Forum:Absent Admins

I was going through the list of recent changes when i saw the find users admin section and a list of 15 users came up although i was suprised to see upon closer inspection of the fifteen 3 hadn't made an edit since 06, 3 hadn't made a contribution since 07 and another 4 had only made sparce edits into 2008 leaving only 4 out of 15 that had made solid or infact any contributuions in the last 2 months.

The point I am trying to make is should these people still have admin rights i mean sure they may have been instrumental in the creation of the wiki but if they haven't been editing for more than a year should they still have admin privilages ?

Now i am not saying they be removed perminatly I myself have had to take time off from editing when things come up in my life all I am saying is remove them while they have been absent for more than 6 months without contributing at all and if they come back by all means give them the rights back.

This way it ensures that if a user wants to be an administrator of the wiki they have to be active in its creation if something comes up in there lives which is understandable since we all have a life outside of editing here then there role can be taken up by another user who is around.

This is just a though that i have had after looking at the list so tell me what do you think Dark Lord Xander 12:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very much against this proposal. There are a few reasons for removal of adminship see Wikipedia: Administrators - removal of adminship, none of them encompass 'not being here enough'. It certainly is not enough reason to remove their admin status. I have created a page which details various admins Tardis:Administrators. --Tangerineduel 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats fine it was just an idea that i had and throught it was better to get it out there also i guess i am just not used to being on a wiki where an admin hasn't been present since 06 although the did have a section for past admins (Admins no longer around but still classed as admins and still with admin rights Dark Lord Xander 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing the the active Admin contains two users one Amxitia who hasent edited since 06 and Freethinker1of1 who hasn't contributed since 07 so i think they should be moved out of that list Dark Lord Xander 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I haven't looked into the administrator thing very much but it strikes me odd that someone who hasn't been actively involved in the site could if they wanted too, come back to something, after several years, still with a privilede level, and change things that may not follow the concensus of this wiki community in the time since they have been gone. Furthermore if I was new to the site and was seeking advice, I would probably ask someone with Administrative status, and not be very impressed if I didnt receive a reply for a year or two! (exaggeration here on my part). I also would have thought that if the Administrator was taking a knowing 'break' (as opposed to dying) then a courtesy, would be to step down and let the site know. ("With great power, comes great responsibility" someone once said!) I would probably support inactive after a year, certainly after two years. 4 (active) out of 15 is quiet poor isn't it or is that usual?


 * PS As another thought it would be interesting to know when TARDIS crew members last contributed to the site (if if it is only on their talk page) Is this available somewhere, 'cos its not on the crew page? The Librarian 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i am saying if they no longer use the wiki how can they be an admin to me it doesn't make sense Dark Lord Xander 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can search individual user's contributions via the Special:Contributions you can also get a breakdown of your edits via Special:Editcount, though I would not encourage for instance creating a list pitting one user (Admin or not) against the others, this might encourage an unhealthy amount of comparison amongst users here.


 * Am I being naive, or just silly and missing your point? Loads of sites I go to when I log in remind me how long ago it was since I last visited (probably most of them actually, particularly sites you log into to interact with others). I wasn't talking about a contribution account beside each name which I agree could be competitive (although not necessarily a bad thing, unless someone wants to create loads of dead link pages or pages without any significant content.... would they?!) Surely a last visit date wouldn't be too objectionable would it? We could see at a glance how our community here is growing (or not in terms of people coming back regularly)The Librarian 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the Admin level, what I stated is the Wikipedia article, find another precedent (if you actively disagree) and the admins that are active on this wiki will review it, though as it stands I am still against removing any user rights. --Tangerineduel 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want a precedent then here it is Here not that i want to remove admin rights from users i just don't see the point of people having these rights if they are not here i think the link provides a good guideline to followDark Lord Xander 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't want to check the link i propose something similar to the below table

As you can see it is not simply getting rid of there rights its a final step if they are absent for a year with no reason given Dark Lord Xander 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait, hang on, I think I'm missing something. What possible reason is there for us to remove their admin privileges? Why does it make a difference whether they're absent and admins and if they're absent and not-admins? I don't see the logic behind it. Is there a limit to the number of admins we can have? Did all the other admins have to make a pact that they would work as admins for all time? I really just don't see why we should remove the admin rights. Azes13 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not about the removal of rights its about activity within the wiki comunity if admins who have been selected to have rights that others do not have should mean a dedication to the wiki however my proposal isn't as i said with the aim or removing there rights if they wish to be absent then as long as they say so on there user or talk page they can be absent fro as long as they wish this as the table (used by other wiki's) shows is steps taken to try and get them to contribute not take away there admin powers Dark Lord Xander 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When i think about it its not even about removing the current admins rights but setting a standard so when you except admin rights you except the responcibility of looking after the wiki making sure its in good working order and not plagued by vandals when a user can no longer do this is it fair for the rest of the comunity that they continue to have the rights or should there be measures in place that if the day finally comes that they wish to move on but don't tell anyone that there should be a redlinked and inactive user with user rights

