User blog:Tuckerscreator/Because Matt-256 isn't here to lecture us.

As of late we've taking a recent look back at our administration, what with the recent requests for administration and all. It's been a tough year for the administration. This wiki has gotten bigger, we've brought in new users and reunited with old, some are falling inactive, some coming by the floods, tempers have flown, voices have been raised, and badges have been earned. Either, it's been a full year for the administration.

But more recently, we've begun re-evaluating that administration, and seeing how much their worth. As has been pointed out, some are unactive, some rarely respond, and some have to hold up all the work. Either way, we're looking back to solve the problem.

But right now we are looking at it by potentially bringing in some NEW admins. And as some have been starting to point out, is new admins really the answer?

It's rare that a full attempt is made to re-evaluate the old administration, and on doing so there is rarely much material. One might hold a probation trial if civility warnings have been violated, or simply hold a retirement if the person knows they have to go, but real evaluation usually is rare. Usually, that decision is held exclusively to the administration, a smart decision, but one that rarely is handled.

Sometimes one gets the privilege of admin merely through having been there at the beginning. Sometimes it's determined by popularity. And sometimes purely to long-term punch-pulling power. No fingers are being pointed here, and no people are being brought to mind, but we can not pretend that the process of becoming admin is foolproof.

Perhaps the question is not just in deciding who should becoming admin, but who is. A dangerous question, but one that can be daintly handled.

Q:What are you suggesting? A: A regular re-evaluation of the administration by the community. Time-wise, I was assuming yearly, but that time should discussed here over whether another is feasible. If the times suggested do not seem fair, then they should be change based on the administration's decision here.

Q:How would this evaluation work? A: Much in the same way as an a reverse RfA, except it is not a vote to remove one from admin. Rather, it is to hold an evalution. If the majority is in support, then the admin would retain their position, and no need for an inspection would take place. If the majority votes against, then it would place the admin on a status of "probation", where after a month the administration would make the final decision whether the person in question should retain their rank. The bringing up of the evaluation would be the community's decision, but the final decision on who stays remains the administration.

Q:How would you ensure that the community does not choose to "gang up" against an admin they hate? A: If the community by and large hates an admin, that should taken in account by the person in question. However, unfair gangs can and will happen. As such, a majority in opposition would not remove the admin rank from the individual, it would merely place them on "inspection" status. The final decision on whether or not they keep their rank is the administration's always at the end of one month.

Q:Has this been done on any other wikis? A: To be honest, I don't know. Most wikia's communities tend to be very small and unsuited for this sort of thing. If anyone has an answer as to what protocol is on other wikis, that would be greatly appreciated.

Q:If an administrator is voted on probation, then has their admin status de-activated at the end of that month, will an RfA be held to decide a new admin? A:That would be the decision of the community. But a new RfA does not need to be held.

Q:Who would be eligible to vote? A: A large population should be encouraged, this is something for the community as a whole to decide. Even so, those who are new and lack the required amount of mainspace edits should thus not be able to vote as in all other votes held elsewhere.

''Q:Does EVERY admin have to be re-evaluated? A: This likely would be held in a format similar to the annual Fanfic awards, that is, not individual pages for each, but rather each one after the other. Therefore, a consensus should not take long as there is no requirement as to how many votes an admin needs to stay. On the whole, this process should be largely tipped in favor of admins KEEPING their jobs.

If there are any other questions, please them below, I'll add them if they pop up repeatedly or are heavily discussed. You don't have take my proposal, it's more of a thinkpiece anyway, but I think it would be useful for the administration and for the community here to think about. Thank you.