The Sims Wiki talk:Policy/Administrative Policies talk archives
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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:
- 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.
- 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? ―ฬђ talk 08:57, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- 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- I suppose how we determine an administrator as "active" or "no longer active so much" depends on ourselves, with a reasonable amount of time.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 preferrably 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. ―ฬђ talk 21:37, 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)