Now what i have been proposing is as follows

Proposal
I now admins arn't going to like it (they haven't so far) but just here me out

if we do implament what is in the table like this

Note this will not effect existing admin until active admin have recived confermation from them that they are awere of it


 * 1) when a user recives admin rights they are awere that if they wish to leave the wiki for 6 months or more they should leave a message or (not yet created template for absense)
 * 2) When the user leaves and has this nothing will happen (life goes on so to speak)
 * 3) if the user doesn't display the template or a similar message and hasn't been here for six months they are contacted or atempted to be contacted by email or talk page
 * 4) if by 8 months they havn't returned or replied a warning is placed about possible removal of rights
 * 5) if another two months pass and they haven't replied a Bureaucrat can apply for rights removal

I see nothing wrong with this system and cannot understand why people are against it if people wish to leave then they should be able to but the wiki should be ble to continue as if they were there. removing there admin rights is not blocking them they can still come back as a user and when they do so can be reinstated as an admin if they wish

I know this is going to get some negitive responces but i don't see the problem wth putting it in place there i have explained it

I think people opposed to this should explain why instead of the other way round as its not trying to get rid of admins its trying to ensure that there are plenty around because at the moment i think if all fifteen were active or atleast 6 or 7 we would have what we need.

also if a user wants to be an admin then it seems obvious that they should also want to be involvedand if they are really busy i don't see why (if we introduce this that they cannot stick a template on their talk page saying so

ok my rant is done Dark Lord Xander 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with your idea is that I can't see any benefit to it.


 * Say an admin has left. If you take away their privileges, there are two potential outcomes:
 * They never come back. There is no benefit from having taken away their sysop privileges.
 * They do come back. This means they have to get back their privileges, which would be inconvenient. There is no benefit from having taken away their sysop privileges and indeed there was a slight negative outcome.


 * As for getting people to come back, I don't see why it would. If you send a message to them, in most cases it's not going to change the circumstances for which they left. If they left because they're simply too busy, because they've lost interest in Doctor Who, because they're dead, et cetera, then telling them that they will lose their sysop privileges won't make a difference.


 * I also don't see why we need to tell people when we're leaving. It should be rather obvious, due to the fact that they have left. In any case, in general people don't plan to leave forever, they just have some other circumstances that they have little control over. -<Azes13 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being an admin isn't all about these 'privileges', there's a reason the logo in wikipedia is a mop and bucket. The admins need to be the ones to fix the complicated things (several of the admin in the not so active list have assisted with the more complicated elements of this wiki), others who may not be as active as you wish when they do contribute help.
 * I also don't understand why we need to remove them, there isn't a maximum limit on Admins, and by implementing such a harsh policy with such a small user base compared to the Wookiepedia for example we might risk alienating potential users, as it's implied if you're not continuing to contribute and say just cleaning up the vomit on the floor you're not actively participating? --Tangerineduel 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times i have to say this this proposal is not about removing admin rights, blocking admins, claiming credit for all the hard work admins have done it is simply trying to put in place a system for notification as you say the admins need to be the ones to fix the complicated things, if they are not here who will fix them if we don't know when they are coming back how will we know to give more people user rights in order to train them in these tasks and a the moment only 4 of 15 are present that 26%


 * There's more than one sysop, you know. If one is gone, you can rely on the others. I mean, it's hardly like the sysops control the very structure of the wiki. We do things like delete pages. It's not all that severe. -<Azes13 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

what if we have a problem with logging in for example (which has happened on the phantom wiki and is still a problem a year later the admin who could fix it haven't been on for about a year before the problem and cannot be contacted by there talk pages as they don't use them any more.


