Inkipedia:Demotion/Archives/Eli

This page is an archive.

It contains older discussions that are no longer ongoing. If you wish to discuss one of the topics here, please bring it up on the current discussion page.

Eli (talk | contribs | logs) I am requesting the demotion of Eli from patroller back to autopatrolled. Per the primary bullet points listed in Inkipedia:Demotion, I believe several of these criteria have been met.

End date: 28 September 2024

Trig Jegman - 13:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The user does not use their rights

Simply put, viewing the Patrolled Edits log demonstrates that Eli has not used the primary tool of the patroller, that being patrolled edits in nearly 7 months: This revision on Snatcher from mid-January 2024, was the last time Eli has actually utilized the patroller tools. Furthermore, this is the first and only batch of manually patrolled edits since getting the position back in 2018. A warning of this lack of use was issued roughly one year ago, and several times privately in the staff channels on Discord. It seems odd that somebody that acquires rights for the specific purpose of patrolling would not actively use them.

This user also has not utilized any rollback features seemingly ever, as indicated by the Logs list.

Lastly, while a member of the Inkipedia Discord, Eli does not contribute to most staff decisions for any context. While being a member is not mandatory, being able to provide feedback on administrative decisions is crucial for the staff team to function as a whole. Furthermore, their contribution to proposals, promotions/demotions, and Ink Pump discussions has been minimal as well.

These are all the specifically listed criteria via Inkipedia:Patrollers. The only other criteria that is provided by Special:ListGroupRights is the ability to move pages while suppressing redirects. With a handful of exceptions approximately one year ago in November, Eli has not moved a significant amount of pages in recent years. This evidently is not a highly needed tool for wiki performance.

This user isn't terribly active

While this is not inherently an inactivity-based demotion, Eli's activity over the past few year has been minimal. With no mainspace edits since May (3 months), and two month long gaps intersparsing the front of the year, Eli's edit contribution has not been particularly high. Out of the edits that have been made (even into 2023), none of these have necessitated Patroller rights and are mostly minor tweaks or userpage edits instead of large scale changes.

The user in question did mark themselves as "Excused" on the staff list in October of 2023, but did not provide a policy-necessary description of why they were absent or a concrete quantitative date for their intended return. This was reverted in June for the reasons previously listed.

How did we get here, anyway?

It is notable to state that Eli did not come into the position of Patroller as most recent members have, through the Request for Rights system. Instead, they were granted by Heddy in 2018, demoted two years later, and reinstated by Slate, two years after that. This is primarily because the rank of Autopatrolled did not exist at the time, so the only method of having edits marked as patrolled was to be a patroller. That said, the system for requests for rights still existed, including for Patrollers long before this promotion ever took place. I only call the nature of this promotion out due to its unusual nature, and that since a more-appropriate role is now available to be used, that Eli should probably have moved to Autopatrol either of their own volition or by staff determination due to having bypassed what should have been a community consensus decision.

Other sticking points

While I believe that focusing on wiki productivity should be the general focus of the conversation as it is what the demotion is targeting, I believe there may also be some exterior factors that impact this decision as well. Some of Eli's talk page comments, most notably this response to PearlFan23 are needlessly aggressive/combative—this is a reply to other users' commentary, but it only worsens the discussion at hand and teeter towards rule-breaking. The edit was reverted.

Something that's also been bouncing around the back of my mind is the linking of a pornographic website containing a 400 page archive of the Splatoon 3 artbook publicly in the file channel on Discord. I'm not sure which bamboozles me more: the deliberate decision to post a pornographically-focused website in a server that contains a fairly significant amount of minors and dismiss it as "normal stuff gets posted here all the time", posting a copyright-infringing archive of a recently released product that ultimately bypasses sales and brushing it off as not problematic because "it's already been posted online by others", or the doubling down on this decision and implicitly offering to give the dump to people that asked anyway despite staff insisting not to (and blatantly violating Discord's terms of use). Inkipedia staff both on Discord and on site itself have repeatedly taken action against leaked, pirated, or otherwise sketchy content towards other users, and as staff Eli was expected to have known and acted better in this scenario, given the rules that are actively being enforced. Regardless, it never should have been done to begin with, and the notion that it was seen as acceptable does bring concerns of character to the table.

