Avatar Wiki:War Room/Qualifications for Retaining Adminship

Forums: War Room → Qualifications for Retaining Adminship

Note: This thread has been unedited for 3405 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

A previous forum that was quickly retracted brought up the point that the administrator The 888th Avatar had past the two-month point of inactivity that warrants the stripping of his admin position. It was removed after it met opposition from users who made arguments outside of the forum. There was a heated argument that ultimately boiled down to the dilemma between enforcing the rules that are in place and demoting 888 and ignoring the policy out of fear of some kind of consequence that could follow.

I do not believe that, in a wiki as prestigious as ours, it is acceptable to simply ignore policy pertaining to the administrators. The official policy of Avatar Wiki ought to be enforced. That being said, I understand the reasons users would want to keep 888 as an admin, so I decided I would attempt to find some kind of compromise. If we do not believe in enforcing, or we do not agree with, the current rules, then the rules need to change. We cannot simply ignore the rulebook, so if we aren't going to play by it then adjusting the rulebook is necessary.

This is the current policy regarding administrator activity:

"Administrators should remain active to assist the wiki, having been entrusted with additional user rights by its community. An active status is defined as:

- Continuing substantial contributions, defined as edits that do not include modifying user space pages, or correcting spelling/grammar/formatting.

- A steady flow of such contributions, defined as editing on most days each month.

- Reasonable speed in replying to user talk messages, defined as replying before the poster of the user talk message is forced to make an alternative consultation.

Administrators should alert the community to a leave of absence by adding the inactivity template to their user page. The administrator should also mark themselves as inactive on the list of administrators. Leaves of absence may be for any length up to two months. If the administrator continues to be inactive for a prolonged period of time, removal of user rights will be considered by an active bureaucrat based on the non-fulfillment of the activity guidelines further above. Consideration will begin from when any leaves of absence were meant to finish. Where removal may be contentious, an active bureaucrat should also consult other community members."

The part of the policy 888 violated was the two month absence. If users do not want to demote 888, that is the part of the policy that needs adjusting. I propose we either find a more agreeable rule regarding long-term absences, or we keep them in place and agree to enforce them. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 23:07, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for this. Something needs to change so that we can abide by the rules and make the wiki a better place. --Mageddon725 - talk 23:22, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I do not see that the two month absence part of the policy should be removed or altered (and, I will add that it would be nice for those that were not involved in the discussion mentioned to have an account or summary of the reasoning that was given that led to the retraction of the previous forum). Adminship is about having additional tools that aid in maintenance on the wiki; if a user has been absent for two months, then I do not see that they are demonstrating a need for those tools. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 23:41, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

The discussion, which took place on Facebook, is far too long and quite simply unneeded here. I will say that it seems myself, Mage, Minnichi, and Fruipit have agreed that if we are going to demote admins who qualify for demotion due to lack of activity, there need to be people willing to step up and do a better job. At the suggestion of Minnichi, I have decided I am in fact willing to run for admin, though I don't think it necessarily has to be me who runs or wins, should we decide to demote 888. The point is, I think the rule ought to be kept and enforced, and I am willing to step up to the plate if it is enforced. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) Omashu Rocks (talk - contribs) 00:07, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Another idea has been proposed, again in a medium other than this forum: should 888 be removed, which seems to be the consensus as of now, we could drop his position and lower the number of admins we have by one. Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) Omashu Rocks (talk - contribs) 01:21, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I just want to put in a word here before, as seems likely, the knives come out from both sides on this issue. I am apologetic of the fact that my absences this year have been quite long and I appreciate that there are users who do want to step up and do more in terms of this wiki. At the same time, I would've appreciated an effort to contact me before doing anything else. Having said that, as I indicated to some about two months ago, my return to more frequent activity has been imminent. The key factors that have conspired to prevent me from looking here as frequently as I would like are my election year job, which I've now finished, and the holiday break I needed after that, which I'm still on and am about to return home from. I think it is quite certain, from any perspective, that those factors won't be relevant come Christmas Day.

Having now been an admin here for close to six years, while my shortcomings are many (and some older users might be able to recall a funny tale or two), I don't think I'm overstepping the mark by saying I'm pretty qualified to contribute strongly. In terms of this discussion, let me just say that the wiki I have been part of and continue to be a part of doesn't glorify adminship. We should approach a discussion like this without an attitude that seems to place adminship as some sort of political position and instead simply ask whether there is a backlog in tasks admins need to do.

If we reframe the question in those terms, the best course of action seems to be to loosen the rules on when an admin is considered active. I believe we're at the point where the need for admins isn't as desperate as it was maybe a year or two ago, but at the same time, we're not at the point where we should be asking people to give up their rights. At most, we should consider reducing admins by natural attrition — not replacing admins who give up their rights. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:19, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 888. I know this is probably awkward, but you should know that I don't think anyone has a personal issue with you. I just believe the policy should be enforced or adjusted. Since you seem to prefer the latter, did you have any ideas in mind for changes? Omashu Rocks (Talk - Crossfire) 02:30, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

As OR has said, this is nothing against you personally. It's more of a policy issue, given your inactivity and the current policy in play. If we can reach a better solution, than I'm sure everyone is open to that. --Mageddon725 - talk 02:32, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that, because the admins enforce the rules, they should be held to even higher standards then normal users when it comes to policies. That being said, admins are people with lives just like the rest of us, and there will be some instances when they will have to step away for a short period of time. I vote to change policy. Perhaps a good policy to instate would be that, if an admin needs to take a leave of absence for two months or more, that he/she notify the other admins of their absence, give an expected return date, and if that return date is not adhered to, then strip them of their privileges. Of course this is just an idea and needs tweaking. Also, it doesn't solve the situation at hand. As harsh as it may seem, The 888th Avatar did not adhere to the policies, and he should experience the consequences put in place, as he should have been well aware of them. Katherine Rebekah (wall • contribs)

Definitely not thinking anyone has something against me. :) In terms of suggestions, I think the policy should be more open ended. Instead of being too rigid and requiring some sort of immediate action when its requirements are fulfilled, it should call for a discussion like this where members should come to a consensus on what to do, be that asking the admin what's going on, replacing them, reviewing adminship policy, or doing nothing, etc. Basically, I think we need to acknowledge that life gets pretty messy and that doing things to the letter isn't always the outcome a place like this needs. The 888th Avatar (talk) 02:50, December 23, 2014 (UTC)