 04:59, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I kept forgetting to respond. That sounds fine. This is mainly to keep people who have been inactive for months or years from coming back and voting just to help their friends. Videogamep Talk 05:29, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Any kind of activity by a user should be enough to count them active:Lot's of people never/rarely edit mainspace but are incredibly active on the wiki.<

~Roa^[T]_{{MH,R!,-14:41,2/10/2015-}}

I have no objection against allowing users who participate in the discussion before the said poll takes place to bypass edit restrictions. While I don't particularly like it, I have no objections against allowing people who only blogs/comments to vote, if the majority is for allowing bloggers to vote. But we most definitely should not be keeping track of people's chat activity. As I have already mentioned before, it's far too challenging to keep track of people's chat activity.  Jademing  Talk   21:26, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

^Pretty much sums up how I feel. Videogamep Talk 04:10, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that now ban forums are likely going to exist for a different purpose now (if Forum:Purpose of Ban Forums goes through, which it probably will since there's no opposition right now) might be opened for an editor's attitude in blog comments (or anywhere else on the wiki). So I'm of the mindset now that edits in all namespaces (except for user profile?) should count.

As for whether or not a number should be put on this rule, I've still not heard a decent compromise of number and time limit. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 04:23, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objections to the proposed 10 edits in the month prior to the poll. The main issue is what edits we should count and I'm fine with including blogs and comments if everyone else is in favor. Videogamep Talk 06:54, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

I hate the idea of one month. Two seems much more fair to me, as sometimes people take month-long breaks, especially around school finals. But something like "10 in 2 months" or "5 in 1 month" seems more fair to me. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 05:42, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Ten edits in two months sounds fine. I definitely understand how busy things can get around finals. Videogamep Talk 06:07, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the idea of ten edits in two months, but I won't object against it, if there is a clear majority supporting ten edits in two months. I prefer ten edits in one month, since it's pretty easy to do ten edits quickly.  Jademing  Talk   00:27, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine either way as long as we have a rule to keep users who haven't edited in months/years showing up and voting. Videogamep Talk 02:27, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

We can actually achieve that even with a rule like 1-2 edits in the past 2-3 months.<

~Roa^[T]_{{MH,R!,-04:43,2/17/2015-}}

I would prefer a bit more than that since even inactive users occasionally show up to leave a message for one of their friends. 10 edits every 1-2 months isn't hard to do and would help a lot with future ban forums and elections. Videogamep Talk 05:54, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

So what is it going to be? 10 edits per one month or 10 edits per two month? Jademing ^(talk) 00:35, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

I say one month. It's already pretty lenient. Awaikage Talk 01:06, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

So should we have a poll? like I said before, I'm fine with either one. Videogamep Talk 23:41, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Kage, I prefer 10 edits per one month, as it's already pretty lenient. Jademing ^(talk) 01:20, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll cave to 1 month, 10 edits. It's close enough to what I want. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 01:23, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

And I'll call that a clear majority, actually. Let's close this section. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 01:32, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

We can't close this section yet unless we're going to make a new section to define what kind of edits count and if any new rules you want could count towards these edits. Like not being able to make those edits then go voting since that was suggested. SeaTerror (talk) 06:37, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

All namespaces count towards the edits. And you can bypass the restriction by taking part in the discussion BEFORE the poll opens. I'm not sure what you mean in your second part, though. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 07:40, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "namespace" exactly. Some people were against blog comments counting but nobody mentioned it since. And I meant your idea that somebody couldn't make their 10 edits then go vote before the poll opened or whatever. SeaTerror (talk) 11:09, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want blog comments being counted. Jademing ^(talk) 00:43, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Blog commenters are also active users and get to have a say on how this wiki functions.<

~Roa^[T]_{{MH,R!,-05:26,2/27/2015-}}

We would need to redo that anyway since that was part of the original voting rules. Unless you mean specifically for admin voting only. SeaTerror (talk) 05:50, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is specifically for admin elections and ban forums. Everything else is going to stay the same. Videogamep Talk 17:01, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

So.... Are we ever going to resolve whether we're going to accept all edits, or just mainspace edits? Jademing ^(talk) 03:19, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with everything but blogs. Awaikage Talk 17:11, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with a no blogs requirement, because just because you edit mainspace articles a lot does not mean you are not part of the OP wiki community and are not smart enough to decide on issues that are best for the wiki. There could be a guy with 10,000 good mainspace edits, but he could be doing his own thing the whole time and know nothing about the community, or the pressing issues in the forum. Most of my edits are blogs, yet I think have a pretty good grasp on what issues are going on and the outlook of the community. So I think that, yes, blogs should count.

