Forum:CT:Administrators page

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Administrators page
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 proposal. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Following up on Forum:SH:Administrators page, I propose updating the Wookieepedia:Administrators page — permalink

The following sections of the page will be affected: the introduction, Sysop tools, Responsibilities, Becoming an administrator, Extended leaves of absence, Becoming a CheckUser, and Becoming a bureaucrat. In other words, the Meet the team, Administrative autonomy, Administrative abuse, and See also sections will remain unchanged.

A (very) brief summary of changes:

  1. The proposed changes will consolidate admins' responsibilities in a section of the same name, largely codifying existing practice. Importantly, new rules on 1) the deletion of private consultation channels in the Discord server upon archiving and 2) admins establishing partnerships will be added.
  2. Minor clean-up to the Becoming an administrator/CheckUser/bureaucrat sections.
  3. Activity requirements will be made clearer, especially in terms of formalising the lee-ways, and make the demotion of affected admins mandatory while opening the responsibility to the rest of the administration, rather than just BCs.

Thank you to all the fellow admins (and Nano in the SH) who have put up with me babbling on about this proposal for the past several(?) weeks, particularly with double- and triple-checking the texts and offering invaluable feedback. We've probably missed a thing or two but I do think we're making some good improvements. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

  1. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird black belt in card-jitsu 03:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  3. —spookywillowwtalk 03:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  4. Yesyesyesyes. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  5. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  6. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  7. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  8. Imperators II(Talk) 18:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  9. Janomoogo (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 07:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  11. Per OOM 224's reasoning in the CT itself. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  12. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  13. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  14. Lewisr (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  15. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  16. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Activity requirements addedum: The points below explain the changes but won't make sense unless you've read the proposal itself, so if TL;DR, please refer to the actual proposal.

  • The "at least 250 mainspace edits in any six-month span, excepting prior explanation of inactivity" and "use their administrative tools at least once every six months" rules will be made more definitive while also relaxing the namespace requirement similar to the recent voting eligibility revisions: "at least 250 non-userspace, non–talk page edits and use their sysop tools at least once within a six-month span of their adminship" A new exemption will be made for admins who use bots given that they are quite integral to maintaining the site.
  • Current wording "eligible for immediate removal by a bureaucrat" — instead of making removal dependent on the decision of BCs, the procedure should be made more open and policy-binding.
  • Current wording "Failing to return to activity by the specified date without further explanation will leave administrators subject to the "Extended leaves of absence" removal process (see above)" — extremely confusing and technically allows the admin in question to remain in the position regardless of their edit count if they put {{Vacation}} on their user page. The "Extended leaves of absence" process is for months of absence (and it doesn't define what "absence" means) and makes no reference to the edit-count requirements either, ultimately deferring judgement to a BC.
  • Proposed wording "the administrator must first be cautioned by another administrator among the administration if the requirements are not being met" — this would serve as a warning procedure (rather than requiring admins to immediately be demoted and/or place the responsibility and power solely on BCs)
  • Proposed wording "demotion will occur if they fail to either provide or adhere to another explanation and expected date of return" — given that we're humans after all and have real-life obligations. I think we can trust admins to make the right call themselves as to whether or not to resign if the issue is brought up, and if trouble does get in the way, the rule would make demotion a policy-binding responsibility of the rest of the administration. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the ball but "Administrators have "sysop rights," a set of tools that allow them to delete pages and block users." feels like it minimizes too much the responsibilities/powers of admins. Xd1358 (Talk) 19:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)