Anonymous user
Forum:Retiring the Inactive Administrator Policy: Difference between revisions
Forum:Retiring the Inactive Administrator Policy (edit)
Revision as of 17:58, 30 August 2013
, 10 years ago→Discussion
imported>Lost Labyrinth (Created page with "{{Forumheader|Community discussions}} I know it looks like I'm taking a gamble by even bringing this up, especially as we're trying to [[Forum:Preparing for The Sims 4|ready o...") |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 34:
==Discussion==
The idea of demoting admins was always much simpler than the actual practice of doing so. For one, it's deceptively difficult to define when someone is 'active' versus 'inactive'; does one edit after three months of no edits make that administrator 'active' again? And what if that edit is only a spelling change on a single article, or some other very minor edit? Ultimately, the rule as it's written is a bit too black-or-white about it, when it really is an abstract issue. However, what ultimately kills this policy is the fact that Bureaucrats are for all intents and purposes exempted from it. When the policy was first enacted, Staff was approached about demoting the inactive bureaucrats on the wiki at the time, and they declined to do so. They basically stated that a bureaucrat won't be demoted unless they do something to warrant demotion; simply being inactive isn't enough.
With all this in mind, I support the retirement of this policy. However, I would like to suggest that we adopt a replacement policy which governs, among other things, administrator retirement, removing inactive administrators/bureaucrats from templates like {{t|Administrators}}, etc. However, the substance of that policy would be different from the one up for removal, so I'll propose it separately. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 17:58, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
| |||