However, I would make an exception for blog comments. An inactive user could occasionally comment on blogs he liked 10 times within a month, and that would basically do nothing. Maybe if the user's edits in the past month were majorly blog comments, the required number should be increased? Like 20, maybe? Kaido | Remnants of My Broken Sig 01:58, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I tihnk all namespaces should count for admin elections, as bloggers should have input for who gets to delete their blogs. Also, bans can happen for actions in blogs/comments, so those contributions should count for ban forums.

But if people seriously still want to oppose this, then we can keep going. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 02:03, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

I'm against blogs or blog comments being counted, because it's just so easy to make blogs or comment on blogs, and be completely unaware of what's going on in the community, i.e. editors' attitudes and behaviors in editing matters, especially when you are inactive. And as such, when inactive users vote, they tend to vote for whoever they like the most, usually from association on blogs or the chat, and not thinking for the best for the wiki. You can see LPK and other inactive users voting to not ban ST on his ban forum, simply because they knew ST from either blogs or the chat, and didn't care about what was best for the community, only thinking of themselves and to an extend, their friend. Jademing ^(talk) 02:16, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

OBJECTION! I believe blog edits should count because it constituents to some form of activity. It's just as important or maybe even more important than article edits Roranoa Drake II (talk) 15:08, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

I also object to Awaikage's proposed editing restrictions. Any form of editing should be viewed as being an active editor. A good majority of users prefer to comment or post blogs rather than edit articles.Besty17Talk 15:48, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and chats should not count to active editing, as they are sideline fanon stuff and outside of the wiki talking. People who want to remain could simply abuse by chatting/blogging instead of actually editing. Besides, blogs can be about topics that are way off from the articles here. Yata ^{Talk to me} 03:17, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what Yata said. Someone could be a highly active blogger yet completely unaware of what's happening on the wiki. Awaikage Talk 21:40, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

What about people like MDM and THT? They were/are blog editors yet still took part in forums.Besty17Talk 22:35, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Yata doesn't even join the chat so he doesn't know anything about it. People like Enrik who usually just chat have repeatedly stated they pay attention to the wiki. So if we are saying chat doesn't count then I will be against blog edits not counting since they are the same exact thing. It doesn't mean they don't pay attention to the wiki. SeaTerror (talk) 22:50, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, we've had more posts, and they were conflicting time to move on to poll. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 23:12, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Poll Discussion

Is everyone okay with this poll? It looks like that's the best way to resolve this. Videogamep Talk 01:54, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think a poll is necessary yet, so let's wait and see how the discussion proceeds before opening a poll. We might get a clear majority. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 02:03, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

It seems like we don't need a poll, we just need more users to voice their opinions on the discussion, dammit. If it's still deadlocked, then we can move on to a poll. Jademing ^(talk) 02:26, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

The problem is we can't force people to participate. The discussion has slowed down a lot these past couple of weeks and a poll seems like the quickest way to resolve it. It could just be a one week poll instead of a full two weeks. Videogamep Talk 00:48, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

We got more posts, they had conflicting opinoins, and we are no closer to a clear majority, which means poll time.

Now my question is, should we separate the polls to be for elections and bans, or consider them the same issue? Though I guess if we poll both at the same time, there's no harm. Anyways, I'll set the polls to start next thursday. That sound good? JustSomeDude...  Talk | 23:12, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure, currently we've decided that

• 10 edits per month.
• Chat doesn't count.
• You can still vote without the 10 edits if you participate in the discussion before the poll.

Right? I want to make sure people are aware of these before voting. Awaikage Talk 23:19, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. And we'll call a month "30 days". And those are the 30 days before the poll starts. These issues had a clear majority, and don't need to be polled, thought they should be mentioned on the poll. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 23:24, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Where was it decided chat doesn't count? SeaTerror (talk) 23:38, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere in the first section, mostly because there's no way to measure activity. The compromise for that was that people who participate in the discussions before the poll starts can still vote, so chatters will be aware of the poll. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 23:40, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I think you should expand on the "participate in the discussion before the poll" part. I feel that people may try to take advantage off it.Besty17Talk 23:54, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to talk about that more Besty, that doesn't belong in the poll discussion section. I'm game to talk about it though.

I normally wouldn't do this for a rules based vote, but if the forum about replacing Roa takes off, we need to have this over with. I'm gonna say this should be a one week poll. Is that ok? JustSomeDude...  Talk | 15:48, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Awaikage Talk 15:50, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good.

