Since they haven't touched the wiki in over 2 years. I believe that's like crossing the border, having to know even if they come back and be active after 3 years (which is unlikely) they would be of no use.
Some main points I can make are:
Cleanup : Cleaning this wiki up, removing useless things/users.
They haven't touch the wiki in 2+ years.
An admin isn't an admin is he/she doesn't do his/her job
Also, we will try to confirm to these users that they will be demoted of course, someway-somehow by contact. So no issue like ; "Where is my admin right?' when they somehow comeback. If they fail to reply us in a while, they should be demotes
Another thing I feel like expressing was a slight warning for admins who are like 80% inactive or only come here for personal interests and don't help, because that would mean they just are called admins and nothing else. However I'm still unsure to demoted semi-actives since they would either mind it and it brings SNN no benefit. However, they still don't do what an admin should ; Only 9 out of 18 users do admin duties on regular bases, that's like 50%.
So I'd love to hear you you people have to say, and hopefully we all keep our heads cool about this ^^. --Quack Like you mean it 22:59, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that the users you have listed have not been doing the duties in a long time (some users may not even recongize the names) and I somewhat agree that they may have to be demoted, your point on the "80% inactive" admins seems to cross me in the wrong way. Your point there puts pressure on the admins to do their job. We should all remember that no matter how dedicated users on SNN can be, they have lives outside their computers. Some users try to keep up their grades, others have relationships to maintain, others have work to find and some are even parents. We can't put that sort of pressure on other users. It also feels like we're "bribing" them back or even blackmailing them. These are just my thoughts on the matter. --Murphyshane - 熱! Don't click here 23:08, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, what you said makes a ton of sense. But that's just the reason they shouldn't be admins, I can understand they are busy but if they can't carry admin duties, lets just demote few that can no longer help due to the outside world. This wiki needs some cleanup, We aren't bribing them to edit more, I just wanna assure that if they wont be willing to do what at admin should, then they can give up. This rule for "80% inactives" is totally is totally in the users hand and will be only demoted on the users approval. --Quack Like you mean it 23:14, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
Didn't we already decide not to do anything with the User rights of inactive Administrators...? Because whether we did or not, I don't really think anything should be done anyway. Also, I don't really like how "cleaning up this Wiki of useless things/Users" sounds in my head, because the latter makes it almost sound as though we don't respect any Users who've been inactive for some time. Although I understand what you mean, perhaps you should reword a thing or two so no one takes some of your arguments the wrong way? Also, I feel Murphy makes a good point on the "80% inactive Users" thing. At any rate, I think I'm gonna oppose this for now. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:13, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
I guess we did, but it was recently discussed again, so I thought of giving my points. Your point about respect doesn't really cut to me. Respect is for those who are doing this wiki good and demoting isn't being done because I.. hate or something.. also.. Some time as is in a very long time. Also, I guess semi-actives shouldn't be demoted. --Quack Like you mean it 23:18, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
But a lot of these Users have done the Wiki good. Just because they aren't doing anything now doesn't mean we should completely revoke the idea of treating them with any kind of respect, because once upon a time they've earned enough respect to get promoted to Admins in the first place. The way you worded a couple things may put some people off, especially those who knew some of these inactive Admins, so talking about these former Admins as though they're comparable to, say, old policies and features we no longer have in place would possibly distract some Users from the main points you're trying to make in this forum. And you're right, perhaps semi-actives shouldn't be demoted. It would be rather stupid in my opinion if we did that, even if they've done nothing to truly warrant a demotion (example: displaying poor behavior and blatantly abusing their rights and position around the Wiki). Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:29, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
Given my own lack of activity I probably don't have any right to be involved in this, but I don't think any of these people should be demoted. The newer Users may not know these guys but for older Users like me, most of these people are iconic. Hell, if I recall correctly Almafeta is the guy who freaking MADE this wiki in the first place! FairFieldFencer was the guy who gave me the opportunity to become an admin, and at one point was a very prevalent User as a whole. Sonicrox14- Shelly- ....What can I even say about her that anyone who joined the wiki in the last year doesn't already know? Until school and real life took up all her time, sh was, without exaggeration, the single most popular User on this wiki. She was kind, caring, charismatic, and very much involved.
Sure, these people may not be around anymore. Yes, regardless of their former actions and activity things do change. But they could also change in the opposite. Any given day these Users could decide to come back and rejoin the wiki, and put the privileges given to them to good use. What's more, Gen already said just about everything that needs to be said when it comes to respecting and honoring these Users and what they did.
While I can agree with the 2 of you, but to me you guys are expressing that them becoming admins was a lifetime opportunity and it's literally changed everything. To me, wiki adminship not too much of a big deal as people say it is.
And about honor to the users, well I'm sure you Kagi, know a lot more about them than I do, so i can't argue.
