Thread:Drew1200/@comment-5052737-20130821185252/@comment-4845243-20130822225553

Alemas2005 wrote: Drew1200 wrote: Sorry for the late response, Alemas.

It's a great idea to try and keeps admins active, but I'm not sure this specific idea is very realistic.

First of all, the admins on this wiki work together as a team. We all communicate with each other very well, and just pretty much know what's going on. Adding another admin to the "team" is fun, but it changes a lot. In addition to that, it normally takes us about a month to pick new admins. If we were having to switch them out so often, it would just be a lot on the other admins.

Also, in a way, we already do this. When an admin goes inactive, there becomes a need for a new admin. We typically try to pick a new admin as soon as we can. The only part we do not do is demote inactive admins. None of us believe that would be fair. There's nothing in the policy saying that you're not allowed to go inactive if your an admin, so they've done nothing wrong that we would even be allowed to remove their rights.

So thanks for your suggestion, but right now, I think it may be better to just pick really good admins as they're needed. How about my second idea? Sorry, I missed that too. Your second idea (the one about warning before holidays) is a good one.