The Sims Wiki talk:Requests for administratorship

Uh, i don't know if i should write on this discussion page,but i waited a week to become an admin and i'm still not an admin, when Will i become admin?? 04:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)Monster2821? 04:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

100 Mainspace edits.
I have 100 mainspace edits!was that keeping me from not becoming a admin,Too little mainspace edits?--? 06:31, July 2, 2010 (UTC)User:Monster2821--? 06:31, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Inactive admins
Should we have a policy for revoking an inactive admin's rights? --a_morris (talk) 00:59, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

no
No,because what if an inactive admin comes back,then the admin whould be shocked.Also,on another wiki there was debate over this policy.--Monster2821 06:35, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Inactive admins could be warned before the policy/revocation goes into effect. Can you give a link to the debate? --a_morris (talk) 14:24, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes
I think an Admin's rights should be revoked after a long absence - I'm not sure exactly how long that would be, but I would say something in excess of 6 months from the last time they made any real contribution to the wiki (so editing a talk page or userpage won't count) - I'm only saying 6 months as a base suggestion. I would also say that if an Admin returns after their rights are revoked, they should be able to receive them back with little or no problem, unless they were absent a really really long time.

On a related note, is there a policy for revoking the rights of a "rogue" admin (let us hope this never happens)? -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog) 16:04, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * 'rogue' admins can be reported to other admins and they'll take action based on what it's about. Don't think there's a policy, let's handle it when it happens.


 * The downside of having an inactive admin who are still listed, is that users with questions or concerns might try to contact them (despite the 'inactive' tag on the admin page). I would say that if the users hasn't actively participated in any admin activites in 6 months, their right will be revoked. Should they ask for it to be reinstated it should be done so immidiately. This suggestion has a small catch though: How do we define 'active admin participation'?


 * Also, if an admin knows he's gonna either stop playing or knows he isn't gonna feel like contributing, then of course he should step down. 6 months of total inactivity with no contributions should revoke admin rights, with the possibility of instant reinstatement if they return. Duskey ( talk )( blog ) 20:23, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should put this to a vote soon since it is an old discussion. I also think that admin rights should be temporarily revoked after 3 months of inactivity. 3 months is a long time and the admin is bound to have alot of reading to do to catch up with changes done while he or she was gone. When the admin returns he/she can get their admin status back by contact a bureaucrat and announcing that they're back for active admin duty. So for The Sims Wiki we could define 'inactive admin' as "no contributions for 3 months". I would personally still allow special cases where the status isn't revoked, but this might be tricky if this is implemented as a policy. If an admins is gone for 2 months, then comes on and does a minor spelling edit, (s)he should still have admin status revoked a month later. Admin revocation (is that a word?) should be up for discussion by bureaucrat and sys-ops alike. Duskey ( talk ) 14:07, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Would it be an idea for a notice on the admin's user page to new people don't go to them for questions? Something like 'This admin is currently inactive, please direct any questions you may have to an active admin'. Apart from the customized countdown, a page like Bleeh's encourages people to use her talk page. The situation is the same with admins who haven't contributed for awhile. Duskey ( talk ) 16:23, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed inactive admin policy

 * 1) An admin is inactive when they do not make a non-minor (examples of minor edits: fixing spelling, participating in discussions unrelated to The Sims or, editing their userpage) or administrative-related (administrative tasks, not necessarily tasks only admins can do) contribution within three (3) months.
 * 2) Admins should be given a reminder up to a week before their rights are to be revoked. (Current inactive admins will also receive a warning when the policy goes into effect.)
 * 3) A former admin can immediately regain their status by contacting a bureaucrat and declaring their intention to return to active duty if the absence is less than six (6) months. If they are inactive for longer than six months they will have to reapply.
 * 4) If an admin knows they will be inactive they should step down. Special cases to extend or revoke an administratorship may be brought to the attention of current administrators. If an administrator is banned permanently from, their rights are automatically revoked.

