I've been keeping tabs on the number of administrators which have been responsive about the recent move, and was thinking that there are a few administrators on/from WoWWiki which have not been responsive on the forum thread about moving, or on the administrator email list, or have not had a presence on IRC. This leads me to suggest that they should be deopped here, with community consensus to do so.
I am not against including an automatic reopping for them, if they choose to become active again, but I am gravely doubtful that such will occur. This condition would also be dependent on community consensus.
This suggestion is not intended to set a precedent, but merely to clear a bit of cruft from the ranks, when it is the ideal time to be able to point clearly to who the administrators are. I'll note that many of these suggested contributed greatly at some point, as well.
The admins:
If my reasoning is requested for this list (or those not included), I shall provide it. Thoughts? --Sky (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt any of them would come back and start trouble with the powers that they still currently wield, and I agree that if they want to come back and become active again that the powers can easily be restored. So I see no issue with just cleaning up a bit and really show active and new users who is still around and able to help them.
(Sssss/Slithered) 05:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the inactive Administrators go, then they should at least be noted somewhere for posterity, along with Adys. Possibly Fandyllic and Kirkburn too, because even bad blood does not negate what they have contributed. I have no opinion on this beyond giving credit to past admins. It would be a bit mean to demote them, but they are gone.--SWM2448 05:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say put them in some kind of "administrator emeritus" category - not expecting any of these guys to come back, but ya never know...
Joshmaul, Loremaster of Chaos (Leave a Message) 06:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would support Joshmaul's idea. It is respectful. Ddcorkum (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would support Joshmaul's idea. It is respectful. Ddcorkum (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Administrator Emeritus" sounds okay. We should post to their talk pages that they need but ask to be restored to admin status, rather than have them stumble upon the admin page, or go away thinking we're shunning them. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the requirements to be changed from "admin" to "admin emeritus" should be identical as for those to be changed from normal to admin in the first place (ie, a vote to ensure it is supported by the community), and that once done, the person should be nominated freshly and voted upon freshly if the person wishes to be an admin once again in the future. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 22:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- A separate vote for every inactive administrator? Respectful and fair? Yes. Practical? No. It will be a mess, and most of the votes will likely be duplicates anyways. Maybe there should just be a single vote where in stead of voting yes and no to each, the votes are if anyone objects to a specific person being demoted, and why. Also, there is no bad blood.--SWM2448 08:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- If there were bad blood, we wouldn't be giving them the option to be re-opped simply by saying "I'm still here and want to be an admin." Also, I think the suggestion of voting each admin out and then voting them back in is missing the entire point, not to mention setting a VERY shaky precedent. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- A separate vote for every inactive administrator? Respectful and fair? Yes. Practical? No. It will be a mess, and most of the votes will likely be duplicates anyways. Maybe there should just be a single vote where in stead of voting yes and no to each, the votes are if anyone objects to a specific person being demoted, and why. Also, there is no bad blood.--SWM2448 08:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)