Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-5518179-20160630220344/@comment-4988763-20160707234702



When I vote for someone to become an administrator, I expect them to actively enforce the wiki's policies and demonstrate commitment to the site in general. An inactive admin is no more productive than an inactive regular user.

Right now, many members of the community are unsatisfied with the site. This policy even being proposed in the wiki-wide meeting is evidence that we desire change.

This rule is directed towards the admins that vanish without a trace, without any warnings, or heads-up, seemingly for an indefinite amount of time. How could doing that be a sign of commitment towards the site? How is that any fair with us, the community, who trusted the admin enough to choose them to administer the site? Otherwise, h ow can we, the community, know if something happened to the admin?

Admins have personal lives, and this rule proposes that it is acceptable for them to be inactive in case an ordeal happens by taking a reasonable break.

All we are asking is for any sort of heads-up beforehand.

That way, we don't feel cheated. We sympathize, and we understand. We're human beings. Besides, it isn't too much to ask for, really. Administration is also about trust, after all.