Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators

Cleanup

The Deadminship with ability to request it back section needs to be cleaned up. There is a parentheses there which confuses me, but I like the proposal. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean it up dude!! It's not written yet, all are free to help! fr33kman ^talk 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say, so I can't clean it up :(. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I've made several changes, in particular, up to a year of inactivity, and removing the ability to request it back without an RFA. A year or more absence suggests the person will be out of touch with the project so a new RFA would definitely be required. Majorly talk 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

and changing the intent of the writer of the policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki. "If you do not want your writing to be changed and shared then do not submit it here." Majorly talk 13:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring and violating WP:POINT all in one go. Majorly talk 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Stopped a while ago. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• As this proposal is currently being revived at RfA, just noting my support for the "no resysop without RfA" for community-desysopped admins. There's no point in having this process at all if they can just ask for the bit back if/when they return. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think that makes perfect sense. After a year an admin is unlikely to be in-touch enough with the current project to be able to be an effective admin. I support the whole proposal as it exists. fr33kman ^talk 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support proposal. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support After a year, you can hardly consider yourself knowledgeable of policy. So much can and will change in a year. An RFA should be necessary if you want the tools back.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Per consensus here I've implemented this guideline as policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support (Yes I know it is late to say so, but better late...) --Barras (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This is the needed approach. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 06:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested line

To avoid confusion I'd like to suggest adding:

• "The fact that an administrator does not meet the requirements for automatic removal in this policy does not mean that a user can not ask for his rights to be taken away at Request for Adminship." Jamesofur (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree: This will clarify that this policy does not prohibit RFDA's that have the rationale of "inactve administrator". It would also allow for others to not hesitate to support such an RFDA all because the administrator is still active per this policy, and to reassure users that they do not violate this policy. This policy is for automatic removal, not discussion removal, so we should avoid confusion and clarify. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually this policy is meant to eliminate RFDA's for inactivity completely. They could still have them removed for abuse however. -DJSasso (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slight update

Hi all! I've made a slight change to the policy. I don't think that the former wording included the many ways of asking a crat to deadmin someone. As such, I've included that no formal RFDA is required, and that a user (including a crat) can simply ask a crat via email, talk page, or IRC (or just decide themselves if they are a crat) to deadmin an inactive admin. Please revert if you disagree, but also please inform me if you do so. :) fr33kman 03:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

extension

I propose that we extend the editing requirement to 100 edits. Admins are not active if they edit once a year, and 100 edits (approx 2 edits a week), seems to be the right "number". After consulting with other admins, 100 edits seemed appropriate. I won't go into a long explanation (leave someone else to do that), but this will affect about 20% of admins, but it will not affect the response time or the manner in which we do our jobs. I can get the specific names if needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea and think it would be good to have this requirement. -Barras (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to me - --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

