Thread:Drew1200/@comment-5052737-20130821185252/@comment-4845243-20130825223244

RePeat wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

RePeat wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

RePeat wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

RePeat wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

RePeat wrote: I'm not saying they can't have a life in the least bit. What I'm trying to say is that they've made a commitment to be active users of the community, and some just don't honor that commitment. Ergo, not being as responsible as is owed.

I get that people are busy. They have a real life, and that's good. But if you can't honor your commitment, you have to be responsible enough to let go, like Seaside.

And you accuse me of being unclear...? When did administrators make such a commitment, btw? The only commitment I have made is to use the time I spend on this wiki first for my administrative tasks and then for other things. I have not made any commitment to prioritize LMBW over other things in my life. The is absolutely no reason why admins can't be only semi-active (although we will not promote them unless they are active). We are not being irresponsible by being inactive.

What I would say, is that if you are not active enough to keep up with things, decisions should be made without you. But that is quite different than Alemas's drastic plan, that you agreed with.

There is also not a single reason to demote admins, as Alemas suggested, even if they go inactive. Seaside was never demoted. That is the plan you are supporting: to demote any admins who go inactive. But an admin who makes a few contributions is still more valuable than one who makes zero. Demoting them, thus, destroys assets.

Btw, your sig seriously messes up the quoting thing. There's no reason to use sigs on message walls, we can just click on your name. Ohhhhkay, this is pointless. I'm not sure you'll ever understand my point of view, so I bid you good day, make a big Administrator council comprised 50% of inactive users, change the entire place around, and feel free to wreck the wiki while you're at it. It's called habbit, okay? Well, maybe if you made the effort to explain it, which you could by responding to my legitimate points. Okay, it can be called that. I don't think I want to, since you'll just shoot my opinions down like clay targets, but here goes nothing.

Of course you're not making a committment to prioritize this place over everything. Certainly life is much better. But I'm saying, if you know you're not going to be active enough to completely fulfill your job's requirements, why sign on? That's why I'm against semi-active Administrators, especially when they give no information on why they are dropping to a semi-active state. I think semi-active is fine, again, so long as you completely fulfill the job's requirements.

I disagree that decisions should be made without you. . . not even talking about just Admins here. For example, the templates were mashed together not to long ago on the articles. It makes editing, well, different, I've heard. Granted I haven't edited articles in a while, but it still affects the editors. I never heard anything about changing the template until it was done. I think these kinds of things, template changes, skin changes, they should go through the "active" Administrators, yes, but afterwards, go through the active community as well.

Oh yes there is. Give me a legitimate reason why we should keep them, and I'll give you at least three legitimate reasons. What are the job's requirements, exactly?

Making one large template makes editing MUCH easier than having to remember tons of smaller ones. Transitioning might be tough, but this is definitely best in the long run. :)

Keep what? Assuming you are responding to what I said a while two comments ago in this chain. One reason is that even a mostly inactive administrator still contributes to an extent, and is beneficial. Thus, demoting them removes benefit. As for entirely inactive administrators, there is no reason to demote them - which is reason enough not to. Action is what requires a reason. Besides, what if they want to come back? And what if they want to keep it for remembrance's sake? No benefit is derived from demoting them. Well, for the most part. . . just being active in the community.

It could be. But it'd be a whole lot nicer if you asked first.

That's not a legitimate reason. You cheated. That's a requirement to be promoted, but not to stay promoted.

Why?

False. I did give a legitimate reason. And I'm saying it should be. . . . what purpose is an Administrator who is not active in the community?

Because, I speak for myself alone, I don't know about others, but I, part of the community, would like it a whole lot better if a) we were run by ONE person alone, or b) run by the entire community. Not sometimes run by the community, and most of the time run by five active people and five inactive people, but either one or none.

No, I don't consider "because there is no reason not to" a legitimate reason. I am prepared to give reasons for demotion, but you have no reason not to. No purpose — but neither does demoting them serve a purpose. It also depends on what counts as active in the community. Alemas's plan suggests demoting users who go inactive for a week — but admins may still be beneficial by being active a couple times a month.

Choice a would not be a good idea. One person is bound to make many mistakes. Choice b would take an enourmas amount of time, and complicate everything. Neither are pragmatic or prudent.

I gave an entire paragraph. If it is not sufficient for you, then that is not my problem. I'd still like to see those reasons. :)

Also, demotion is a negative action. You need a reason to do it, not a reason not to do it. Unless there is a pressing reason to do it, then I don't even need to consider it. So my reply was 100% legitimate.