Conclusion

I'm not even sure the user in question necessarily wanted to be a patroller in the sense of the staff position, given the dubious nature of their promotion and their overall lack of using the tools it provides. Instead, low recent contribution count with an even lower rate of use of tools indicates they would be perfectly capable maintaining their translation and social media file uploading contribution focus through being autopatrolled. There is seemingly nothing that Eli cannot do as autopatrolled that he could as patroller.

Remove Eli's patroller rights

(Migrate to Autopatrolled)

Voting will end in three weeks (Midnight UTC September 28).

Support

1. Autopatrol seems perfect considering they don't seem interested in the patroller tools. Heddy (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
2. EmiTalk 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3. FancyRat 18:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4. OrderSquid38 [Talk] 18:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
5. I second Heddy's comment. ArgentuTA164 19:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
6. I agree with Heddy's statement. Squidtent ~ (Talk) 18:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
7. It seems quite abundantly clear that none of the duties or expectations of a staff member are being (or have ever been) fulfilled by Eli. Rather open-and-shut, in my eyes. Driftin Soul [Talk!] 04:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
8.  GX_64 (talk)  07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
9. Per all, agreed for all of the above reasons. GloverMist (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
10. I agree with all the above reasons. 𝚂𝚑𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚛𝟷𝟶𝟷 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
11. Autopatrol seems fine with me, as it seems that's why they had patroller in the first place. ssdrive (Talk・Contributions) 21:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi! I'm fine with this as long as it's for inactivity – as I've certainly been pretty inactive here! – and not for "rights misuse" as was the language used on my Talk page which seems not only inaccurate, but hypercritical and accusatory. As I responded on that page, I have not "misused" any patrolling rights, but rather haven't used them. Sorry to have "bamboozled" you, @Trig Jegman! Hopefully the back of your mind can clear up a bit now. To be frank, I'm not sure if this required so many paragraphs upon paragraphs of explanation and justification; you (or someone) could have just asked me and I'd have said "sure". It's a bit unfortunate that any sort of direct communication or a heads wasn't even attempted, but maybe that's something that can be improved on the future. @Heddy's framing that I "don't seem interested in the patroller tools" is correct. Thanks! –Eli (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Lack of use of rights is also mentioned quite prominently as a misuse of rights and a reason to consider demotion on Inkipedia:Demotion. Further, that same page specifically encourages demotion requests based on these criteria to be thorough and "very detailed". Everything regarding this request has been handled per policy, including the timeframe in which you were eligible to be notified in advance (I should also note that you have been notified in the past regarding lack of rights usage and explicitly told that continued prolonged lack of use would be grounds for demotion), so I fail to see how any of this is being perceived as accusatory or not sufficiently communicative. Driftin Soul [Talk!] 15:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    • "The user is not using their rights" is indeed a reason for demotion, but "rights misuse" is a separate section of that page. The word "misuse" means "to use incorrectly" – which predicates someone actually using the thing in question. I have not used the thing in question. Perhaps the language on that page should be updated. The instructions to "be very detailed" are only for when creating a demotion request for a user, but what I'm saying is that this was not necessary in the first place; I would have been very happy to demote myself, thus not requiring this request at all, if someone would have brought this up to me as a request or suggestion, i.e. communicated (by which I mean communicated recently, not a year ago "in the past"). –Eli (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
      • What you think a word means doesn't make it policy. Not trying to be passive-aggressive or anything, just saying. Also, when you say that nobody brought this up recently, did you forget about the comment Trig made on your talk page? Also, if you wanted to demote yourself you could probably leave a message on Trig's talk page and tell them so. ssdrive (Talk・Contributions) 21:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The absence of using rights is using rights incorrectly. You are not using the full width of things provided to you. Regardless on the extreme semantics of language you're arguing, I based the crux of this demotion being off of not using rights = misuse, similar to how I approached PJ GT's demotion. I don't think the specific wording of it matters as much as you are making it out to be. You ain't usin' em, so you ain't usin' em properly. I don't think that's too hard for the majority of folks to understand. Trig - 05:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)