Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > User Rights Policy proposal - Maintaining Rights


Contents
  1. Overview
  2. Minimum activity levels over time required for maintaining rights - proposals
  3. General Discussion
  4. Annual Re-elections
  5. Voting - Round 1
  6. Voting - Round 2
    1. Voting - Round 2 Discussion

Overview[]

Prompted by a request from WikiManager TimeShade, this discussion is part of the Harry Potter Wiki's Policy Review and will help shape how the community governs itself in the years to come.

Kates39 has proposed a User Right Policy to detail the process of how User rights are:

Please see also Forum:Voting Policy proposed changes as both these Policies are interwoven and affect one another.

Other considerations such the possible qualifications needed for candidates of varying User rights will be discussed subsequent to the resolution of this User Rights Policy proposal.

I've cleaned up and slightly reorganized the original suggestions but kept who originally made a proposal and when so questions can be directed as needed.

For clarity, the term administrators and Administration includes all users with either administrator or bureaucrat user rights.

The numbered list of notes below is not considered complete or all-inclusive and new items can be added as needed.

This Policy Review process and format is a work in progress so suggestions on possible improvements are welcome! --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:04, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum activity levels over time required for maintaining rights - proposals[]

User should remain active to maintain their extra User rights. See Wookieepedia:Administrators#Extended_leaves_of_absence

Minimum Activity Proposals 1&2 Merged (Authors: Kates39, Ironyak1)[]

  • In the hopes that users with extra rights make use of them regularly, there is a minimal amount of activity required to maintain possession of those extra rights. However, users are allowed periods of inactivity which fall into two categories:
    • 1) Notified Leave / Vacation: If a user provides a notice they are taking a break from contributing for any reason, they may be inactive for up to 6 months without any consequence. Once a user returns, they accrue back 1 month of Notified Leave time for every month they are at least minimally active as defined below.
    • 2) Unexplained Leave: If a user is inactive without any prior explanation, they may lose their rights after 7 months and 1 week (29 weeks) of inactivity. Notices will will be given on a regular basis during this time:
      • After 4 months absence: attempts to communicate will be made.
      • After 5 months absence: Additional attempts to communicate will be made.
      • After 6 months absence: warning that removal will occur after 7 months.
      • After 7 months & 1 week absence: Bureaucrat will be notified to remove the user's extra rights.
    • Once spent, Unexplained Leave only resets to a full 7 months of possible leave after 12 months total of minimal activity is completed, although this can be broken up by Notified Leave / Vacation as defined above.
    • The longest possible period of inactivity is 13 months & 1 week - 6 months of Notified Leave & 7 Months & 1 week of Unexplained Leave.
  • Minimal Activity: Users with extra rights need to make 493 (17 x 29) total contributions over a 29 week period (7 months & 1 week) excepting prior explanation of inactivity.
    • Explanation: This is based on the 29 knuts per sickle, 17 sickles per Galleon gold standard, but ends up at a similar 500 contributions in a similar time frame to Wookieepedia but is more lenient in allowing all contributions to count for all user roles, which is about 70 general contributions per month. Rules in the Wizarding World have some quaint quirks, figured ours should reflect that sensibility too :)
  • Additionally, users with extra rights must use them or perform other actions related to their role 17 times in any 29 day period excepting prior explanation of inactivity. These actions include any contribution clearly related to performing their role.
    • For Discussion Moderators: this could include Moderator Actions logged in Insights (assigning a Category or locking/deleting a post, any MoM or DoM posts, any posts in the Mods & Admins Category, and any answering of Guidelines or other questions for users.
    • For Content Moderators: This could include actions in the File, Template, Category namespaces as well as related article updates.
    • For Administrators: This could include the same as Discussion & Content Mods, plus Requests for administrator attention, plus votes held, plus rights granted, plus blocks, plus edits to Harry Potter Wiki namespace, plus changes to site js and CSS, plus user questions answered on Policies, procedures, and other general user help.
    • For Bureaucrats: this could include all Administrator actions, plus extra rights granted, plus behind the scenes technical changes to the site / coordinating with FANDOM Staff on projects.
      • Explanation: Again based on the knuts, sickels, & galleon conversions, this is roughly 20 actions related to their role each month, so only about 25% of their total contributions, which should be easily obtainable for generally active users. There is no need for a user to have admin rights to just edit some articles once every six months.
  • Any user with extra rights that does not reach the Minimal Activity requirements would be notified that a portion of their allotted Unexplained Leave has been used for that time period.

Minimum Activity Proposal 1 Discussion[]

This question is regarding proposal 1 & 2. What would happen if the user has announced that they are on a break or vacation, but still turn up to make one or two quick edits once in a while? Would that be considered taking a break/vacationing or will that mean the user is active but going around this process to keeo the extra rights, yet not meeting the requirements? And what in the case when they are active on FANDOM in general but not on HPW? --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   04:23, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kates! Given we're both working from Wookieepedia's Policy, I'm hoping we can discuss any differences and maybe reach a single proposal? Let me know if anything stands out to you that would be a good place to start. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:23, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
Hey! I am very open to finding a single proposal. You and I have the same answer for Reverb, so that covers one thing. I can't find anything you have put in your proposal that I oppose. I fully support including every User Right and wider variety of contributions, and your ideas for what each editor who has User Rights needs to do.
I just have one concern about the knuts, sickles and galleons thing in that other users could find it a bit difficult. Could be easier for everyone, including editors who have Rights, to work out when and what they need to be contributing if the numbers get rounded up. So 500 edits in a six month time span. I like using Wizarding World sensibilities, but I don't know productive people will find it yet. - Kates39 (talk) 14:55, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the 493 contributions in ~7 months thing is a little quirky, but as again seems a better fit with the material here, and seems to align with Rowling's attitude on the matter as noted in her Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Measurements" at Pottermore. As the end of the day, it's about the same 500 requirement and achieves the same goal but is just a bit more thematic as with our use of in-universe perspective for articles.
Does the minimum number of required actions for the role and use of the extra-rights seem sensible? This is one of the few instances where our requirements would be tougher than Wookieepedia, but to me it seems that fulfilling the role and using the extra rights is the point of having them so it should be required to use them in order to keep them. I would say the same general warning system would apply; if you haven't hit about 70 actions related to your role after 4 months (17 per 29 day month x 4 = 68) then there is some contact, which continues at the end of months 5 and 6, but at the 29th week (7 months & 1 week) then a Bureaucrat is notified to demote the user. This gives a little extra time compared to Wook, which might help balance out the requirements. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:42, August 4, 2020 (UTC)
Okay, it sounds good so I'm happy to go ahead and merge our proposals! - Kates39 (talk) 11:51, August 6, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum Activity Proposal 2 Discussion[]

I've added some specifics to make things a bit more HP themed but with similar requirements to Wookiepedia. Feedback is appreciated. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:40, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

This question is regarding proposal 1 & 2. What would happen if the user has announced that they are on a break or vacation, but still turn up to make one or two quick edits once in a while? Would that be considered taking a break/vacationing or will that mean the user is active but going around this process to keeo the extra rights, yet not meeting the requirements? And what in the case when they are active on FANDOM in general but not on HPW? --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   04:23, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
If a user shows up and edits or uses their rights they are clearly not on vacation so the Minimum expectations would apply for that month. Activity elsewhere on FANDOM doesn't factor in IMHO - often times users have Roles on other fandoms they are fulfilling so they could be on vacation from HPW but active elsewhere.
It would seem vacations should only last so long and then a minimum number of months of contributions are reasonable to expect. I would suggest Vacations can be for three months and then 3 months of contributions are expected but am open to suggestions (such as you can take up to 6 months vacation if you have 6 months of minimum contributions behind you? Other ideas?) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:09, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
That covers the vacationing part. What happens in case of taking a break? These two aspects are different because one takes a break to vacation but also to deal with some real-life crisis. Someone is moving across the country or something like that. Such events in my opinion, cannot be dated. I propose we have a provision for such cases. "Retired". If a user with rights has announced that they are on a break indefinitely, then they will be excused and will maintain their user rights. But the minute they make even a single activity on the wiki regarding wiki business, they will have to fulfill the minimum requirement for maintaining rights for at least that month. So if you are on vacation for 3-4 months(and I think this could be a limit for vacation) or an indefinite break then you cannot be active on the wiki. If you are, either fulfil the requirement or loose rights. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   04:51, August 1, 2020 (UTC
I have the same answer Ironyak does for vacationing. If a user needs to take indefinite leave, then it's fine too. However, if they haven't contributed in four months, they should still be contacted for an update. If they still haven't started contributing again like they should at six, they should still be contacted again. They would need to seriously consider how active they think they could be again and when. If a year goes by and they still haven't started actively contributing, I think they should face losing their rights.
I think if they have gone on vacation or indefinite leave, they can't contribute anything too. - Kates39 (talk) 15:10, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that covers the Vacation part. Indefinite leave is more like "life happened to me and I don't know when will this be normal" situation. Like the birth of a child, or losing job, or any sort of life crisis that you are not aware of, when it will end and so you cannot say when will you be back. I think there should be a provision for this. I like the idea of them losing their rights after a year for zero activity but they should be given their rights back when they return from the indefinite leave and should not have to go through RFP, or there could be an indirect vote, or vote of admins and crats who decide if the rights will be restored or not. Depending upon participating admins majority, it could be decided if the rights will be restored or the user has to go through RFP.
It is also important to note a couple of things. A user on indefinite wiki break should not be active on FANDOM as a whole. We have this provision (if we add it) only for those who may need it in life crisis conditions. It also be added that users who lose their rights because of inactivity, should have actively contributed to the wiki for say 1 month and then go to RFP for requesting their rights back. But that is what I would like to see be added to the final policy so please consider these ideas. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   17:52, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

I just think if someone is inactive for 1 year, they are eligible for removal of tools. no exceptions, even for rollbacks.MechQueste 18:02, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with that idea, inactivity should result in loss of rights, especially when others want to contribute more.--RedWizard98 (talk) 03:12, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum Activity Proposals 1&2 Merged Discussion[]

The remaining items to clarify appear to be:

  • Vacation & limits
  • Long-term leave

Vacations: I would suggest a 6 months maximum on Vacation and any vacation time should be limited by previous time of minimal contributions. That is a user cannot take a 6 month vacation, then return for 1 month, then take another 6 month vacation. After the return from a vacation, the next vacation can only be as long as the time of performing the minimal activity, so if a user returns and is suitably active for only 3 months then another vacation at that time is limited to 3 months.

Once vacation time is over then the counting of inactivity starts which means a user could be on vacation for 6 months and then have 29 weeks of inactivity which would lead to the removal of their rights after 13 months (and 1 week), which seems a reasonable amount of time (and is also a thematic number :)

Long-term leave: I am less sure of this one, but would suggest this needs to be requested from Administration based on major life events and be limited to 1 year. After 1 year of granted leave, the counting of inactivity would start.

Vacation and long-term leave cannot be used immediately back-to-back. Vacations for anyone returning from long-term leave would be limited to the same amount as their current months of minimal activity.

Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:15, August 6, 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to the vacations suggestion.
But I think if they have been granted a year of leave, the counting of inactivity doesn't start. That's because a user will have an opportunity to take a year and a half of absence, and I think that's too long. They will just be losing User Rights - they can still edit. The whole point of User Rights is that it has been granted for a purpose, and that can't be fulfilled unless that user will be active. It could be:
  • A user should contact Administration for a year of granted leave.
  • An attempt at communication will be sought when a year of granted leave has ended.
  • If they don't get back in one month, then they lose their rights. Administration will warn the user a week before.
  • If they do get back and start editing, they need:
    • To have at least three months of activity before taking a vacation, limited to the same amount as their current months of minimal activity.
    • They cannot have a year of granted leave again until they have at least six months of activity.
  • A user cannot have vacation and long-term leave back-to-back.
What do you think? - Kates39 (talk) 18:31, August 7, 2020 (UTC)
I had thought 1 year plus 7 months of possible inactivity was rather long as well, which is why I tried to balance it with having to request and have the leave granted by Administration so that it would only rarely happen and only in response to the most demanding needs. The issue I see with just the 1 month after the 1 year granted leave is that it ends up at 13 months anyways, so there is no functional difference than just taking Vacation and then 29 weeks of allowed inactivity. If the 13 months of maximum leave is the goal then I would suggest we just use the Vacation policy for simplicity. I think it reaches the same end point without creating a lot of extra rules to follow and enforce.
However I think we do need to clarify something in the Vacation policy. As written, it seems like someone could get up to 13 months of inactivity (6 months vacation plus 7 months of allowed inactivity), then be active for a month, then vacation for a month plus another 7 months of inactivity, be active for a month again, etc. We need some limit on the up to 7 months of inactivity such as they are a spent currency and can only be earned back - 1 month of warning time earned back for every 6 months of activity or something. I'm open to suggestions on how to balance out the numbers, but think warning time should gain back slower than vacation time otherwise a user could be active for a month and get another month vacation plus 1 or more months of allowed inactivity. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:18, August 7, 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to a joint vacation and granted leave policy if their limit of inactivity will work out to be the same. But I still feel we need to distinguish the intention behind the absence, but in one section of the policy. I can still see us wording it to state a difference in how the absence will be perceived, and when we will try to communicate for an update.
We could say a user cannot have a vacation again for at least another three months of activity? And that their absence will be limited to how long they have been back, and they don't get the counting of inactivity - they have to be back three months or so later. We could limit it to say they can do that twice in a row, but then they have used up their hours ("vacation time") and they have to be back for at least a year of activity to take yet another full length of absence. - Kates39 (talk) 12:19, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
I think I'm saying that there isn't really any difference between Vacation and Extended leave if they both lead to a 13 month maximum time away and so should just use one system with up to 6 months of Notified Leave (vacation) and up to 7 months of Unexplained Leave, which has notifications given after a total of 4, 5, & 6 months of inactivity. This is much more simple and reaches the same outcome of 13 months total of inactivity possible.
This would be more like users with extra rights have two pools of Leave. Notified Leave (vacation) happens when they say they are taking a break for any reason, can be up to 6 months long, and 1 month of vacation is earned back for every 1 month of minimal activity. Unexplained Leave happens when users are inactive without any notice given, can total 7 months before rights are removed, but only resets to the full 7 months of available Unexplained Leave after they complete 12 months of minimal activity (which can be broken up with vacations like usual - just need 12 months total but these months don't have to be sequential).
This should hopefully encourage users to notify of any leave, which is helpful, as that time away is easier to earn back. This also seems to achieve the same limits of away time as previous suggestions but without being able to abuse 7 months of warnings with each absence, and would require a full year of activity before another full length absence is possible. Does this seem workable? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:05, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
I think that sounds very workable. It's simple but effective, and I think we should go ahead and include it in our proposal. Do you have an idea yet of when voting will start for the User Rights Policy? Will we do everything one go, or per section (i.e. Granting Rights first and so on?) - Kates39 (talk) 18:48, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good - I will look at rewording the proposal shortly to reflect this approach. As for votes, my thought is we can move forward with whatever sections are ready to vote on, although if it seems one is dependent on the outcome of the others, we could also take them in a particular order for voting.
I was hoping to start with the votes sometime this weekend, but we've gotten some last minute additions that need some work. Hopefully these can be clarified and revised in short order so at least one of the subsections would be ready to vote on in the next few days? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:40, August 8, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum Activity Proposal 3 (Author: MechQueste)[]

In the time span of 6 months, there needs to be a combined total of 50 edits and admin actions. Admin actions can be deletions, blocks, or edits to the Media Wiki namespace. If they want to take a break or so, the time frame is extended to one year. At the 5 month mark, or the 11th month mark for those taking a break, an attempt is made to reach out to them, to see if they are still interested in doing so. If they express lack of interest, and the total actions/edits are below 50, they are eligible to be demoted to normal user. The namespaces that count toward this count are Main, File, Category, and template for content moderators. For Admin/bureaucrat, this expands to Project, MediaWiki, and everything else.

As for dates, 6 months occur from January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 1 in a calendar year. That means a check would occur on January 1, and July 1 in a calendar year. If one gets extra tools within month before the check date, such as somewhere inclusive December 1 to December 31, then there the January 1 date does not apply and instead is checked at on July 1.

Minimum Activity Proposal 3 Discussion[]

For maintaining rights, I am of the view that there could/should be a base minimum of edits/log activity. In the time span of 6 months, or a year, there needs to be a combined total of 50 edits or logs. After that, they can be marked inactive. MechQueste 12:35, August 8, 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear if they need 50 edits or logs (what are logs?) in 6 months or a year? What does marking them inactive do? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:22, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
In order for this to be voted on, the questions above need to be addressed - what are logs, how do the time frames line up, what happens, if anything, when a user is marked inactive. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:00, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

50 edits and logs. and logs meaning deletions, blocks, imports, wikifeatures changes, renames, restores. I mean those are the items that appear in Special:log. Thanks. MechQueste 21:33, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

updated. MechQueste 01:20, August 25, 2020 (UTC)
As this specifies "edits and admin actions" is this policy just for Admins? Are Bureaucrats included? What about Content Mods who can perform some of those "admin" actions such as deletions?
Is the 6 month / 1 year totals based on the user's date of gaining the rights, or fixed dates on the calendar? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:50, August 27, 2020 (UTC)
When I say admin actions, it applies to admins, content moderators, and bureaucrats.
As for the counter, I pick January 1, and July 1. If one gets tools, for example, a month before the check date, such as December 1, then there the January 1 date does not apply and instead is looked at on July 1. MechQueste 14:39, August 27, 2020 (UTC)
Can you please add the details about the dates to the actual proposal? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:53, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum Activity Proposal 4 (Author: Kates39)[]

I have taken in the feedback about proposal one, and I have put together a new proposal which I hope will work better for the community's support. It has been focused around what our wiki needs, and what the community has indicated they want. It especially hopes to counteract lack of activity. Any feedback will be welcome:

Activity level:

  • Every editor who has User Rights needs to achieve 30 edits a month. That will be 180 edits in six months.
  • The final check dates for each six month period will be 1 January and 1 July.
  • They should do at least half of their edits towards contributions and actions needed by their role:
    • Content Moderator: contributions and actions in mainspaces including File:, Template: and Category:, and Delete and Protection logs.
    • Administrators and Bureaucrats: contributions and actions in the above mainspaces, and in HPW:, Forum: and Mediawiki:. 
  • Inactivity leading to a build-up of monthly warnings can be evidence in a process to take away User Rights.  

Warning system:

  • If they don't get their quota for a month, they need to add on what they they didn't do in the next month's contributions.
  • Failing to achieve their activity level will lead to:
    • If they fail one month, they get a first warning asking they add up for it in the next month.
    • If they fail twice in six months, they get a sterner warning to do so.
    • If they fail on three occasions in six months, they will get a warning stating the date for when they need to achieve their quota or they will face losing their rights.
    • At six months, they get a final warning a week before and then a Bureaucrat will take away their User Rights.

Vacation:

  • Users can take vacation if needed. They can ask for up to three months of granted leave every six months. They need to state why and how long they need.
  • Their talk-page should have a Vacation template added to the top.
  • It's encouraged they achieve their quota when they need to be active. 

I want to clarify a few things in the policy. It should be easier to check if a person has achieved their quota because it will have fixed calendar periods. Having it per month should encourage a user to be continuously active. I haven't seen a "per month" process on any other wiki, so the policy I have put together will be our own thing. Everything has been set into six month periods.

The number of edits per month has been set at a very reasonable and achievable lower level. If a user keeps failing to achieve, it will be very telling and can be evidence to take away rights. Hopefully it will deter long periods of inactivity. I favour two months of vacation every six months, to try and counteract any long periods of inactivity by taking loads of vacations. I don't object to three months if the community favours it, so please let me know your thoughts. Thank you! - Kates39 (talk) 10:05, August 22, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum Activity Proposal 4 Discussion[]

Thanks for taking the time to create a new proposal for us to consider! Looks pretty good to start - just a couple quick questions and suggestions.

I would reverse the order of the Content Mods and Admin/Bureaucrat requirements so Admin/Bureaucrats qualified contributions are the same as Content Mods PLUS the HPW namespaces (which has Request for administrator attention, Request for Permissions, Policies, etc), Forum:, CSS, etc...

I'm not sure there is a need for a separate unexplained leave process? Presumably they would just be getting the normal warnings for not reaching the minimum edits including the final date when any removal of rights would happen? I would only suggest that a last attempt is made regardless shortly before the Removal of Rights happen so the action is not based on a warning potentially given 3 months earlier after the third month warning.

I like the idea of fixed Calendar dates as it allows for the total edit checks to be done just a couple times a year, but is balanced by simply monthly checks for ongoing contributions. Can I suggest 1 January and 1 July for the check dates? The start of the new year makes sense for cleaning up and reorganizing and 1 July is 6 months later (and the seventh month ;) If this proposal is adopted this first review period would be 6 months after that (so sometime in March likely, but the subsequent check on 1 July would cover back to 1 January to put it on a regular schedule)

How does losing their rights actually happen? Does an Bureaucrat take action at 6 months if the user lacks the minimum edits or does it go to the Forum for the Removing Rights process? The Forum is mentioned a couple times so it's not quite clear to me how it plays in. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:46, August 22, 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I will switch around admin and bCrats for Content Moderator and clarify what they should contribute. I suppose we don't need a separate unexplained leave process. It was included because their contribution levels could differ - a person who has unexplained leave won't contribute anything, while one does but fails their needed activity level. But I like the idea of putting the two into one warning system and adding in they should be warned again just prior to losing their rights. When do you think that should happen? I think a week will work. 
And yes, a bCurat will take action at six months. So when I update the warning system section, I will take out the Forum point because I can see how it could be confusing. But I will keep it in the activity level section and clarify it. The purpose of it was to deter people trying to manipulate the needed activity level, by failing to do their quota every month and getting warned but still gaining 180 edits in six months. It has been set at 30 a month to keep users continously active, so having to be warned to do it every six month period could be evidence in the Removing Rights process which needs a Forum. 
I was thinking 1 Jan and 1 Jul for check dates too. It should work better for routine. We could even wait until 1 Jan to start enforcing the above policy, but contact users who have rights (esp inactive and semi-active ones) to explain the new policy and encourage everyone to take a chance to get used to doing 30 edits a month and see if they can do so. - Kates39 (talk) 11:00, August 23, 2020 (UTC)
With the final warning, a week seems fine and would probably be best to come from the bureaucrat as a last chance warning.
I think this first 6 months could be off-schedule and cover activation-day in September to same day in March, otherwise the first check date wouldn't be until 1 July, and cover about 10 months. If we do a check on 1 January that would only cover about 3 months which is pretty short at only half the 6 months allowed in the policy. We're kinda in the middle of the usual 6 month blocks so it's hard to either extend or shorten the time frame by just a bit to line up.
So far so good - look forward to the changes when you get a chance. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:42, August 24, 2020 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good! I have updated the proposal to clarify everything. - Kates39 (talk) 12:31, August 25, 2020 (UTC)
The idea make sense but the wording in a couple places still a little tough to follow IMHO. Maybe:
"Content Moderator: in mainspaces including File:, Template: and Category:, and Delete and Protection logs."
"Administrators and Bureaucrats: should also contribute in mainspaces including HPW:, Forum: and Mediawiki:."
"Continuous inactivity every month leading to warnings can be evidence towards a Forum for taking rights away."
Becomes something like:
"Content Moderator: Contributions to their role include action in the File:, Template: and Category: namespaces, as well as the Delete and Protection logs."
"Administrators and Bureaucrats: Contributions include the above areas as well as actions in the HPW:, Forum:, and Mediawiki: namespaces."
"Repeated monthly warnings for inactivity can be offered as evidence against a user during a Removal of Rights request."
Wording doesn't have to be exactly this but I think some clarification would be helpful for any user that just reads the proposal text during voting and doesn't have the benefit of these discussions and extra explanations. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:03, August 27, 2020 (UTC)

Was it decided if vacation should be 2 or 3 months per 6 month review period? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:51, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

I decided on 3 months of vacation, and I have updated the proposed policy. - Kates39 (talk) 16:02, September 8, 2020 (UTC) 
Thanks Kates for the clarification. I think that wraps up the pending items so will start the process to move these proposals to a vote. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:13, September 9, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum Activity Proposal 5 (Authors: Sammm鯊)[]

NOTE: Unsure how to label the author as the basis of this proposal is from Proposals 1&2 Merged which is authored by Kates39 & Ironyak1.--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:45, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

  • In the hopes that users with extra rights make use of them regularly, there is a minimal amount of activity required to maintain possession of those extra rights. However, users are allowed periods of inactivity which fall into two categories:
    1. Notified Leave: If a user provides a notice they are taking a break from contributing for any reason, they may be inactive for up to 4 months and 1 week (17 weeks) without any consequence. Once a user returns, they accrue back 1 month of Notified Leave time for every month they are at least minimally active as defined below.
    2. Unexplained Leave: If a user is inactive without any prior explanation, they may lose their rights after 7 months and 1 week (29 weeks) of inactivity. Notices will will be given on a regular basis during this time:
      • After 4 months absence: attempts to communicate will be made.
      • After 5 months absence: Additional attempts to communicate will be made.
      • After 6 months absence: warning that removal will occur after 7 months.
      • After 7 months & 1 week absence: Bureaucrat will be notified to remove the user's extra rights.
    • Once spent, Unexplained Leave only resets to a full 7 months of possible leave after 12 months total of minimal activity is completed, although this can be broken up by Notified Leave / Vacation as defined above.
    • The longest possible period of inactivity is 11 months & 2 weeks - 4 months and 1 week of Notified Leave & 7 Months & 1 week of Unexplained Leave.
  • Minimal Activity: Users with extra rights need to make 119 (7 x 17) total contributions over a 29 week period (7 months & 1 week) excepting prior explanation of inactivity.
    • Explanation: This is based on the 29 knuts per sickle, 17 sickles per Galleon gold standard, and the magical number 7. As 29 weeks is around 7 months, the Minimal Activity requirement is close to asking Users with extra rights to provide at least 17 contributions per month during the timespan.
      • This is pitched as it is in between Proposal 4 (30 contributions per month) and Proposal 3 (roughly 8 contributions per month) but with a slightly more Wizarding World theme.
  • Additionally, users with extra rights must use them or perform other actions related to their role 29 times in the 29 week period (averaged to performing rights-required-contribution once per week,) excepting prior explanation of inactivity. These actions include any contribution clearly related to performing their role:
    • Discussion Moderators: Moderator Actions logged in Insights (assigning a Category or locking/deleting a post, any MoM or DoM posts, any posts in the Mods & Admins Category, and any answering of Guidelines or other questions for users.
    • Content Moderators: Actions in the File, Template, Category namespaces as well as related article updates.
    • Administrators: Same as Discussion & Content Mods, plus Requests for administrator attention, plus votes held, plus rights granted, plus blocks, plus edits to Harry Potter Wiki namespace, plus changes to site js and CSS, plus user questions answered on Policies, procedures, and other general user help.
    • Bureaucrats: Same as Administrator actions, plus extra rights granted, plus behind the scenes technical changes to the site / coordinating with FANDOM Staff on projects.
      • Explanation: The minimal actions related to their role required in the timespan, is just shy of 25% of their total minimal contributions, which should be easily obtainable for generally active users. There is no need for a user to have additional rights to only do edits any user without rights could do, and sparsely at that.
  • Any user with extra rights that does not reach the Minimal Activity requirements would be notified that a portion of their allotted Unexplained Leave has been used for that time period.

Minimum Activity Proposal 5 Discussion[]

So um, there's that. Since the overall requirement of this proposal is greatly loosened comparing to Proposals 1&2 Merged, taking one of the voting comments into account, shortening the Notified Leave timespan.

Also belatedly realized I didn't quite understand how to get "so only about 25% of their total contributions" (Update: nvm, lmao, sorry, brain wasn't fully awake when I wrote this, I get it now lol --Sammm✦✧(talk) 04:06, September 4, 2020 (UTC)) for the rights-required-contribution in the Merged Proposal; for this one, 29/119=0.2436[...], this is just the minimal, obviously, the more the better, but as stated in the voting discussion, not all Users with Rights met this standard, and I feel like I've upped the numbers so it's at least no longer the supremely low bar that I originally pitched lol. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:45, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

Appears to make sense on my read-through so no questions from me. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:47, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

Annual Re-elections[]

Proposal 1 (RedWizard98)[]

  • People elected or appointed to positions in charge, should be subjected to annual re-elections so normal users can hold them to account for their performances, and then re-elect or demote them.

Annual Re-elections Proposal 1 Discussion[]

How would this process work? Like all admins will have re-election on a similar time frame say last two-three weeks of December every year? Who would be the OA in these situations? Would this involve Chat mods, Rollbacks, and Content mods as well? If the annual re-elections happen in a similar time frame, what would happen in case of a sudden vandalism attack? Will users with rights retain their rights at the time of re-election or will they have them removed and then be re-instated? This whole process is very vague and nothing more than a random thought in my opinion. If you could elaborate it that would be good. Otherwise, I think it would be better if we remove it so that it helps us focus on the proposals that have a proper system and help us save time, energy and resources. Thanks! --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   04:42, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

interesting idea and imported from the Swedish wikipedia. MechQueste 18:00, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
Please note this idea needs to be clarified into a full policy for us to vote on it. Users with what permissions are covered, when does it take place, who needs to participate to enact the changes, etc. The devil is always in the details so those need to be worked out before any related measure can be discussed and voted upon. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:03, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion[]

Based on recent discussion, I've reorganized this so that there are clear whole proposals being made for this new policy. I've cloned one of the questions to apply to both proposals 1 & 2 as the authors may have different responses. Any new questions for the authors should be posted in the Discussion section for their specific proposal so they can better track questions and provide answers as needed. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:15, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and Merged Proposals 1 & 2 based on Kates agreement. Please let us know if there are questions to address. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:15, August 6, 2020 (UTC)

Here is my take to maintain user rights.

Users need to maintain some semblance of activity. Right now, I am not supporting any sort of arbitrary number for minimum activity, even if it is inspired by Harry Potter lore. The base foundation is a basic level of activity, edits, and logs. However, despite that, there needs to be a time frame for a grace period to hold the rights.

Every person who has made 0 edits and 0 logged actions for 6 months, they can be considered inactive. This is separate from Discussions activity, which has 0 bearing. When they do so, people should try to reach out to them to see if they are still interested to contribute.

After a whole year of complete inactivity, I view them as haven forsaken the wiki and eligible for removal of permissions. Preferably, a note is left on their talk page that serves as a notice about their change in user rights. MechQueste 02:57, August 8, 2020 (UTC)

This is the discussion area so comments shouldn't be removed from here, just like with a Talk page. I've added your idea above as a new proposal with some questions about it. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:22, August 8, 2020 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a 50 edits/6 months. This would include deletions, blocks, etc. If one wants to take a vacation, that window of grace period can be extended to 1 year, but should be used.

At the 5 month mark, we send them a message saying their tools are at risk. If no response and 6 months passes, then they can be considered inactive and can be removed by a bureaucrat. MechQueste 11:51, August 23, 2020 (UTC)

As you are the author, please to update your proposal with these changes. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:24, August 24, 2020 (UTC)

Hey - I'm hoping once again we can wrap up these proposals in the next few days so we can move forward with voting. Any new proposals should be added and any last touches or questions hopefully can be put forth by the end of the week. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:32, September 2, 2020 (UTC)


Voting - Round 1[]

In order to determine consensus on the proposals voting will now take place.

Ironyak1 will administrate these votes. They will remain open for 7 full days and then be closed and tallied.

The current Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy applies with the clarification that as these potential changes to Policy affect all users of the site, autoconfirmed registered users with either 20 article edits OR 20 Discussions posts are eligible to vote.

User should sign under the one proposal you support. A comment can also be included with any vote if a user wishes.

The proposal that has a clear majority of at least +3 votes in support at the closure of the votes will be added to the new User Rights Policy. Per Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, for votes with more than 2 options, should no option obtain a majority by the end of voting, the option(s) with the lowest votes will be stricken and the vote reopened for another round of voting. Once all the votes are finished, a complete draft of the User Rights Policy will be generated from the winning proposals for each section, reviewed for completeness and discussed, and then a final vote held for either the adoption or rejection of the entire new policy.

For clarity, the term Administrators and Administration includes all users with either administrator or bureaucrat user rights.

Please let me know if there are any questions in the Voting Discussion area below. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:13, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Voting - Round 1 Discussion[]

I have transferred over the completed proposals with a minimal amount of editing for clarity. Please let me know if there are any adjustments needed or if there are any questions about the voting. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:13, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Urgh, I'm that one slow kid again. Just curious, what is the way to check Users edit counts in a specified time frame? When I go to Special:Contributions, I can only specify "From year & month (and earlier)" but not after, and it also doesn't exclude edits that had nothing to do with specific User Rights. I like the concept, but I'm unaware of how to check to see my own status lol. I think the range thing is doable on UCP platform, but the Rights-related edits would still have to be manually picked out? Or is there some other way to do this? (Getting a clear number of edits.)
I'm only considering this due to a possible outcome of Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Gaining Rights; if RFP can be skipped in certain situations, imo, I don't think a bunch of admins or B-crats who, say, haven't edited for several years, could (or should be allowed to) just pop back in after years of absence and happen to agree to promote this hypothetical candidate. I think, like regular Users, no matter how inactive they are, if they met the voting criteria, their votes are valid, but because there's the skip-RFP thing, I also see why maintaining Rights on some level is needed. (Of course, if the skip-RFP thing is overruled, then I supposed I'm back to being okay with either proposals.)
If I misunderstood the situation, sorry. (I'm being sincere.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 10:24, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
The quick and easy way to check for the minimal total would be to set Contributions to 500 and see if that list extends back more than 7 months & 1 week. If it is very close then one can always cut and paste the list into anything with a line count (Google Sheets/Excel, code editors, etc) to see exactly when the minimum was hit. As for the minimal role contributions, that would be a manual check for the several active users, probably around the first of the month or so. Generally both these measures would be pretty clear at a glance with only a user or two falling somewhere near the line and needing an exact count taken.
Although some appear to object to following Wookiepedia's lead on this (putting aside that nearly all of our policies are modeled on, or taken from, Wookiepedia both because they've long set the standard and because we share Bureaucrats and Admins), some requirement for Maintaining Rights seems essential as an unbiased referendum on users with extra rights - a basic, regularly-timed check if they are fulfilling the role, something akin to an election. As although we only have 2 Content Moderators, with no less than 4 Chat Moderators, 8 Discussions Moderators, 8 Bureaucrats, and 20 Administrators able to step in and take action at a moment's notice, our roster seems plenty full indeed, which should help everyone to sleep well at night ;) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:58, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
Well '20 Administrators able to step in and take action at a moment's notice' is misleading. 14 of those 20 have been inactive for years. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:21, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing factually wrong with that statement - how are they not able to step-in and take action? Whether or not they do is up to them but they most certainly can. Many users have returned after years of inactivity of course. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:30, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
I did not say it was factually wrong. I said it was misleading. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:14, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
It's not meant to be misleading, just a statement of the facts. We do agree that users can and do return after years of inactivity, yes? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk)
Well, no one restrains people from returning. MechQueste 14:58, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. So are said users "able to step in and take action at a moment's notice"? Users are inactive for days, months, and years, and then one moment later they are back and active. Still unclear on how any of this is misleading given the ample evidence for such actions occurring in the past and nothing stopping them from happening again in the future. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:12, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
The sentence 'and 20 Administrators able to step in and take action at a moment's notice, our roster seems plenty full indeed, which should help everyone to sleep well at night' is misleading in that it seems to imply we are a bristling wiki with 20 administrators who do regularly do their bit. Take the 14 inactive admins out of the equation, and how full is our roster then?
Anywho; my apologies for causing this dscussion to deviate off-topic. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:19, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
But my sentence doesn't imply they do or would, only states that they can - the inference there is yours, not mine. The potential return of inactive users with extra rights was a concern Sammm鯊 raised in her message about this topic to which I was replying. You also have left out the ;) in the quote you pulled above which changes the meaning just a little does it not? I am plenty aware of the activity levels for users with extra rights, as I would guess is Sammm鯊, so the ;) is between us a nod, which is good as a wink, even to a blind bat, nudge, nudge, say no more. ;) again. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:43, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
The leaving out of the ;) was accidental. I didn't even think about it at all. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:12, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think the first proposal has understandably ended up being too much for a few editors. And I can see how it's too close to Wookieepedia. I think we need a third proposal so we have a better variety of options. I think we do need to set an activity bar, and cannot have a User Rights Policy that doesn't have one if proposal two wins. I would suggest a basic set of guidelines that drops wizarding world sensibilities. We need to take the advice of Fandom about setting simple policies that we need at Harry Potter Wiki. I had intended that we "enact our own version" of a User Rights Policy.

And I would like to say, users have been given tools so that they can actively use it. They shouldn't have it if they don't intend to use it like they should for years. Lack of active Administrators has caused issues, and it caused havoc at the RFP debate when a couple of semi-active editors tried to intervene. It was due to their inactivity. It's one of the big causes of the wiki even needing to update the policies. So I would suggest we find a policy that a wider variety of us can understand and support, because it does need one. - Kates39 (talk) 15:59, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kates39 - As the vote is still open it's premature to talk about other alternatives until the vote is concluded. As for the "havoc at the RFP", that seems to have arisen both from a lack of familiarity and understanding with the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy which has always said that a vote is mediated by an administrator who opens and should close it (or at least it's said this once the text was changed from the original Wookieepedia version :) If there are questions about how Votes work, it would seem that reviewing the long-standing Policies or asking an Administrator would be a better option than just making it up as desired? It's more than a little concerning that the actions and choices of users would be blamed on a lack of active Administrators, who are actually just following the Policies and how votes have always worked here.
I would note both that we began with "Wookiepedia have a good process (if a user cannot be contacted for a six months, they forfeit their rights and they get taken away" and that Maintaining Rights has been discussed for around a month now so that would have seemed like enough time for other better alternatives to have been put forth? However, let's see how the vote turns out and go from there as I agree that there likely is a need for something here if not this proposal. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:37, August 16, 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for causing the discussion to escalate in ways I hadn't expected. D; TBH, for some reason, I remember seeing Users slightly complaining about how "HPW has so many admins but most of them aren't active" etc., and sometimes using this as a reason for concurring a RFP. (To anybody who just read the previous sentence; if you feel like I'm talking about you, I'm not, I literally don't remember who has expressed this, just that I had an impression that this has been brought up more than once in the past.) So, I thought this part of updating the policy was to hopefully filter out the ones that have been inactive for years, in a sense, improving the "most of them aren't active" situation, thus, I'm genuinely surprised to see the current votes and the comments made.
Probably would piss off both parties by saying this, but here goes: I think, like Kates39 suggested, perhaps the new outline feels too unobtainable to some. Ironically, I believe, even if going with just 17 instead of 17 x 29 of total contributions over a 29 week period, the HPW admin roster would still be cut down quite visibly, and to me, that would do the trick. I know, 17? That's such a low count, why even bother setting a bar? But the fact is some really don't even meet that bar, so I think it's efficient enough to some extend.
Why not propose the above during the discussion period? That's my bad I guess; I think it's because I thought the other option would be Mech's proposal (50 edits/logs in 6 months/1 year) instead of the current practice; comparing to 17 x 29, the requirement is already considerably lower, so I see no need to pitch an even lower one (even though in my head, it'd still perform as desired lol.)
Too late to whine, I know. Gah. Should the outcome is to have no changes, hopefully the discussion can still continue with proposals tweaked that eventually succeeded in setting a bar. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:53, August 18, 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sammm鯊 - your question was fine of course; my reply to you apparently caused as stir as some unthinkingly ignored the ;) when choosing to interpret and quote it. The other proposal unfortunately was untenable as simple questions about whether it was 50 edits/logs in 6 months OR a year, and what does being marked inactive actually mean, never got answered. Proposals need to be clear and well explained in order to vote on them as the resulting policy needs to be understandable and enforceable.
Your feedback here doesn't seems like whining - just constructive criticism that came a little late ;) Hopefully any future proposals on this topic will benefit from such input earlier on in the process. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:31, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

just a drive by comment. My proposal was there for the moment, as I hadn't at the time decided on 50/6 months or 50/year.

Also, for proposal one, since it is "influenced" by Star Wars, its worth mentioning that the policy stipulates admins perform 250 edits in 6 months and 500 for admins with the bureaucrat flag. This means the proposed text is far stricter for all users with extra rights. MechQueste 14:41, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, Wookieepedia's Policy requires admins to have "make at least 250 mainspace edits in any six-month span". So while this proposal above would require ~500 contributions, all actions count for that total including work in the File:, Category:, and Template: namespaces, as well as helping answer User questions and other community issues, such as Forum discussions like these. Under Wookieepedia's policy admins are just required to edit more articles (which anyone can do) instead of actually doing the work of helping users and keeping things organized and functioning (which actually often requires the additional permissions of an administrator).
As for this approach being more strict for all users with extra rights, Wookiepedia has no requirements for anything other than Admin & Bureaucrat so any requirement would more strict for the other users with extra rights. To circle back, the suggestion was to expand Wookieepedia's Policy to all users with extra rights. Are you saying instead that they should not have any requirements for Maintaining Rights? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:13, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

