Forum:Addenda

Initial Rant
There have been a few topics made regarding edits to This page:
 * Forum:The Future of this Community
 * Forum:In addition to policies
 * Forum:Policy Amendment

I think the community as a whole would agree, that the present RfA policy in its current form- without any extensions- is almost perfect. So long as all Bureaucrats act within the restrictions of present policy, the RfA policies allow the community to comment on an RfA, reject it if necessary, and eliminates any potential violations of this policy. Some of the suggestions in past threads have required staff to review an RfA and hold veto power over the execution thereof, this is a direct violation of this.

I think the true problem the community has faced in the past, has been the abusive nature of Bureaucrats who were acting as leaders and special people within the community. Certainly a B'Crat is a key figure within the community, as they have demonstrated a level of care and ability to warrant their presentation with the abilities associated with their status. With that said, there can be no denying that some of the B'crats of the past have admonished editors without cause, and serious reprimands including the removal of sysop privileges have been executed without regard to established policies.

Further, it is increasingly obvious to the casual observer, that this condition of tyrannical leadership has been historically executed by parties with minimal or no recent activity within the community. Individuals who have a vested interest in the progression of this wiki have incentive to deal in a fair and reasonable manner, and maintaining policy is conducive to continued positive motivation. I could argue (probably without retort) that no editor who uses this wiki frequently would knowingly place it's community of editors into harsh discord. It would seem the solution to this problem is to establish a standard of activity upon sysop and B'crat editors. If they are not actively using the tools, there is no need for them to have them. If they return from inactivity, they can simply complete another RfA as they have done in the past and resume their editing.

Suggestion
To this end, I propose that the RfA policies in their current form remain, without modification. The policy's clarity and flexibility is a testament to the trust that this community places in itself.

I propose that a Policy be drafted as such: Any Sysop or B'Crat who does not make an edit for 45 days shall be considered inactive. Upon designation as inactive, a nomination for Removal of Admin (RoA) or Removal of Bureaucrat (RoB) shall be drafted by any editor and shall remain open for comment for 7 days minimum. Upon consensus of the motion, action shall be taken by the Community via an active Bureaucrat or Special:Contact.

Discussion
Please feel free to comment. 16:18, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are responding to a previous editor, please reply via subset as shown. 16:18, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

I feel a talk page warning of inactivity should take place over a cleancut inactivity. We all have busy times in our lives, for example I just started a new job last week and have rarely been able to be active on RS let alone the wiki to be able to reply to talk pages. In saying that, if you look at most other wikis, just because they become inactive doesn't result in their rights being taken away, so I don't see why you feel it should be the case on this wiki? You make it sound like a punishment for all those who become inactive, and in most cases the community is notified of their inactivity in advance and there is almost always an active admin to take their place. In all honesty, RS is dying, clans are rarely being created and with the clan updates that jagex is mentioning, such as activity stream this wiki is going to inevitably become obsolete for it's soul purpose of helping players find a clan. I feel admins are only here now to remove, prevent and deter vandalism, rather than to lead the community as it once was. Despite the cheeky way in-which you have b'crated yourself I'm glad you have gained the motivation to try and build the wiki up. The proposals I have given to make this wiki useful for the RS community seemed to have fallen short. I attribute this to clan pages ranging in quality, confusing wiki navigation, lack of knowledge of the wiki's existence, and the daunting prospect of a new user creating a page from scratch. A sysop can only do so much... But I still fail to see why keeping inactive users as sysops is problematic... I would've thought these are more prominent issues rather then an inactive admin. Sorry for the lengthy read, but I don't believe removing admins is an answer to anything. Though I'm inactive from making maintenance edits, I'm still an admin of the wiki and will do what is best, which I feel would be the case for most sysops. Draziw, I'm always here to help in whatever way necessary and I will try and make a concentrated effort to check more regularly. I think there are more important things to worry about rather then inactive admins? Sorry if parts don't make sense, otherwise Thanks as always, 11:53, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Vote

 * Support- As author 16:18, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per my comments above. Though I see you're just acting in good nature I don't believe removing admins is an answer to anything, and it just creates confusing red tape, policies and templates. Thanks, 11:53, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Staying out of it - I'm retired. If I might suggest a middle ground, B'Crat status could be taken, but admin could be left. 02:34, January 17, 2014 (UTC)