The Sims Wiki talk:Policy/Administrative Policies talk archives

Amendments
Lately, over the last few months I've began to notice several errors/loopholes in the Inactive Admin Policy. In particular, I've noticed that some admins have edited once/twice a month, usually an edit of a trivial nature, meaning that by this policy standards they are considered "active".

Anyway, after some thought, I've come up with something of a solution for this dilemma:
 * 1) Each admin must make at least 35 edits per month, and edit on at least 7 different days per month. Edits to the User namespace won't be counted. A failure to do so may result in a removal of admin rights, which will be at the discretion of Bureaucrats on a case by case basis.
 * 2) If a user has a valid excuse for being unable to make the quota, they will not be subject to said rule.

Hopefully this should cut back on this editing to keep adminship, and encourage more regular participation.

Thoughts?
 * I like the idea of trying to improve this policy, but I wonder if it might get too tedious to try and enforce that sort of a requirement. That would mean that bureaucrats would have to pour over an admin's contributions and determine whether they met the quota and whether it was done over at least 7 days... which I think is kind of a sizable undertaking. Maybe instead of having a strict 'you must edit this many times' requirement, we say something general like: All administrators are expected to remain as active contributors to the content namespace on the wiki, as well as active participants in the wiki community. Bureaucrats shall, on an individual basis, determine if an administrator has become inactive and shall notify the administrator of their inactivity. That way, you avoid strict requirements and allow the bureaucrats to determine when an administrator is truly active versus just making the minimum effort to retain administratorship. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:03, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose how we determine an administrator as "active" or "no longer active so much" depends on ourselves, with a reasonable amount of time. It does seem tedious if we have to count how many edits an admin has made over time, but what I said before wasn't a weak subject either. But when they become less active, I suppose we should give them a notice that their rights are at stake. Or what if we simply ask if they still want to continue being an administrator?  Nikel  Talk  11:18, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like LiR's idea a bit better than the one that I said, since its more or less the same except reduces tedious contribution monitoring, and would likely have the same effect. As for what to say when they become inactive, we should just leave them a message informing them of the situation. If they know they are going to be inactive, then preferably they should resign and they can re-request adminship via a talk page note to a bureaucrat in the 6 months after, much like now. Whether to grant them the rights again will likewise be a case-by-case basis.
 * I've been thinking that the IAP has needed a revamp for some time now and I'm in support of this suggestion. 16:50, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Im agree with LiR, btw is this amendments cover the bureaucrats too or only cover admin? because bureaucrats is also an admin right and it is will be nice if bureaucrats also active improving the wiki. Wiryawan310 16:01, February 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * It will apply to both, much like the current policy does.
 * Since discussion has pretty much dried up here and no one seems to be in opposition, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes per this - ...this consensus may be gathered through informal discussion on the talk page... If anyone has any issues feel free to continue this thread and we'll go for a formal consensus period.
 * I like these new policies, but shouldn't we add a period of inactivity for the admins so that the consideration of which admins are inactive doesn't become too subjective? Like, one month, for example? Thank you. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 09:48, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Inactive administrators policy and Absence
I've noticed there are a couple, if not more, users who are listed as being absent but have not provided an estimated date of return. Whilst I'm not jumping to conclusions here, I've discovered that listing yourself as being absent for an unknown period of time can be used to circumvent the inactive administrators policy.

While I am aware of a policy that states "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." but this can be a double edged sword as a) the user may have something happening irl that prevents them from being here on a long-term basis and/or b) they may indeed be trying to circumvent the inactive administrators policy.

I would like to propose an amendment which states that if an admin knows they are going to be absent/inactive on a long-term basis then they should resign their rights. I think that 3 months is a good cut off point but I'd like to discuss this proposal with other administrators/bureaucrats. 20:10, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - there's no point in keeping rights if you know you're not going to use them, especially if they're allowed to get them back later with little fuss. --  LiR speak ~ read 02:29, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * If an absent admin cannot provide their estimated date of return, they must at least explain their reason of absence clearly. But even though their reasons are not very reasonable, they still have the possibility to return when their obstacles irl are over. But if their reasons are like, "I don't have internet and I don't know when to return", it's fine to give them the inactivity timeout.  Nikel  Talk  03:43, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do see the thought behind this, it seems (to me at least) that someone could go and use a reason such as "I have no internet, I don't know when I'll be back" as being a potential cover-up to a long term absence or for all we know, the user may never actually return. If a 3 month cut off point for absences was implemented, one would literally have 9 months from the start of their absence to return to activity, seeing as a user can request for their rights to be returned 6 months after being demoted (or anytime if they resigned at their own accord). Based on this proposal, I feel that if a user knows/suspects they'll be absent for a prolonged period of time (like over 3 months) then they should resign based on what LiR said above. 15:01, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as discussion has dried up and noone has voiced any opposition, I've amended the policy based upon this. If users decide they don't like the changes then we can discuss this further. 17:53, May 20, 2012 (UTC)