As discussed, this proposal did not pass but the comments highlighted that the issue was with the lack of uniqueness of this proposal and not support for there being no Maintain Rights policy at all. As such, I am open to another round of suggestions being put forth to see is a proposal can be offered that answers these critiques. I would ask that anyone who offers a proposal please be prepared to answer questions about it so it can be clarified as needed and made ready to vote on. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:29, August 19, 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, so, while feeling quite lame for what I'm about to say, still figured just outright asking. I largely agree with the one option Minimum Activity Proposals 1&2 Merged, mainly the first breakdown on what's considered as absence and what's to be done for unexplained ones. They seem very logical, I'm for it to the point that if I were to pitch an alternative, I don't feel like coming up with something different, just for the sake of being different; after all, that aspect is already what I wanted to support. So, the real question is, can I (or anyone else) just (re)use the unchanged wording of bulletin points that are desired?
I did try to come up with something different, but I'm still behind my personal reason (that no matter how the bar is seemingly low, it'd still cut down the majority of the current roster,) so only briefly pondered the idea of slight-tightening minimal activity to 29 total contributions over a 17 week period (higher total count and shorter timeframe comparing to 17 total contributions over a 29 week period, even though the multiplication result is the same;) but scratched the idea when reviewing the attempts to contact and final warning etc.; 17 weeks is 4 months & 1 week and I just don't really see the significance in the number combination (the 7 months & 1 week... at least the 7 part to me felt well-designed xP.)
As to why I'm pestering over this low bar, it's mostly because currently there's only 7 Admins (some additionally being B-crats) meeting this standard; yes, some outstandingly over-exceeded this supreme low bar by so, so, so, much, but some were just barely safe, and this is not taking "rights-required-contributions" into account; a lot of the contributions from Users-with-Rights-back-from-hiatus are the kinds that regular Users can do, and I don't dismiss them because I personally think it's still better than not having any contributions at all.
I am going to use myself as an example. While it may look like I did quite a lot of contributions in the past few days, those, can be done by basically anyone. The only real Rights-required-contributions I did since this July, was one case of file renaming and some CAT renaming, but the latter one technically could also have been done by just anyone; just recategorize the targets with the CAT that has the intended title, and there you have it (the deleting of the original CAT is the only actual action that required additional Rights, and in cases that needed to avoid red links, the whole process wouldn't technically need Users with Rights to process, since anyone can create redirects.) The last time I made Rights-required-contributions (in a row) was this February, and still nowhere close to the number the original proposal asked. While I want to be optimistic and go "I can do this!", I think realistically, I know it'd be a bar I'd have problem reaching. I'm not saying I won't try to meet the bar, but when I try to envision this in application, from Special:ListUsers, I know I'm not the only one that'd have quite some catch-up to do. So even though no one else in the same boat seems to be concerned enough to voice it, I'm going to be that one person that looked super fragile and say "I'ma try, but this honestly looks pretty challenging."
My entire pitch likely come out as super self-preserving oriented, but I'd like to believe it's more than that. Looking back, even during the time "just before and after the release of COG" (which generated a lot of works to be done,) some in the roster hadn't met the requirement even then, yet their Rights and interventions were needed and appreciated and that remains true (imo.) I think baby-steps are needed. From no criteria to having some criteria to maintain Rights, I think that's progress in itself.
At this point I'm probably like a broken record, so I promise the above would be the last time I'm sprouting the "the low bar is enough" personal opinion lmao; it's more elaborated than the first in case I do get to pitch another proposal (with borrowed wording.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:15, August 25, 2020 (UTC)
To answer the easy part - yes, you can take whatever part of the Merged proposal you find useful and extend or modify it for a new proposal. If you can find a way to reform and make it into something less objectionable, please give it a go!
As for "Rights-required-contributions", the idea, such as for Content Mods, isn't that only the use of the exclusive rights counts, but that actions related to your role as helping to Moderate the content are counted. Renaming Categories is Content Moderation, even if anyone can do it. Instead of it being "rights-required-contributions", it's more contributions to the areas of focus for a user's particular role. Every once and awhile you would also use the extra rights such as File deletion while fulfilling your role, but that's only a small part of being a Content Mod. Similarly, you don't need Admin rights to help answer user questions, or help lead discussions, or help resolve disagreements, but it is a focus of the role, more so than just editing articles I would say. In short, Content Mods should help Moderate Content and Administrators should help Administrate. :)
While I agree that the bar needs to be set somewhere to start, I would only note that Policy discussions and changes come up very rarely so wherever it is set now it is likely to be there for an extended time. As such, I would not pick a level of activity with the idea that it can be readily adjusted in the future. What exactly the "right" level of minimum activity is seems open for discussion so you are free to propose whatever you believe would work best. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:29, August 27, 2020 (UTC)

Voting - Round 2[]

In order to determine consensus on the proposals voting will now take place. The current Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy applies.

User should sign under the one proposal you support. A comment can also be included with any vote if a user wishes.

The proposal that has a clear majority of at least +3 votes in support at the closure of the votes will be added to the new User Rights Policy. Per Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, for votes with more than 2 options, should no option obtain a majority by the end of voting, the option(s) with the lowest votes will be stricken and the vote reopened for another round of voting. Once all the votes are finished, a complete draft of the User Rights Policy will be generated from the winning proposals for each section, reviewed for completeness and discussed, and then a final vote held for either the adoption or rejection of the entire new policy.

For clarity, the term Administrators and Administration includes all users with either administrator or bureaucrat user rights.

Please let me know if there are any questions in the Voting Discussion area below. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:00, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Voting - Round 2 Discussion[]

This vote is now open. I have made a couple very minor touch-ups:

  • Proposal 3: Added the subject of the sentence "user with extra rights", fixed a typo on December 1 when it should have clearly been December 31, removed trailing words
  • Proposal 4: Added the word extra to User Rights (all users have some User Rights, only ones with extra User Rights are being discussed in the Policy)
  • Proposal 5: Removed extra explanatory text not directly part of the Policy

Please let me know if these, or any other edits, need adjustment. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:00, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if my wording proposal can be edited from "50 edits/logs" to something like "50 actions, of logs and edits to articles"? MechQueste 02:10, September 11, 2020 (UTC)
Your proposal doesn't say "50 edits/logs" anywhere, "50 actions, of logs and edits to articles" isn't grammatically correct English, and the Vote has already been opened. Sorry, but with over 3 weeks of time already given to edit proposals, it's a little late now to try and change them after the fact. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:21, September 11, 2020 (UTC)
For general viewers, if anyone is like myself, not able to quickly compare the criteria of the proposals, here:
Proposal comparison table
Prop 3 Prop 4 Prop 5
Method of measuring minimum contribution Total in timespan Per month Total in timespan
Minimum criteria 50 contribs
in 6 months
30 contribs
per month
119 contribs
in 7 months & 1 week
Minimum criteria
averaged per month
8-9 contribs 30 contribs 16-17 contribs
Rights-related contribs criteria n/a at least half of total contribs per month 29 contribs
in 7 months & 1 week
Rights-related contribs criteria
averaged per month
n/a 15 contribs 4-5 contribs
Taking breaks (loosening to) 50 contribs
in 12 months
3 months of break
per 6 months
4 months & 1 week of break
per 7 months & 1 week
Warning/reminder/notification Issued 1 month before timespan Issued per "failed-to-achieve" month Issued per month after 4th AWOL month
Hopefully I'm understanding all props correctly. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:56, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
I know I am a little too late for this. There was this huge time but I was kinda busy irl. I am having a difficulty in voting for one proposal. There are parts of proposal 4 that I like and parts of proposal 5 that I like but neither of them is completely sufficient for me. 5 gives a huge amount of inactivity time of 11 months 2 weeks while 4 makes the edits compulsory for every month. I know I shouldn't be complaining since I wasn't present in the discussions of round 2 but this would be a tough choice for me. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   16:00, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
Naw, no apologies needed, though I am curious, as you've voted for the original Proposals 1 & 2 merged, and that one has an even longer length for Notified Leave? Prop 5 went from its 6 months down to 4 months & 1 week. If you meant the 7 months & 1 week Unexplained Leave, my personal take is that, it still beats the current "no restriction." (Some has been inactive for around 11 years, I think comparing to that, 11+ months isn't so intolerable for people have been fine all this time lol.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:25, September 13, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comparative summary table Sammm鯊 - very useful! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:07, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

