DDO wiki talk:Administrators

Promotion / Demotion requirement discussion
Archive: April 2012 discussion


 * It has been quite some time since we drafted up and implemented this policy, and I think it is time for a review and some modifications!

--- Promotion to this group --- There are multiple requirements for procuring this user group status as defined:
 * Users are required to have made at least 1,000+ edits.
 * The  template will put you in Category:1,000 edit users.
 * Users are required to have been editing for an amount of time of no less than six consecutive months.
 * No editing gap of more than one month.
 * No more than three gaps of more than three weeks.
 * Users that do not meet the time requirements, may be recommended for a probational promotion of up to 90 days if:
 * They have met the edit count requirement outlined above.
 * They have showed exceptional edit content.
 * They must be nominated by an existing administrator.
 * Any objection/question will be addressed and fully resolved before proceeding.
 * It must be seconded by another administrator or at least three registered users.
 * Users that meet the above two requirements may be nominated or nominate themselves here.
 * Probational administrators will be automatically considered nominated at the end of their probational period barring any incident.
 * An agreement of two thirds of the voting system operators is required.
 * Seven days with no objections if nominated by a system operator.
 * Registered users may voice their opinions in the matter, which may influence the administrators, however, these opinions and thoughts do not count as votes.
 * Anonymous users opinions will be ignored and deleted from the conversation (should be a semi-protected page anyways).
 * All newly promoted system operators will be automatically placed into a 30 day probational period.

--- Demotion from this group ---
 * Any user that has failed to contribute for a period of one year should be removed from this group.
 * Any user that disrupts the flow of this wiki, may be requested to be removed from this group pending Administrative review on this pages Talk Page.
 * Due to the elevated risk that an upset system operator may pose:
 * Users placed under review will be temporarily demoted to VIP & Super User until the outcome of the review has been determined.
 * Users placed under review may not take any retaliative steps against the person that placed them under review.
 * }
 * Thoughts:
 * "No editing gap of more than one month." should be revised to "No editing gap of more than fourty-five days."
 * This is a much more concise (and easier to calculate with scripts) wording and adds an extra 1/2 month to wikibreak lengths.
 * "No more than three gaps of more than three weeks. " should be revised to "No more than three gaps of more than thirty days."
 * Three weeks was just awkward, let's give 30 days (a concise number for about a month).
 * We don't currently have a definition for "exceptional edit content", which is ambiguous, and I think we should define one someplace (not on this page directly, but offer a link).
 * Alternatively, we should remove that wording from the requirements (I much rather it should be defined).
 * "It must be seconded by another administrator or at least three registered users." seems too strict to me now.
 * Perhaps "It must be seconded by another administrator or at least two registered users."
 * Perhaps "It must be seconded by at least two registered users."
 * "User are required to have been editing for an amount of time of no less than three consecutive months." should be added to the "Users that do not meet the time requirements, may be recommended for a probational promotion of up to 90 days if:" section.
 * Now I would love to hear your thoughts, questions, comments, criticisms! If I get no opposition or discussion, I will consider that full support for these changes and just make them at will.  Thanks! ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 09:42, January 13, 2014 (EST)
 * I must abstain (I neither support, nor oppose this), due to my frequent editing gaps due to RL consuming most of my time. "Tauro" (Contributions • ) 11:18, January 13, 2014 (EST)

My comments:
 * I agree with skipping exceptional edit content
 * I agree with 1 admin or 2 users
 * I suggest removing reference to "90 days" of probational adminhood. Noone will be counting the days anyway and de-admining you afterwards. --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 13:24, January 13, 2014 (EST)


 * My take on admin policy is more along the lines of having something in place to prune out inactive accounts, not so much to set thresholds to maintain activity to remain in the group.
 * I propose a much more laxed, 60 days of inactivity will be grounds for being placed back in to the super user group.
 * If an (ex) administrator wishes to have elevated privileges after a period of inactivity, a request can be made, and will be granted if seconded by another administrator.
 * I think having at least one administrator approve nominations to the group is best. I'm not sure how interested the casual (registered) user will be to vote on an admin nomination.
 * On the 'exceptional edit content', I would maybe reword to something like
 * Activity outside the wiki ( DDO forums / IRC ) and/or complexity of edits provided may be considered as an alternative to meeting edit fequency and count requirements. 14:51, January 13, 2014

I believe nominations should always be supported by at least one other admin, besides the one putting on the nomination (or two, if self-nominated). I have no solid opinion regarding the changes on inactivity breaks. Nibelung (Contributions • Message) 18:21, January 13, 2014 (EST)
 * I agree, at least two admins total should support a nomination. I don't know that regular users should get a vote, but I'm certainly fine with them making their support/lack thereof known, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to outright say NO USER VOTES!!!111ONEONE! *g*

Inactivity... meh, I don't see what the harm is if somebody burns out on DDO/gets hit in the face by RL/ODs on another game/whatever for a few months, keeping them as an admin.

Exceptional activity... I'm fine with this as an alternative to number of posts. I suspect that may be something that would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I'd prefer it if it was kept to something wiki-related, though. LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 12:46, January 21, 2014 (EST)
 * My opinion:

On everything else I agree. Aldyron (Contributions • Message) 09:53, January 28, 2014 (EST)
 * I'd skip the "No more than three gaps of more than three weeks" requirement (I feel the previous one would be enough)
 * I'd upgrade the "registered users" requirement for voting to "DDO wiki users", whatever the number, on the grounds that otherwise it would make it too easy to subvert the established commitment+reliability hierarchy (I don't see why someone would *want* to subvert it, but I've witnessed it happen elsewhere in the past just because it was possible, so why risk?)

Naming convention
Should this be DDO wiki:Administrator (singular)? (I'm wearing my OCD hat.) &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:08, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Why would it be? We have .  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email &thinsp;•&thinsp;Deleted contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Promote &thinsp;•&thinsp;Rights )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 11:46, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Because article names (describing a type) are generally singular, as in Spell, Feat, and DDO wiki:Superuser; while category names (listing examples) are generally plural, as in C:Spells and C:Feats. Although I notice most of the toolbar items violate this rule. Of course, this wiki doesn't need to be bound by Wikipedia policies. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 19:16, July 22, 2019 (EDT)