Forum:CT:Proposed addition to Wookieepedia:Administrators

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 was policy approved, new guidelines on administrator absence approved. -- Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the recent Mofference, the question of what to do with inactive administrators came up. One of the requirements of a nominee for adminship is that the user has "dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained, and constructive manner." An administrator who is absent for long periods of time no longer fits this requirement, in the views of some. However, a point that was put forth against removing adminship is that this wiki is to be considered volunteer work, and as such, it might not be fair to apply that same sense of obligation that you would for professional work. As no fast consensus could be reached, this issue has been relegated to the Consensus track, where it can be viewed by a larger body of users than those present at the Mofference.

Discussion

• Personally, I would find it unconscionable to expect to have administrative powers on a site which I had basically abandoned, were I to return six months later. The community has changed completely in that amount of time before, and will likely do so again. And I do not view the removal of sysop privileges to be an utterly horrible thing; I don't feel an inflated sense of attachment to the powers bestowed upon me, and I should hope that no one else would, either. Thefourdotelipsis made the case to me that absence does not necessarily mean that a user will not make a competent and trustworthy sysop, and I note that SparqMan is a clear example of such—I would not seek to have his sysop privileges removed, as he has proven a prolific and constructive user since his return. However, it is agreed by more than a few that a full year with no word is clearly a sign that something is lacking when it comes to an admin's feeling of responsibility for the site. As it stands, I am more than willing to accept the system proposed by Greyman at the last Mofference, which is somewhat less harsh than the original proposal that I put forth. Any proposed revisions are more than welcome. Graestan^(Talk) 04:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I will say that while contributing here is strictly voluntary, it's also voluntary to accept an admin nomination. If one can forsee for any reason that there is a good chance they will be inactive for a considerable amount of time (I like to define "considerable" as any longer than a college semester, 3-4 months), then, in my opinion, they do not possess the required dedication necessary to become an admin. Certainly, other obligations and responsibilities will arise, perfectly understandable, but that is why I most definitely support this proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

To be added to Wookieepedia:Administrators:

In the event that an administrator enter into a protracted absence from the wiki, some form of explanation, be it even a simple "I'm taking a break" or {{wookieevacation}} template, is desired. In the absence of any explanation, if an administrator does not edit, use admin tools, or visit #wookieepedia for six months or more, the following steps are to be taken outside of the RFRA process:

Vote

Those in favor of the amendment

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Greyman (at the Mofference) and Graestan (above).--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Graestan^(Talk) 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Riffsyphon1024 05:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Imperialles 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
6. SFH 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
7. I support it, but I'm a little worried about the wording . . . I mean, going by this, I could enter #wookieepedia for ten seconds once every six months, or change one typo once a year, or delete one spam page once every ten months, and be totally protected, while I clearly wouldn't be meeting the spirit of this rule at all. I'd suggest some kind of minimum contribution, or at least an understanding that showing up and bandwagon-voting on some Trash Compactor item won't get you off the hook. Havac 08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
   • If that's the case, it can be proven that they're not being good-faith admins, which also opens up the possibility of RFRA. Just a thought, mind.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
8. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 08:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Less witchhunty and despicable than the ideas bandied about at the Mofference. Thefourdotelipsis 08:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
10. I agreed to this at the Mofference and I will agree to it now, Per Greyman and Graestan. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
12. The idea is good, let's make it happen. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 18:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Might as well. Unit 8311 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
14. I'd prefer a more witchhunty and despicable version, but this will do for now. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Let's not be knocking the typo-fixing. -LtNOWIS 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Havac makes a good point. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Per Culator.--Darth Oblivion 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Yeah, but certainly wouldn't want shorter time periods. Prefer less witch-hunty and despicable, too.WhiteBoy 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Per WhiteBoy. Let's not get carried away with stripping people of power for the fun of it. If they're gone, they're gone, but there are often extenuating circumstances. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
20. I support this. It should be possible, however, to retain adminship if one announces one's absence even if it's a very lond period of absence (I don't think we should "fire" admins just because they have to attend to more important things IRL, for instance). KEJ 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Per KEJ. Hobbes^{(Tiger's Lair)} 21:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
22. I'd like to see Goodwood's "not[ ]good faith" theory tacked on as policy, but I'll vote for this as it is. If you care enough to want to remain an admin, you can care enough to let us know why you are absent, and even a prolonged absense is acceptable if we've got some inkling as to whether you're coming back or not. Wildyoda 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Heck, I don't contribute for a week or two and I consider that a long absence. I see no problem using the 6-month timeframe in the proposal above. —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
24. 'bout time.Ozzel 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Those opposed

1. I don't see any real downside to leaving them with their admin powers; as Silly Dan said in the Mofference, "Having a barely-active but trusted user remain an admin hurts no one." jSarek 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
   • When I think about the comments jSarek quotes above some more, though, there is some question of whether or not an admin who hasn't been seen in over a year is still trusted by the community, since the community's memebership and rules will have changed in their absence. (We have some active admins whose first edit as a regular user happened well after the last sightings of two of our early admins.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
     • And don't forget the fact that we have only a certain amount of admins at one time. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
       • Where did you get that idea? We have no policy or technical limitation on the number of admins. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
   • "Barely active" is not what I'm talking about. "Inactive" is the issue, here. Graestan^(Talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
     • That's just the wording used in the original quote (which I still agree with, even though Silly Dan has rethought it), but I don't think the distinction changes anything: "Having an inactive but trusted user remain an admin hurts no one." jSarek 07:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Has anyone tried contacting our absentee admins? —Silly Dan _(talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• If no one has tried to contact them yet, I think it would be a good idea to do so now. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Riff let me know about this discussion. Hello. :-) – Aidje _talk 06:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • [Sallah]Aidje, my friend! I am so pleased you are not dead![/Sallah] jSarek 08:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's one accounted for. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)