Well Sammm鯊, it is the 4+7 months that make this longer. Besides the edit requirements are kinda less. 1 admin action per week seems a little less personally speaking. What I expected was a system where we could allow a max leave to anyone and then an announced break in general. To give an example maternity or paternity leaves, or mental health leaves, etc. To sum it up perhaps medical leaves? In such cases, I would expect that a user may lose their rights but there is an easier way to get them back? Maybe instead of a community vote, an admin vote? But I am not going to stress on these much as I wasn't present during the discussions. So those are still my concerns. But then Kates' monthly requirements makes it a bit complicated I guess? I have exams that last half a month and the rest half is spent preparing for it (coz silly me I was all day on FANDOM and didn't open the books. lol). That said there is no mention of Dmods as well. Obviously Dmod requirements and all votes related to them are taken on Dboard but a provision could be added like Sammm's did. So basically there is a little of this and a little of that, that I like. May the best proposal win! --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   16:47, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

The original one was 6+7 months, so IDK how making it 4+7 makes Prop 5 longer lol. It got shortened precisely, like you've pointed out, because requirements are less. It was pitched because half of the people who voted from last round seemed to show signs of thinking the requirement too hard to be met. The ratio of edits-with-tools and regular edits are kept almost the same as the original (around 25% of the minimal edits.) That is the minimal, people can go beyond that. The breaks, it's an option that people do not have to take.
Again, the aim is to set up a bar for something (previously there was no requirement as to the amount of edits-with-tools needed, not even regular edits needed; and previously there was no restrictions on how long people can be absent, and that's likely how we ended up having people who haven't returned than 10+ years,) that hasn't been addressed before.
I hope the below would not be seen as me taking up space to campaign for the Prop I pitched; I would have expressed this had concerns were raised during drafting (?) periods. Since it's related, I'd just share my thoughts on the matter. I'm not saying "it's better" because what's "better" is subjective. I'm only saying "I'm picking this because of such and such reasons;" if said reasons aren't of one's concern, then not picking said Prop is understandable, and I respect that. No harm feelings. =D
To me, personally, I feel like as long as someone can produce the minimal contribs required, how they choose to do them (all in one go, routinely, or randomly) is their business. For Prop 5, say someone made 119 edits and 29 of them are rights-related in 1 day, that basically means, technically, they can go AWOL for the next 7 months + 1 week without any consequences as the timespan is until that time. They can disappear, but do they have to? No. If they do though, at the end of 7 months + 1 week, they still met the requirement so "them not being around most of the time" doesn't really make a difference.
For the scenario above, I had prepared myself having to make 493 as the number to aim, but seeing that half of the people aren't up for that, then lowering the bar seemed the way to go. As Yak has pointed out in first round of voting discussion, finding the balance is important. I suppose ideally we could have first gone with downing the criteria by half, but for easier calculation (on my brain's behalf,) I found something that's around a quarter of it and went with that, plus, Prop 3 aimed even lower so Prop 5's criteria sat between Props 3 & 4.
TBH, imo Prop 4's number is reasonable, just that like you said, sometimes RL throws in unexpected (or expected) stuff that takes up time. There are days I just happened to have time doing balk edits, but there are def. more days I just don't. I have no idea if I can come across 15+ right-related adjustments-needed-to-be-made every month, and I feel like just worrying about it is causing anxiety lmao. With Prop 4, I'd much rather hitting the goal (90) and be done knowing that I've met the target and then continue to edit leisurely, instead of pacing myself to do at least 15 each month due to not knowing if I'd have another 15 for the following months. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:18, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
The proposed policies, including mine have been up for way over two weeks. I was very open to feedback and your suggestions, and even asked what everyone thought specifically about vacation. I was trying to find a policy everyone could support, and merge ideas. Unfortunately, I didn't get any community feedback in the period that I could have changed, updated or added to the policy. So, I have to say I do feel perplexed that it's happening now, when I put loads of effort into trying to take in what everyone had been saying in the first round of voting towards Prop 5. I could have explained it for you.
I wasn't set on 30, so it could have gone lower or even higher if the community had voiced any concerns about achieving it. When you have tools, achieving 30 shouldn't take long. It's about encouraging anyone who has extra User Rights to stay engaged and active per month. It's a job they have been voted for to do, and lack of basic activity was a source of discontent. So, I can't do anything about these suggestions now but I would have loved to have discussed it earlier. I hope we don't have to have a third round of voting. Idk what we will do if the second round of voting leads to an indecision again. - Kates39 (talk) 10:54, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, Kate! Not sure if the above reply is directed towards Reverb frost or myself, or both. But just in case I am part of the problem, I'm sorry for being unclear. Hope this would clarify as to why I chose to pitch an alternative a little. I like how the original one is structured, so even though I did see you very efficiently coming up with Prop 4, as the basis is new (and improved) and just different from the original, it wasn't what I personally looked for, not saying it won't be anyone else's, and as you've put thoughts into it, like the uniqueness you yourself said about not having seen "per month" process on any other wiki etc, I don't see why it should be changed just to please myself specifically, knowing that what I looked for is, like I said, the ones featuring the original structure. I've expressed this back on August 18, and after seeing Prop 4, let the idea sit for a while, and felt that nope, since it's up for pitching again, might as well take the chance, then asked if borrowed wordings are allowed on August 25. Then, because I'm preoccupied, Prop 5 was pitched a little later.
To me, I know right after the first vote ended, I wanted to support one that's like the original but looser. To be honest, for a lot of the recently ended votes, a lot of the wordings of Props felt similar to me, but that didn't stop them from being separate Props. I think it's understandable for people to choose the one closest to their liking, and in this case, it showed that Reverb frost can make do with the per month thing, while I myself remained on the not really comfortable side. If the result is in favor of per month, then it'd be something I'd have to work on, not the other way around, community vote and all. Hope that makes some sense. =D --Sammm✦✧(talk) 12:20, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
I took some time to revisit the old proposal and compare it with new ones and read the whole argument again, and I have decided to change my vote. It's not to say one is better over the other, but just that I personally liked the initial proposal better and Sammm鯊's proposal seems somewhat close to it. Obviously I still think the bar should be a little higher but otherwise, it is very much workable!
Hi Kates, as I said, I was super busy IRL and did get around for the Discord policy but that was that. I did have some ideas for maintaining rights but that would be a mistake on my part that I didn't follow up in time and made suggestions and feedback!
And honestly thank you everyone for all the efforts that have been put in, the hours of discussion and waiting and everything! Thanks! --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   17:26, September 15, 2020 (UTC)

The votes have been tallied and Proposal 5 was able to achieve a majority. I will integrate this proposal with the text of the Gaining Rights and Removing Rights proposals that passed in order to draft a final version of the User Rights Policy for review so it can be brought to a vote for ratification. Thanks to everyone for their input and participation! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:26, September 17, 2020 (UTC)