FANDOM


Battlefield Wiki Forum: Inactive Admins (Archived Thread)

Search the forum

The following is preserved only as an archive. Please do not modify it.
No further edits should be made to this discussion. If you want to continue a discussion, start a new post

Should Imrlybord7 be declared inactive? And what happens when an admin should go inactive? Should they be stripped of their title? Post your thoughts and comments here.

- AwardDEathgod65 - Freedom at Work!Award 20:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I find Imrlbord7 should be dubbed inactive. And inactive admins should be given a 1 month warning towards being stripped of their title. Example, now Imrlybord7 is inactive, we send a notice on his talk page saying 'You have one month to deem yourself a worthy admin' or something like that. If nothing happens, we get rid of those powers. And those old admins that haven't been here for <2-3 months should be stripped immediately, because I don't see 'em doing much anytime soon, and some of them don't even have a userpage or an editcount of over 100 edits... Just what I think. Admin SSD 天皇陛下萬歳! 20:47, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there is 1 b'crat with only 1 edit, back in 2008! I think maybe longer than 1 month, but I agree with the basic principle. And maybe they should be able to resume powers when they return - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and Bureaucrat 20:51, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. It was touched on here, but it needs a proper debate. I've said before, and I'll say again, I'm disappointed about Bord's activity as an admin. - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and Bureaucrat 20:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


I believe that they should be given a deadline to return to the wiki by, and if they don't return to editing by then, they get stripped of their title . However, 'return to editing' means editing not just once, but editing in at least three consecutive days BFBC2 ta39HeatedPeteTalk 20:51, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe edit for three consecutive days and then they get back their admin title? And what about an admin with a admin award? should it be striped off? but i believe unless they formally retire from the wiki, it should also be stripped if declared inactive AwardDEathgod65 - Freedom at Work!Award 20:55, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that someone who has earned the right of adminship has the right to keep it, active or not. BC Rank 25 Doc. Richtofen 20:56, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if they've earned it i agree but the earlier admins should be stripped, since they didn't really earn it (except for Neo tails and Bond of course). AwardDEathgod65 - Freedom at Work!Award 21:12, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed withDoc.40pxMr.Foley40px 21:14, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, the older admins are also b'crats, so I can't downgrade them, we'd need to get Wikia staff involved. I think we should declare admins inactive after 1 month of no editing, at which point they would receive a warning message, and then they should be downgraded after another month of no editing, stripped of powers and their award. As far as resuming, maybe they should be put through the RfA process on their return. I think we should automatically issue warnings to old admins now, and do so in the future if anybody currently active becomes inactive. But I want an exception for Neotails - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and BureaucratVeteran 13:35, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Unless that inactive editing is related to an exception, with IRL issues; like a trip or an accident. And I can understand an exception for Neotails, but we'd need to give him a bit of a wake-up call, no? Admin SSD 天皇陛下萬歳! 20:17, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
How about, an extension if an adequate explanation is given - afterall Neotails had an acceptable explanation and expected to be back in a few weeks - it's been months, and then they can use the explanation in a fresh RfA if they wanted to resume rights. But unlike other editors discussed, Neotails earned it, but a wake-up call would help (I don't know if it would work though) - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and BureaucratVeteran 21:14, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt he did earn it, coming around a time when the wiki had nearly no one, but a few weeks turned into a few months does deserve a little alarm. Admin SSD 天皇陛下萬歳! 21:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Since this place has gone quiet on the debate front, I think we should vote on a proposal to finally close the matter. Sorry, it's wordy, but it has to be:

I propose that admins should be declared inactive after 1 month of no editing, at which point they would receive a warning message, and then they should be downgraded after another month of no editing, stripped of powers and their admin award, if applicable (unless a long-term user formally retires, ie. states they have no intention of returning, in which case the award may be kept, decided on a case-by-case basis).
When (or if) editing resumes (defined as more than 20 edits over 3 days), admins who did not pass an RfA must go through the RfA process before resuming responsibilities (as many early admins did not earn rights. Any user that went through the RfA process may resume rights immediately upon request after meeting the 20-in-3 requirement. User:LOL.its.Neotails is exempt from having to reapply, he earned his rights, and if he returns will be able to resume rights immediately, again subject to 20-in-3). Actions as an admin and any reason for activity may be used here. An extension to the inactivity-declared-after-1-month clause to 2 months be awarded if an acceptable reason for absence is given. For currently inactive admins, warnings will be issued immediately, and the 1 month period will begin now.

You know the drill, comment below with your vote. I'll close the vote in exactly 1 week. - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and BureaucratVeteran 21:09, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposer - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and BureaucratVeteran 21:09, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, as i believe that if incative admins do come back, then they could start using their powers in a way that is against policy, etc. BFBC2 ta39HeatedPeteTalk 06:15, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of the archives, etc. User:DEathgod65 added his support vote to the results without commenting - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and BureaucratVeteran 15:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with these terms. Admin SSD 天皇陛下萬歳! 20:04, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I see it fitting to take away admin rights from those who have not deserved it, but taking it away from those who have gone through the RFA process and become inactive I don't see the need. I would like something where there can be exceptions, like holiday, connection problems etc.. BC Rank 25 Doc. Richtofen 19:31, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Results

Support: 4

Neutral/Pending: 1

Oppose: 0


Right, the vote is closed, and the proposal approved. I'll begin issuing notices today. I'll leave the comments section open for a few days for any closing comments - Bondpedia (Talk) (Contributions) Administrator and BureaucratVeteran 16:37, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.