It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 15:56, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

This is a wiki issue so it should definitely be 2 weeks. SeaTerror (talk) 18:32, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

So is the new admin discussion. Personally, I'm going for JSD's suggestion of having the poll last only one week. Jademing ^(talk) 21:36, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

The new admin discussion doesn't have a poll. SeaTerror (talk) 22:07, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

One week's fine with me. Videogamep Talk 02:42, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have a little clear majority in this discussion about the poll.

And sorry, ST, I get your concerns, but we never agreed to set poll lengths for rules, and normally I'd be on the side of two weeks, but a poll or nomination phase is likely to open in the new admin forum before two weeks is over. Plus, this has been open for months, so it's not like people aren't aware of this forum. I'll advertise it heavily on the community messages to make up for it. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 02:54, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Poll

This is a poll regarding blog edits counting towards activity. To vote you must have had a registered account here for at least 3 months and have at least 300 edits. If you have been asked to vote for a particular poll option by another user, do not vote and inform an Admin immediately about who asked you to vote.

Status: Open Start date: 00:00 UTC March 12, 2015 End date: 00:00 UTC March 19, 2015 Should blog edits count towards whether a user is considered active in order to vote on Ban Forums? Note:People who still participate in discussions before polls open will be allowed to vote regardless of activity levels. Yes. Blog edits should count towards activity for Ban Forums. Ryu-Chan•|•Talk 01:38, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Look, these people are still members of the community, right? Blog edits prove that they're active and that's all that matters. SeaTerror (talk) 02:06, March 12, 2015 (UTC) If chat doesn't count then blog edits should. Kaido | Remnants of My Broken Sig 11:14, March 12, 2015 (UTC) — LG (t • c) 12:31, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Roranoa Drake II (talk) 20:43, March 13, 2015 (UTC)    Karoo    ❖    Talk    00:40, March 18, 2015 (UTC) I agree with Ryu. As long as they understand what's going on. Usually it's discussed throughout the wiki, so they'll probably know about the situation. No. Blog edits should not count towards activity for Ban Forums. Awaikage Talk 00:03, March 12, 2015 (UTC) JustSomeDude...  Talk | 00:04, March 12, 2015 (UTC) If a user is banned for something involving blogs, other bloggers will be in the discussion anyways. They shouldn't need to vote in editing related bans. Jademing (talk) 00:17, March 12, 2015 (UTC) JapaneseOPfan :: Talk 01:01, March 12, 2015 (UTC) The user in question's name is usually mentioned in the Forum's title, so if you actually cared enough, I assume you would participate in the discussion beforehand. Yata Talk to me 02:17, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Videogamep Talk 05:46, March 12, 2015 (UTC) http://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr80/love213_84/96.gif 고륻 로자 http://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr80/love213_84/96.gif 09:35, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Meganoide (talk) 13:03, March 12, 2015 (UTC) It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 14:02, March 12, 2015 (UTC) MasterDeva (talk) 23:37, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Aurora[1] | Yes? 23:41, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Klobis (talk) 03:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC) Piece•Enrik•  talk  co 20:23, March 14, 2015 (UTC) Should blog edits count towards whether a user is considered active in order to vote in Administrator elections? Yes. Blog edits should count towards activity for Elections. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 00:04, March 12, 2015 (UTC) People should get to vote on who deletes their blogs. Ryu-Chan•|•Talk 01:38, March 12, 2015 (UTC) SeaTerror (talk) 02:06, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Kaido | Remnants of My Broken Sig 11:14, March 12, 2015 (UTC) — LG (t • c) 12:31, March 12, 2015 (UTC) JapaneseOPfan :: Talk 14:58, March 12, 2015 (UTC) There usually isn't much discussion in admin election forums for users to participate in, unless there's a controversy. Aurora[1] | Yes? 23:41, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Elections can concern more than just articles Roranoa Drake II (talk) 20:41, March 13, 2015 (UTC) I'm a citizen of the Republic of Wikia dang it. I ain't having ma rights taken away    Karoo    ❖    Talk    00:40, March 18, 2015 (UTC) No. Blog edits should not count towards activity for Elections. Awaikage Talk 00:03, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Jademing (talk) 00:17, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Yata Talk to me 02:17, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Videogamep Talk 05:46, March 12, 2015 (UTC) http://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr80/love213_84/96.gif 고륻 로자 http://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr80/love213_84/96.gif 09:32, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Meganoide (talk) 13:03, March 12, 2015 (UTC) MasterDeva (talk) 23:37, March 12, 2015 (UTC) Klobis (talk) 03:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)