Inactive admins[]
It began to bug me that we have inactive admins listed on the Help page. They're fine on the admins page but having them on Help is almost like keeping dead people on your company's list of Board of Directors. Inactive admins may return, and it would be excellent for them to come back, but currently they're not very helpful being listed there. My philosophy is that admins should be automatically desysopped after some long, predetermined duration of inactivity to more accurately reflect the current leadership of a wiki, but since things don't work that way, I've made this change. It's certainly not unprecedented, as Central Wikia itself also regulates its list of Admins to reflect activity, but by actually desysopping them. Here I'm just proposing we keep our Help list like this. Blue Rook talk contribs04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Restructuring[]
This is probably the least significant topic I'll ever post about, but, I do feel sort of strange being above nearly everyone else who came before me in the admin listing. Are any of you interested in a re-ordering of it, perhaps by seniority? I also think it would be helpful to users to know which admins are active (some clearly aren't, and most likely will not notice questions on their talk pages). Leave it alone / suggestions? – Blue Rook 06:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs
- No qualms with me. --Deege515 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with indicating inactive admins, but I think alphabetization is important as it emphasizes that we're all equal, regardless of seniority. I don't consider any one admin more important than another. Are there any advantages to having them listed in a different order, other than the fact that inactive users are unlikely to reply on their talk pages? --Proudhug 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Beyond the seniority idea and the inactivity concern, nope, those were the only advantages I had in mind. Would the following be appropriate, then?
The Wiki 24 administrators are:
- 24 Administration - Talk - E-mail
- Blue Rook - Talk - E-mail
- CWY2190 - Talk - E-mail
- Deege515 - Talk - E-mail
- Proudhug - Talk - E-mail
- Kapoli - Talk - E-mail (currently inactive)
- StBacchus - Talk - E-mail (currently inactive)
- Xtreme680 - Talk - E-mail (currently inactive)
– Blue Rook 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs
- I'm sure there's a way it could look prettier though, either by adding a heading instead of three bracketed comments, or putting them in a separate column or something. You're better at things like that than I am. It really doesn't matter though, as long as it's clear to new editors which admins will reply to their messages. Another question is, how do we define "inactive"? --Proudhug 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently it took me the time it takes to incubate a baby to do this. I just now listed them in the manner you suggested, without bracketed comments but in two separate groupings. I defined inactive as "3 months", which of course, is arbitrary, but I'll argue is reasonable. I'll be the first to update this if our inactive fellows ever do revisit their old stomping grounds. – Blue Rook 08:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs