Forum:CT:Inactivity clauses

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Inactivity clauses
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. —spookywillowwtalk 22:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, On the SMT and boards' behalf respectively, forwarding inactivity clause proposals for both.

SMT

  • Extended reasoning: here.
  • The TLDR reasoning: if someone's clearly gone...like Anil, then there should be some sort of eventual automatic clause for removal that sidesteps the need to drag their name in a vote. All other cases would still be handled in a vote. Not meeting either of these very low requirements, and not providing a reason (as that can exempt from both), shows a clear lack of engagement with the site. Prevents a salty demotee from hijacking the accounts too. If a SMT member holds no other position, then that'd still also go through the normal process.
"At times, an administrator or rollback who has failed to stay active in their duties may have their rights removed in accordance with the respective position's activity requirements. In such a case, if they are also a Social Media Team member, their Social Media Team membership should be revoked simultaneously."

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Not being around and not responding to request is a simple enough criteria to remove rights and responsibilities IMO<-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 22:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. 01miki10 Open comlink 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. Imperators II(Talk) 22:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. Wok142 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. ThePedantry (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  14. Lewisr (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  15. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 05:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  16. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  17. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 12:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  18. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Review boards

  • Extended reasoning: here.
  • TLDR reasoning, addendum: If someone has made zero (0) edits in six months, then I think it's fair to remove them without a vote. And I mean—literally zero. It's just that many other positions really have eventual timeout clauses that avoid us having to drag the person through a public removal vote when they haven't done anything wrong per se other than just not being active at all (6 months = 12 consecutive missed quota cycles at minimum).
  • TLDR reasoning, tweak: See extended reasoning for further logic. I just think it's pointless to be able to indefinitely omit yourself from board membership quotas solely with a non-expiring tag. With this, that would change - you can use the tag to avoid quota for six months consecutively, but you'd need to do at least one review within/at the end of that six months, or you'd start accruing strikes. Its by no means immediate, and it goes through the strike process. But making one... two... mainspace, but non-reviewing edits every few months keeps {{Inactive}} off your page, so you could, in theory, Vacation-tag yourself (like one former board member used to do) for well over a year and just not be bothered to ever do your duties.

Addendum to Inq/AC/EC bylaws: (review quotas subsection)

"Alternatively, a [respective board] board member may be immediately removed from their position for inactivity if they have made no non-userspace, non-talk page edits within a six month span, unless they have provided an explanation for their absence and an expected date for their return. Attempts to communicate should be made, including warnings at four and five months of absence, respectively, that they shall be demoted at six months of absence."

Tweak to current clause

"[Respective board] members can exempt themselves from this quota by using {{Vacation}} or {{Hiatus}} tag on their userpage, for a period not exceeding six months consecutively."

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 22:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. 01miki10 Open comlink 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Imperators II(Talk) 22:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. Wok142 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. ThePedantry (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. Lewisr (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  14. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  15. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 12:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • In the case of the ongoing vote, does not apply retroactively of course.—spookywillowwtalk 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)