The following is preserved only as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. If you want to continue a discussion, start a new post
Greetings everyone! Its been a while since I've been able to edit, so here goes...
Today, 4th March 2011, I recieved a message from Bondpedia. This message warned me that if I do not make twenty edits in a three day period, I would lose my sysop rights. I disagree with this policy, I shall now say why.
1, It is unfair. Those who have these sysop rights have been given to them because their hard work and effort has earned them the rights to further improve the wiki. Why should someone who worked hard for rights lose them because of inactivity?
2, It is pointless. If you gained the rights through the RFA process you can get them back if you edit 20 times within a three day period. So what's the point in taking them away in the first place? It just creates more hassle for bureaucrats, who have more important issues to be dealing with rather than a policy which creates an extra unneeded step.
3, It can be difficult. Some sysops make have earned their rights not through mass editing, instead through template & category development, whole article re-writes, collecting all good quality images to add to articles, the list goes on. Some sysops won't make 20 edits in three days. This may be because of their editing style or their life. Some people have days where they can't get on. Why should they be persecuted for this?
There are my reasons for why I disagree with this policy. I now call a vote to whether the policy should be kept or not. Please add your comments in the comment section. Cheers! TheDocRichtofen 19:47, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
Please leave your comments and vote underneath...
Now that all of our remaining admins (except me, don't hold it against me :) ) have been chosen by RfA, I'm not really opposed to abolishing the policy, so count that as a support. If anyone's interested, the original discussion where the policy was adopted is at Forum:Inactive Admins - Bondpedia (Contact • Contributions) 20:21, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I agree, this policy isn't the best. We may just want to extend the policy to something like a few years. Or maybe keep this, but allow the user to come back if they message Bond or SSD that they will become active again and wish to be reinstated, rather than have to make a certain amount of edits in a timeframe. I'd like to think that if someone comes back from the grave like Doc has, that they would plan to stick around for a good while. otherwise, they would't need the rights. President EdenEnclave Radio"Join the Enclave today!" 20:32, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
Support - No point in this, 20 edits in 3 days is an arbitrary number, and it's easy to sit at a desk for maybe 15 minutes, make the edits, and wander off again. --Callofduty4 20:37, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
Support (sort of) - I never really saw the idea, much like Callofduty4 was saying about it. While the 20 edits in three days idea is utterly stupid, I still see the point in the inactivity message, but I'd rather have a system where a user can decide for themselves whether they want to return to activity or go inactive, rather than a forced removal of rights. On the idea of the 31 days of inactivity, I say extend it to 60 days. It provides a disctinction between casual inactiveness, such as exam periods or very long holidays, and actual inactiveness, where a user actually stops editing.
Support - agreed with you Doc. And agreed with Pete. Take note of this, it's within a little adminship reform I've been thinking of and that I've discussed briefly with Bond. SSDGFCTCT9 (Talk) 23:58, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's clear that getting rid of this policy has support, but what are we agreeing to replace it with. I guess the original idea (which I agree with) was for users that passed an RfA to be admins for eternity, regardless of activity. Others of you have suggested just suggested modified terms. What comes after this? And what about the users already downgraded under this, I'd say since none of them had RfAs that, if they returned, they would have to do one before they resumed rights. Yes? - Bondpedia (Contact • Contributions) 17:14, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, those that had not gone through an RFA perviously would have to go through one to regain sysop flags. After that they would be in the same positions as us. I think the only exceptions to this would be Bond and the other who was exempt, Neotails. And besides, this couldn't affect bureaucrats anyway. Well, unless you wanted to get Wiki Staff in. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 21:41, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to drop Neo's exemption. It should be noted though, DEathgod65 never passed an RfA, he was the last admin promoted without one. I don't expect he'll become inactive, but if he did, would he have to be downgraded, or would he be exempt? (I hope the latter) - Bondpedia (Contact • Contributions) 16:54, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
For sheer weight of contributions, I'd say DG'd be exempt. He's got the highest editcount of any sysop, and has done more work than any other sysop here.
I think we've sorted out that we want this policy changing, so here is the way I understand the outcome. Feel free to correct or suggest some more...
All admins who have passed an RfA get to keep the role for life, regardless of activity
DEathgod65 also gets to keep it for life (and me I guess)
Older admins downgraded who never had an RfA still have to have one to resume rights
Neotails' exemption is dropped, the above now applies
But I also like Pete's suggestion (or the way I understand it anyway), of still having a limit and being declared inactive, but just no removal of rights. Just so new users can see which admins are active and which aren't... Any comments?
Unless anyone has any more problems or comments, I'll replace the current policy with this one and archive this in the next few days - Bondpedia (Contact) [ ] 16:25, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Aye, that's the gist of what I was getting at. If a user is inactive, they only get an inactive tag next to their name on BF:ADMIN after a set period of time, but I'd say around 60 days, which is a period long enough to determine actual inactiveness.
All admins should keep their status for life, unless they need to be removed. What's to gain by removing them? I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't understand why this needs to be done. --Callofduty4 00:13, March 15, 2011 (UTC)