Forum:Removing Inactive Administrators Powers
When I was looking at the RFA section and admin, I found a list of inactive admin's and my idea is that we should remove any inactive powers from them. If there on holiday then thats excluded but if they quit or retired then why shouldn't we? If the user comes back then he/she has to request them back. How about it? Mo 55 55 Talk|Sign 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to neutral unless you have a new point that was not point out.. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 13:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - We've had this type of discussion before. Please see Forum:Requirements for staying a sysop/b'crat. There was no consensus to desysop inactive admins. Unless you have some new points to bring up, it might be better to close this. C.ChiamTalk 13:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - (edit conflict) There was another discussion on this a while back, so I've provided a link to it for reference. There didn't seem to be any consensus, but I don't think it was carried out. 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose NO. NO. NO. As the above two have pointed out, there have been previous discussions on this. Please pay attention to what goes on in the Yew Grove, plox. Kevin-020 22:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - NO NO NO I DON'T LIKE TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME SO LETS JUST NOT DEAL WITH IT! I will always support this, if you are given responsibility and power then you deserve to be held to a higher standard. Please don't paste links to AEAE. TEbuddy 23:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - "All editors are equal means that every editor has an equal say during any type of community discussion. This includes everything from VfDs to RfAs to Yew Grove discussions such as this one. Administrators are only trusted editors who have been given an extension to their normal editing abilities. They are in no way higher than other trusted users who lack sysop powers. One of the wikis you mentioned (Wowwiki) has a very similar RFA system to us. There are no formal requirements for an RFA and there is no limit on nominations. No Wowwiki administrator has ever been desysopped for inactivity. The only real difference between them and us is the number of administrators. I cannot say why that is so. Perhaps it is due to a lesser number of editors who are qualified for adminship. Perhaps the community is more judgemental. Or perhaps fewer editors express interest in adminship on Wowwiki. It seems that the only difference is (again) the editors themselves. The policies, scope, and size of the wiki is similar but the community is different. As you can clearly see, every wiki is different. Dtm142 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)"
Oppose - As per Soldier.
03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - What would this proposal achieve? Are there any convincing reasons to remove a sysops powers? Would they have to go through another RfA? This is like blocking an editor when they're on Wikibreak. cflm (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, the only situations in which someone should have their admin powers taken away are blatent vandalism or consistently breaking any other of the wikis policies without valid reason. --Serenity1137 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Serenity's got it. Admin tools should only be removed when the admin in question has abused the tools and/or requested them to be removed (for whatever reason). We may not know why some admins are inactive, but they may well return - having their tools removed in the mean time (without their consultation) could dishearten them or even drive them away.09:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hadn't thought of that, we should remember that these admins are people who we have decided are extremely trustworthy and constructive editors, pushing them away would be detrimental to the community --Serenity1137 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)