This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.
The Inactive Admin policy will not be re-adopted. 04:47, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
we should use the inactive admin policy because if we don't it will be to any inactive admins and no space for new admins and the inactive admin thesims23 is probably never coming ck.
pros of it
1. new spots for admins
2. inactive admins will want to come back
3. makes users want to contribute
4. makes people want to be active
cons and solutions
1. bureaucrats are free - we can report that to wikia staff—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.237.180 (talk • contribs) 17:04, December 19, 2014 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
Maybe we could remove inactive admins from the list, and remove their green username highlights. But we shouldn't go as far as to revoke their admin rights, because they may plan on returning. And if they don't want their admin rights, they can always revoke them themselves. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:54, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
Removing the names of inactive admins from the list and remove the green highlights of their username, but allowing them to keep their admin privileges, in-case they return seems to be the best solution.
Initially I would have agreed with Ilovethesims199's opinion, but ever since this question I asked in April earlier this year, and the response I got, I personally don't think we need to revoke the rights of inactive admins, unless their account was globally disabled or something.
Otherwise then, when the inactive admin returns, the bureaucrats will then have to give them back their admin rights, and why take the trouble giving them their rights back, when you can just let them keep them despite their inactivity? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:55, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
I think we should ask for community input Coolsimsplayer (talk) 15:19, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I oppose for the same reasons I supported repeal in the first place. No circumstances have changed since the community repealed the policy over a year ago. Not to mention, since the policy was repealed a new policy was adopted in its place; if we restore the inactive administrator policy, the two policies may contradict one another. All in all, I think the inactive admin policy is unnecessary and reinstating it would be detrimental to the wiki. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 23:31, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - For reasons stated above. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:34, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - per the above. I'd also like to state that this thread was created by an anonymous user with a history of "questionable" contributions and therefore I don't really think that the OP post is exactly aware of the circumstances leading up to our current policy situation. ―ฬђtalk06:54, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
There has been no activity on this thread in over a week and it's pretty apparent that this idea has a snowball's chance of passing. The conclusion here is that the Inactive Administrator policy will not return at this time. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 04:47, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