But to me your examples don't ring 'admin' to me, Almafeta has 56 edits, them being making the stub template and some mains articles and other stuff on the home-page, that could be done by anyone else but even better, not saying Almafeta was a bad user, he/she is great, I know.
And because FFF gave you adminship, is a reason you respect him, not anyone else, while I agree FFF has done great contributions, he will not be wanting to do for the rest of his life.
And Sonicrox14.. well I don't wanna argue about her to you. :P
I might take this forum down, but you guys, especially Gen, don't get the point, this isn't about bribing users to come back or disrespecting them, I'm.. just kinda glued to the opinion that they've done what they've done a long time ago, now they can't live up to what they've done anymore. So they should be demoted, but then again, opinions are opinions. --Quack Like you mean it 10:05, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
I can personally assure you that I did understand the point of this forum, Disco. What I'm trying to make you understand is that wording a few things wrong is likely to distract some of the other Users from the main purpose of the forum, because at the worst it could lead to several people calling you out for sounding disrespectful towards older users who're no longer around just because you feel that they've essentially outlived their usefulness. And lo and behold, some people did just that. As for my opinion on the true subject matter of the forum... I made it clear in my first post that I don't think anything seriously needs to be done about the inactive Admins. Why? I'll explain: If something is done with those accounts that we find inappropriate or threatening, whether by the people who made them or someone else who somehow managed to hack them, we have the power and authority to take away their Adminship at any time if its deemed necessary. So why revoke the rights for these inactive Users even though there's no real problem present in letting them stay as is anyway? Its not harming anyone. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:54, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
Support: While I do agree with Silver, I'm going to support this. Now I know what you're thinking: why is Blue supporting this? Well, I'll point out that I was one of the administrators that Disco mentioned this forum to. Not that this matters, but still. At first, I would have not agreed to it, but yet again, I was sleepy during that time. I think this would be a great idea to demote them. And I have an idea that will work: let's just say we demote the administrators that are inactive, and one of the administrators comes back. What do we do then? Honestly, they should be promoted back if they've been active enough. But, I'll be another user saying this: about 75% of these administrators will hardly show up again on the wiki, and even if they do, I highly doubt they will return to help the wiki. And in all seriousness, I'm sick of administrators that say "We have enough administrators." Less than half of the administrators we have now do anything on the wiki. I'm sorry if I was rough on any user, but I'm proving my point. BlueSpeeder (talk) 21:13, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna oppose, like last time, this is pretty pointless. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 23:22, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
I oppose, because we don't know if they'll come back eventually. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 00:28, July 27, 2013 (UTC))
Oppose, because we had this discussion at Forum:Inactive Administrators just three months ago. In brief: adminship is not a job or a responsibility, it is an additional set of abilities that some people have been trusted with. If these users have not misused their abilities, I see no reason they shouldn't keep them. Would I feel a bit uncomfortable if they came back and started editing as if they'd never left? Yes, but that's no reason to demote them in itself. -- Supermorff (talk) 07:06, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
Having inactive admins in no way stops us from having active admins. The two things are completely unrelated. -- Supermorff (talk) 18:14, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
As much as I would love to have lapsing user rights rule, I doubt this is going to go through. You have my support, but we already reached a compromise of sorts in the last discussion. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 01:42, August 2, 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we are divided on this, and are no where near consensus. If no one has anything else to say, i close it as is. SilverPlays97 (Wall) (Contributions) 20:30, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
I think I'll throw in my support right about now. However, I recommend that Sonicrox14 be discluded from this list, as she is now active again. SeriousSamHeavy 20:47, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
Going to reiterate my support here. It's still my personal belief that inactive administrators should be relieved of their position here on the Sonic News Network. I am not trying to imply that these administrators "need" to do their duties to keep their rights, I am simply saying that they have no reason to keep them, either. I feel a lapsing rights rule would do no harm, and here's why:
Inactive administrators, as their "title" suggests, are inactive. Whether they expressed openly that they would not be returning or if they took an unexpected absence is irrelevant. Just demote them to prevent any possible breach in security or any other issues.
Here's what I propose we do:
After three consecutive months of inactivity, the user in question is informed of their pending demotion and the lapsing rights rule. If they neglect to respond (or have fallen off the Earth entirely), they'll be demoted two weeks later. If and when they return, they can request to have their rights back.