 * Then removing their privileges or telling them won't fix that problem. If they're gone and can't be contacted, then they're gone and can't be contacted. -<Azes13 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok (its late and im tired at aroun 3:00AM) forget the removal of rights can we at least agree that because an admin has more responsibliity than the avarage user they should notify by their talk page if they are going to be absent for say six months to six years can i at least get you to agree to that or should i concede defeat and end this debate as really its going around in circles with no actual progress to resolving the issue or even admiting that having the majority of admins absent is an issue Dark Lord Xander 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't see why an admin should have to put notices on their talk page. The clearest evidence that someone has left is the fact that they have left. -

if only it was easy to copy interwiki :)

but fine its obvious that no adimn will even stop to consider this i guess its just hard transfering from on wiki to another where it seems things are run differently to how i was introduced to them this will be my final post on the matter if anyone wishes to continue it so be it but i am bowing out (and Getting some sleep) Dark Lord Xander 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a non-admin, I'm absolutely opposed to any kind of revocation of powers simply on the basis of absence. Nor do I think anyone should be obliged to notify anyone of a break they might be taking.  Contributing to a wiki is a voluntary activity.  One's enthusiasm for the project naturally waxes and wanes.  If you're not getting paid to do a job, you don't have to tell someone when you're away.  Sometimes life events can completely disrupt the patterns that one has become used to, and notifying a wiki that you're going to be gone just isn't high on the priority list.  No offense, but if I have a death in the family or lose my job or get married or have a baby, you lot aren't exactly going to be on the top of my notify list.


 * Now, in a related vein, it might be helpful to establish a sort of "minimum number" of active admins, and ensure that the place is always staffed to that level. What we don't want happening is for the active admins to dwindle to the point that new admins can't be created.  Then, it would seem to me, the joint will be in a precarious position.   I have no idea what the minimum number is, but active admins should occasionally check the sysop list to make sure we're not in danger of losing the ability to perpetuate admin powers to the next "generation" of active admins.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think a minimum would be enough to theoretically keep the site protected at any given time during a 24 hour period. I've noticed that most admin duties seem to be performed during the earlier hours of the day (Well, relative to my time in Central Time USA), but as much during the later hours. If that makes sense. --Colleyd 13:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Woof.


 * As for admins who are active and what not: Tardis:Administrators and those who I'm relatively certain about who are around on a regular basis. As for a 'minimum number' I'm not sure how you'd go about calculating it as there are probably too many variables to throw the calculation. --Tangerineduel 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think at a minimum you need three or five active admins, simply because some things may need to be voted on, and you need an odd number in order to achieve a majority. While "voting" per se doesn't come into many discussions about article content, I would imagine the things admins might discuss would be somewhat more mundane and arbitrary.  Do we ban someone?  Do we make a background for a thing blue or red?  Do we put this element or that element on the main page?  I mean once something comes to an admins plate it's usually because consensus building isn't appropriate or has failed, leading to a need for a simple vote.  That takes at least 3 people, but 5 might make it easier to get the necessary majority to pass or reject a proposal.  I would also think you'd need at least two bureaucrats, to increase the likelihood that one will be in every few days to tackle those problems only a bureaucrat can.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Five does sound about right as a minimum because three seems two low and i only see reasons adding more than five (active admins) to hadle an increaed amount of users, or combat consant vandal attacks something like that as long as there are around five present continuously (at least regually) then there shouldn't be any problems Dark Lord Xander 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I've missed the main debate, I thought it was worth contributing anyway. Calling me an active administrator would be misleading as I haven't contributed significantly for a long time, along with many others on the admin list that no longer contribute. However all of the users on the list were given those rights based on the work they did on the wiki and the help they gave to building it up to the level it's at today. To remove those rights needlessly would be pointless. Also there is no admin number limit so I don't see how a number of inactive admins affects the wiki negatively. Also these admins can be contacted if needed, through their talk pages and some will return and help out if thre is a big need for somebody with admin status. I dont understand why, because an admin has more rights, they should notify people when they will go and return either. They are normal people and shouldn't have to set out their plans on here and keep track of their acativities for the wiki. The description of the proposal was that it wasn't about getting rid of admins but about making sure there are plenty around. I understand the concern about the level of active admins needed but removing adminship won't change that, if people are going to stop editing they can't be forced into returning and editing by removing their status, that was just create ill-feeling and make them less likely to return, which won't increase the number of active admins. The only way to have more active admins is to appoint more and thats down to the bureaucrats, if they think they should, and there are several active bureacrats so I don't see any problem there either but we shouldn't create admins for the sake of it, just to build up numbers, so I think we should be careful with the idea of minimum numbers of active admins, but it's something that could be discussed. Phew! That's all for now.--GingerM 08:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)