Non-minor vs. major: they shouldn't have to write an essay. Since I'll be doing the revoking at first, it would be my preference to do a check once a month or once a week. Are the time periods of 3 & 6 months acceptable? --a_morris (talk) 21:50, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Still thinking about this, but I have a question of clarification: is the six month period mentioned in point 3 a time of 6 months total or is it 6 months in addition to the three months prior to the admin losing their status? -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 21:58, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking total, hence the use of the word "absence". It depends on how much they have missed in the time they were gone and how quickly they will be able to catch up. --a_morris (talk) 22:05, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it. It's a nice write-up. Duskey ( talk ) 22:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it. As for implementation, if for example an admin has been absent 6 months when this goes into effect, will there be any grace period before their status is revoked, or will it happen immediately? I would propose that admins that have been inactive more than three months prior to enactment be allowed to reapply within that three month window, just as a courtesy. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:33, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. --a_morris (talk) 22:59, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

R.F.A. be closed.
I think that the R.F.A. page should be closed.--Danny(Monster2821) 07:15, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * How closed? Protected? Archived? or do you think we don't need more admins? Duskey ( talk ) 10:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should remain open, but that it should be up to A morris and other Bureaucrats as to whether we need more Sysops. Perhaps inform those who have applied that their applications are being denied for the time being because of a lack of need for more admins, but to give them admin powers later if needed (think like a waiting list). Plus, this page is also used by users requesting rollback priviledges or bureaucrat status, as well as other "special" titles, so I don't think it should be closed for them either. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 16:38, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think we don't need anymore admins but we need more rollback and bureaucrats.--Danny(Monster2821) 18:48, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sys-op positions have been closed. Duskey ( talk ) 14:08, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

When should i request bureaucratship
When should i request bureaucratship?--Danny(Monster2821) 18:52, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

request for Bureaucrat
Can i request to become a bureaucrat,Since It's only closed to Sysops not Bureaucrats?--Danny(Monster2821) 00:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC) Bump--Danny(Monster2821) 00:24, July 22, 2010 (UTC) Bump--Danny(Monster2821) 00:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC) Bump>:(--Danny(Monster2821) 00:31, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say that impatience is probably not a very good trait for a bureaucrat. And 'bumping' discussions on the same day they are written is bad practice. At the moment we only have a single active bureaucrat: a morris. I'm sure she will set up some guidelines for being a bureaucrat soon. In the meantime I have to point out that there's much more to a bureaucrat than post count and time spent on the wiki. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats as an example. Duskey ( talk ) 13:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

About Monster2828's Bureaucrat request
First, I want to say that I really hesitated in coming forward and saying this. I don't want it to seem as if there's bad blood between me and any of the other admins. However, I think that as an editor and an admin, I need to speak up in regards to Monster2821's application for bureaucrat.

To be blunt, I don't think Monster should be made into a Bureaucrat. I feel he is too inexperienced, too impatient, and has not yet developed his admin abilities nearly enough to be granted bureaucrat status. Further, I simply do not feel that Monster is up to accepting the added responsibility that being a Bureaucrat requires. In fact, of all the editors on this wiki, I can not think of very many users that I feel are capable and deserving of Bureaucrat status, myself included. In short, I do not think Monster is ready, and I do not think he will be ready anytime in the immediate future.

This is not meant to attack him in the slightest. This is not based on a personal opinion of him, but rather simply my observations of his work. I encourage him to remain active on the wiki, and to seek involvement in projects, wiki improvement and the community, rather than seek a seat as a Bureaucrat.

Of course, the decision to make Monster a bureaucrat does not lie with me, and whatever you decide to do, I will accept your decision. Thanks. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 00:33, July 24, 2010 (UTC) I'll stay an adimin.Monster2821

Sorry
I am sorry.--Monster2821 01:03, July 24, 2010 (UTC)