Supermorff once said that this is asking too much of the bureaucrats. I'll do it if it's too much of a burden for him. Wikia Staff is always willing to demote inactive bureaucrats, as demonstrated on wikis such as Sonic Fanon Wiki, FiM Wiki, and even my own personal wiki. It's not difficult, and is certainly not rocket science. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 18:07, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
Very well said, Bullet. Sounds like a great thing to do. But I prefer more than 3 months. I feel like it's too short... Since most of our inactive admins are ... fallen off the Earth... entirely? I'm in support here. --DiscoDiva 07:50, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
I know I'm late, but I'm going to oppose, per all who have opposed so far. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 19:31, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
Just to make it clear and throw it out there, despite my own lack of activity given... outside situations, I oppose the demotion concept.--Kagimizu-Seeya 'round 04:11, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
I think the majority of the community is uncomfortable with this concept. Anyadmin willing close this forum? --DiscoDiva 05:12, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to be an admin to close a site discussion. :) Either way, I'd prefer this forum to stay open for a while. The peeps are still trickling in with their opinions. :/ -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 16:22, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Whoawhoawhoa. Where did you get the idea that I'm discouraging it? I was stating it as a reason not to close the forum. I was emphasizing community input, not dissuading others from voicing their opinions. -- Shadowunleashed13 (talk) 23:26, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Okay-okay. Lets not flame, now. <3 --DiscoDiva 05:36, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
What if they come back to find they have been demoted kinda seems a bit unfair even though they haven't contributed to the wiki so I kinda understand what Bullet means.Another topic regarding inactive members is that when they haven't been on in a while,people start undoing edits on their profile page which I find unfair considering if they came back and saw that all their personalized content on their profile would seem pretty upsetting to them,Can we do something about that? LuffyNarutoThe Greatest Ninja Pirate EverEdsta (talk) 18:26, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
*ahem* I think Bullet's idea is quite good if we were to do a lapsing rights rule. GraveEclipse567 01:38, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Please thoroughly read through the contents of this forum before you vote, so you fully grasp the intention and aim of the potential "lapsing rights" rule. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 05:54, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
If this rule were to be introduced, in summary, here's what it would do:
Demote inactive administrators (this also applies to chat moderators and rollbacks) after four consecutive months of inactivity (at the very least a few substantial edits should have been made)
Warn them of their pending demotion two weeks before hand.
If there's no response, we demote them.
If they return to the SNN with a clear intention of becoming active again (two weeks with significant activity), they will be repromoted upon request.
Please don't tell people to read the whole discussion when setting up a vote. Just give a summary and explain in clear language what the options are. What is 'yes'? What is 'no'? What are 'lapsing rights'? -- Supermorff (talk) 14:59, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. While I did create this voting section in a hurry, when I said 'lapsing rights', I was referring to the post in which I reiterated my support. You seem to be the only one with problems... --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 19:36, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
I am not confident that everyone who has voted so far has the same understanding of what they are voting for or against. But my point was applicable to all site discussions. Don't ask people to vote on something if you're not being clear about what they are voting on. Besides, you'll need a short summary of what's being decided when closing the discussion, so you might as well put the summary in the vote so it can help people make an informed decision. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:20, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
Well I can reassure you that everyone who has voted fully understands what a lapsing rights rule will do. It's a frequent topic in the chatroom, and upon seeing the voting section for themselves, numerous users have already approached me for clarification as to what a lapsing rights rule would do. I happily provided. The remaining users consist of administrators and other responsible users. I wouldn't assume ignorance in users. It's as if you are signing a contract. You're supposed to thoroughly read through the contract before slapping your name on it. If you're still unconvinced, I can awkwardly approach every single user interrogating them just to prove a point. But that shouldn't be a prerequisite for this forum to close. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 00:00, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Supermorff was right. The summary is alot clearer. I will change my vote now.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 09:19, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
"Well I can reassure you that everyone who has voted fully understands what a lapsing rights rule will do." Incorrect statement, per Slug-Drones.
"It's a frequent topic in the chatroom" Chatroom is not used for site discussion.
"upon seeing the voting section for themselves, numerous users have already approached me for clarification as to what a lapsing rights rule would do." That should have been a sign that the explanation in the voting section on the site discussion was not sufficient. Site discussions are supposed to be self-contained.
"It's as if you are signing a contract." No it isn't, it's as if you are voting in a referendum. Nobody assumes that everyone knows the context or purpose of a referendum before voting starts. That's why there are so many discussions about the wording of the question.
"If you're still unconvinced, I can awkwardly approach every single user interrogating them just to prove a point." Disingenuous. I never asked you to contact people to inform them. I asked you to add a summary. You have now done so, leading to one person changing their vote.
"I'll add a summary if it makes you happy." Thank you.
"There should be no need to vote again, though." Agreed.
"I already find adding a summary redundant." I don't really understand that, as you admitted in Forum:Crossover Characters that you had misunderstood the point of a voting section until I added a summary. Regardless, I am glad that we have now come to an agreement. -- Supermorff (talk) 09:34, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
And I don't really understand your "inconsistent opinions" either, but yeah. I guess "glad" is a mutual feeling, but only because this idea is finally going through. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 19:25, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "inconsistent opinions", as I never used that phrase. -- Supermorff (talk) 08:22, September 8, 2013 (UTC)