Forum:Inactive Administrators

After discussing the idea thoroughly with a few users of the wiki (mainly Fly the Fox among a few others), I have come to a personal realization that "inactive" administrators/chat moderators/rollbacks should probably be demoted.

Before you all oppose the thread claiming that the idea is unfair, ponder this. If a new user, experienced or not, goes through the administrator page, they may feel so inclined to contact such an administrator asking for help. Although listed as 'inactive', it may just be better to scrap the idea of listing status as an administrator, and just list the active ones. Now, the possibility of a user potentially bugging an inactive is low, and I realize, but I have other reasons. What if they come back, make an edit and leave? A user may be inclined to ask them a question, and they will be leaving a welcome message on others talk pages if they are the last to edit. If the user is not editing, why do they need the rights? We understand and appreciate their service to the wiki, but it's completely unnecessary to allow them to maintain their rights. They deserved their rights, they got them. If their time on the wiki is done, they can be removed until they come back to the wiki. If they decide to come back and be fully (or at least partially) active with the community, they will be given their rights once again. Instead of continuing to ramble, I'll summarize what I believe should be done here:


 * Inactive Administrators and Bureaucrats are to be demoted (the latter by Wikia Staff, who are always more than happy to assist) when inactive. This is to keep the current administrative list fresh and new for users to easily see who is an active administrator and who can quickly respond to them, among other reasons. It is unnecessary for said administrators to maintain their rights, and it will decrease the amount of administrators we actually have.
 * If the demoted administrator becomes active once again, they will be allowed to keep their rights. They will be repromoted for the entire duration they are active.
 * Demoted administrators will be maintained on the administrator list in respect, and for posterity. They will be under the main administrator list and it should be made clear not to contact them, as they are inactive.
 * Said users should not be demoted immediately in cases of one month inactivity, as the user might have a busy real life or other priorities. This should only be done in cases of long-term inactivty (say, three months) or announced inactivity. (EDIT: This would still give "status" on the administrator page purpose; for users who have not announced inactivity but have rather fallen into it.)
 * The condition being that the respective "Inactive" Administrators be forwarded a message regarding their inactivity and removal of rights first, giving them the option to choose their return. While it may seem unlikely that they'll be willing to return, I only think it's fair that we give them the opportunity. (Sacor's Idea, I fully approve of it.)

Do not think of this as a "demotion" in the way you think of it. Think of it as them retiring. If you retire from a job, logs are kept, but you aren't going to be maintained on a list of staff members. These users are retired, and should be treated as such. They may regain their rights if they become active, it's just pointless to allow them to maintain their rights. -- 21:46, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I support. 21:52, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it would be pointless to demote inactive users and it sounds like quite a hassel for a minor porblem can be resolved by other means.  Myself  123  21:58, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a "hassle", as it is rather simple to demote users, but this won't apply if a user is simply inactive for a month. This should be long-term inactivity or announced inactivity only. -- 22:00, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, there's the fact of the matter that you have demote them, them promote them if they return. I don't think the process is needed.  Myself  123  22:03, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that some people might try to hack into the accounts of inactive Admins/Crats and cause trouble with them, since such accounts would be considered easy targets since they're supposedly not being regularly managed/maintained anymore. I suppose I wouldn't mind supporting for the time being, unless someone makes some compelling counter-arguments. Lloyd the Cat "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  22:01, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

The downside to keeping admins on the list is so rare and so harmless that it's not worth the extra effort that you're expecting of the bureaucrats and staff. You say it is unnecessary for admins to keep their rights; I say it is unnecessary to demote them. Disagree. -- Supermorff (talk) 22:02, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to agree. It could help manage our administrator limits we have on here (There are WAY too many inactive users with right). I fully support. 22:05, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I will support, only under the conditions that the respective Administrators be messaged about their inactivity and removal of rights firstly. This way, they will be granted the opportunity to decide whether to return or not. While the possibility of returning may seem unlikely, it's only fair to them. 22:12, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've added it to my list of proposals. -- 22:12, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Supermorff, as far as I know, the staff do not mind demoting inactive bureaucrats if so needed. This idea is practiced at other wikis (including our sister wiki, the Sonic Fanon wiki) and I have seen them willing to demote inactive bureaucrats. I'm not sure what their stance is on demoting founders, but I have seen it done before under similar and different circumstances (and said user is maintained on the administrator list as well on Sonic Fanon Wiki). Again, this is only to be done in more extreme cases of inactivity (which do not happen daily), so I don't see the extra "effort" that is being expected here. -- 22:18, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I support. --- 23:09, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose, what if those users come back? Pacmansonic138 (talk) 00:29, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Per Morff. Also, Bullet, I don't understand what you're trying to get at in your last comment. (@Pac: They get promoted again)00:30, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

I get the part about hackers getting on inactive accounts and causing chaos; but i don't think it would be nice if we demote admins who have done a good job. Doing nothing is not a strong enough reason why a admin should be demoted. To me, it's like killing a mockingbird. 00:36, April 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, don't think of it as a demotion, but as retirement. Also, to the users opposing, are you also in opposition to simply removing them from the list so only active staff can be seen? -- 00:41, April 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think there's any point in this, it seems like we'd be going performing a pointless task just for an issue that's very rare and unlikely to happen and can be resolved easily.  Myself  123  00:46, April 30, 2013 (UTC)