|
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic. |
Something that has come to mind lately is we have no set guidelines for he deal with user activity. Right now we have sections for Active, Semi-active and Inactive on our Call of Duty Wiki:Administrators page, but no real way of accurately placing them somewhere. This issue came mainly to a head earlier when two users, Damac and Sactage, were moved out of inactive to Semi-active, despite not having made an edit since May. While I understand Sactage sometimes gets a reprieve due to his bot being around, the same does not go for Damac, which is what makes this seem like a weird edit. I believe we need to set about some guidelines just so we know how to handle the moving of users.
One thing that is already somewhat of an unwritten rule is that if an inactive user does come back, we only move them in to "Semi-active" until we know they're back for good (as we had some cases where an inactive user came back, edited for about a week then vanished again). I feel we could extend on this by having rough time guidelines for when a user is "inactive". As for moving a user from active to semi, that may be harder and will need discussion below.
21:34, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
Discussion[]
For me:
- 30 days w/o edit or activity in chat = inactive
- Few edits or activity in chat within a month (like 1 edit every 3/4 day) = semi active, and if the admin keeps the same editing behavior for like a week then we move them from inactive to semi active
- Frequent edits on a regular basis = active
To be honest it's more up to the admins themselves to indicate should they be inactive or not. But if they don't, then the above should work. I don't go to chat so I cannot comment on admin activity there but if several sysops believe someone like Sactage should be there every now and then we could ignore the activity guidelines. User:RainingPain17 - talk 22:33, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
- The only sysops that currently join chat are myself, Anti, Miller and Cod4. Holo joins, but as that's just a bot it's just because they're programmed to do that, so I don't consider that an extension of Sactage (especially when some of the bot elements aren't working). 09:22, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
I figured out we could consider administrators truly "inactive" when they haven't edited for more than 3 months, though I don't remember which specific pattern I was based on for this. This is why I moved the two users to semi-active; but yeah you're right, while Sactage floats around, Damac doesn't anymore. That being said, I have no problem in having a shorter time; I'd say 2 months. Also, on a side note, does anybody know what's wrong with the hilites? They've been constantly disappearing and re-appearing on this wiki recently. 
Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 09:49, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
- This occured on several wikis. Looks like Wikia can't manage their CSS engine properly. User:RainingPain17 - talk 10:05, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
i agree that we should set up guidelines for the amount of time until an admin is considered semi-active or inactive, and i think these should apply to other usergroups with activity info for users too. i think it should be 2 months until someone is considered inactive, and 1 month till theyre considered semi-active. 
RisingSun2024 
(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity) 00:51, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
I would regard a user that hasn't edited more than 10 times or been in chat several times within the course of say, a month, as inactive. If they make between 10 and 20 edits in a month or are in chat sometimes, I'd say perhaps semiactive. And anything above that would be active. http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/276/1/2/bionicle__unity_duty_destiny_by_cyberpictures-d6p3li2.pngLegos-Rule-15 Talk 23:25, August 21, 2016 (UTC)
This forum got inactive for months, but I guess it's time to move to a vote? The options that are in my mind for an administrator to be marked as inactive would be 1, 2 or 3 months, but maybe we gotta also have a vote on the semi-activity status. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 11:34, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
I guess it might be weird for me to contribute, given this forums age and what not, but I don't think set guidelines are really necessary. Too explain myself a little bit, part of the reason I went inactive was I just became too busy to check up on the wiki. Real life took over, sadly, and I wasn't able to maintain being a frequent contributor. Even if I was to return for a week and make a ton of edits, I don't feel it'd be fair to call me an active administrator, because the following week life could just eat me up again and there I go for another 6 months of no activity. I think in general the wiki has always done a pretty good job of knowing when someone is active or when someone has gone semi or inactive. The only change to the system I would suggest is that, if someone edits really fiercely for a day, you don't just add them to semi-active again. As is the case right. Ow, I just happen to come in the wiki, see this forum, and have something to say. That doesn't make me semi-active. P.S Miss you all btw. Life was simpler when this place was all o had to worry about. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png Damac1214 16:33, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Thing is, this is partly what I mean. I remember some time ago we had an old user suddenly re-appear, and then we moved him to "active" and then everyone made a fuss about it. Then about a week later they vanished again. When I made this forum it wasn't a concrete setting (ie after x months they must be moved to Y). It was more something we could consider when people do leave for whatever reason. Like you've stated, you're fairly inactive at the moment due to real life, you could come back for a week and then vanish. Now during that week we could perhaps move you to semi think you might be able to stay around, but if you then disappear and we don't see you for about 2 weeks then we know we can move down to "inactive" because something has come up. Overall this forum as more so we had a basic idea how to deal with users, instead of us having to worry about edit wars because different users consider levels of activity differently. 18:02, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
Closed - Dead. No consensus.
18:10, March 16, 2017 (UTC)