Anonymous user
Forum:Retiring the Inactive Administrator Policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forum:Retiring the Inactive Administrator Policy (edit)
Revision as of 01:01, 14 September 2013
, 10 years ago→Discussion
imported>LostInRiverview (→Vote) |
imported>Mathetesalexandrou |
||
Line 39:
:I know this isn't the place to discuss it but just a small comment, the whole thing with administrator retirement and giving up their rights is seemingly as it stands more of a voluntary action out of courtesy. I doubt it'll be exceedingly difficult to make this into a formal policy but it's best we see how this discussion goes first. {{LabSig}} 23:10, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
::I think we should keep the policy. If an admin is absent for an extended period of time without giving any warning or reason why they chose not to remain active, then they aren't really there to do what they are expected. I think that when they do come back, they should be able to request the return of their "powers", but other than that I see it as a disservice to the community. I see your point about retiring it, and I have no objections if we do. But do you get the point I'm making? I don't mean to create any ill-will about this, this is just my honest opinion. :) {{PGRSig}} 18:08, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
:::I personally am feeling neutral towards this proposal. I can see the upside to retiring the policy, as it would put less strain on Administrators and Bureaucrats, especially those who tend to not edit much in a month or at all, unless due to spelling or grammar or whatnot in an article. However, I can see a downside to retiring the policy.
:::If the policy was retired, admins & 'crats could perhaps take this retirement of the policy as a chance of no activity at all, by this, I mean they disappear and probably won't edit or take part in the community discussions or whatever Wiki business at all. <strike>(That sounded better in my head, trust me...)</strike>. And that's all I have to say... Overall, I don't oppose or support the retirement of the policy, I feel neutral towards the idea. Perhaps I will come to a decision, I just need some more thought on this. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''parlare'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''da leggere'''</font>]])</sup> 20:42, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Line 46:
Regarding the idea that admins/crats could take the retirement of the policy as an opportunity to abandon the wiki... [[User:Makiah|such a thing]] is [[User:Duskey|already happening]] and probably [[User:KazeNoYouko|will continue]] to [[User:Bob Newbie is kl|happen]]. We have precisely zero ways to demote inactive bureaucrats, and it seems unfair to me to give bureaucrats a free pass to abandon the wiki if we don't give the same to administrators too. I don't think having the policy in place does much to encourage activity, so I reiterate my support for its removal. -- '''[[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>''' 02:57, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'd definitely say the problem with the Inactive Admin policy is the vagueness of the concept of activity. I for one haven't been active in making significant contributions given real-life commitments as well as my Heptanomis work, but making a few edits might be considered activity, although it feels somewhat minimalistic on my part. I also will have to look in favor of removing it. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 01:01, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
== Vote ==
| |||