100 edits a year? I think that is reasonable. Anything more than that and I would say no. We are all volunteers and we need to respect the fact that not everybody can be here everyday, however I do agree that one a year is too low, and that 100 a year is reasonable.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Griffin and I discussed this on IRC a while ago, I support fully! fr33kman 00:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason we remove admins is because of security concerns that someone else can take control of their account. If someone is making constructive edits throughout the year even less than 100, the security concern isn't really there. I don't see how this helps the wiki, I only see negatives to this. Why knock people down for no good reason? -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I do understand we want active people, but trying to force edits out of people isn't going to make them active, its likely to do the opposite and make them less likely to want to be here. If they are doing edits even if only 100 or less throughout the year they still are likely to be in touch with the policies which is the other concern and cause for removing them. -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that if anybody is making less than 60-70 changes a year that there is no way they can stay current on policies, unless before they make an action they read every single discussion since they left. I think with the current one edit a year, all one as to do is login for a minute and log out again. No way can they keep up with policy. We need to do more than one edit a year. Even at 100 edits it is just enough to stay up to date, imho. If the limit was 50, a user can login in on January 1st and 2nd, make 50 edits, and then not log back in until next January. Now, they've lost all that time, and so much can happen in a year. Making the requirement 100 means we are asking for that user to, instead of maybe just one month of editing, they may need to come back and make an edit here, an edit there to reach that 100 change limit. This ensures that they are somewhat active at different times throughout the year. I know, a user can make 100 edits in a month and not come back for another year as well, however I feel making the limit any more than 100 would push people away and make it unfair for all of us, the volunteers.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If we trusted them enough to make them admin, we should trust them enough to read the relevant policies before they jump into making admin actions. Not to mention really not many policies that surround the admin tools change all that often. In fact the only one I can think of that has had any kind of significant change in a few years is how the rollback is given out and for crats how cratship is given out. You don't need to read every discussion to stay current, you only need to read the policy pages that surround your admin tools, of which there are less than 10 I think. This is just creating rules for the sake of creating rules. -DJSasso (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If somebody only has time to make one edit a year, I doubt they have time to spend reading up on our policies. Even if those 10 pages have not be changed, if the admin has been away for a long time they should still read them all again anyway before making an action as they will not know if a policy has been changed or not until they do read it, which they don't have time to do anyway... I trust our admins very much, and none of them would make an action trying to not follow policy, but if they don't have time to stay active, I feel there is potential for unintentionally incorrect actions to be made.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thats my point, since we elected them I trust them to read the policies before they make any actions after they have been away. And an accidental mistake isn't that big a deal if it was done in good faith, easily reversed. As for bad faith actions, those could be done by active just as easily as inactive and they could be quickly relieved of a flag for that as well. -DJSasso (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When they were elected they were active and we elected them under the guise that they'd stay active. If you have less than a 100 edits a year and are an admin you're a an inactive admin; You should have the good grace to resign, but if you don't, maybe we should take it off you. ("you" used in the collective). fr33kman 01:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that we elected them under the guise that they'd stay active. We elected them under the guise that the admin tools are no big deal and that we trusted them to use them properly. Removing them because they became inactive is punishment and it fosters an environment of privileged and unprivileged. Every time we try to come up with a new way to remove them, we are strengthening the idea the admins are better than non-admins, and it has to stop. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's reasons for electing any given admin are unique to them at that time. You can't say that everyone voted for someone because adminship is "no big deal". For many it is a big deal. Just because Jimbo opened his mouth, does not mean everyone hearing agrees with him! One of the criteria for gaining adminship is that the person be active; an inactive user can not become an admin here, but an inactive admin can remain one for just a few edits per year? Surely not? Let's talk about common sense here! fr33kman 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am using common sense here, 100 edits doesn't make anyone more active than 1 edit. That is sort of the point, if you want that kind of proof that someone is active you need a much higher edit count than that. Hundreds if not a thousand. And that surely is not an area people are going to want to get into. 100 edits is no better, not in the least than one. Its just adding a hoop to jump through without actually solving anything. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(<-) 100 changes seem reasonable to me. It's not that hard, and it would keep the administrators up-to-date not only about our policy changes, but also familiar with the small but often changing community of Simple. —Clementina talk 03:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully in favour of the change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but only at the currently proposed level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonia (talk • contribs)

Oppose, too many changes required. I'll only support if the requirement is lower. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support 25 changes. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How is 100 edits too many? That's only two days work! Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to the proposal. Kansan (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If this does go through it should be 100 edits per year from the date its implemented going forward. ie any of the admins who are currently inactive should only have the 100 edit requirement clock start on the day the new policy is implemented and run out a year from that day. It should not be done retroactively. For example Fox hasn't edited since April 24th. We shouldn't go from the day it is implemented back a year and say oh Fox hasn't done 100 edits in the last year, lets remove it. We should instead say all admins who are currently admins who don't do 100 edits from today to a year from today will be removed at that point. Anyone that hits a year inactive during that time will have their flag removed per the normal old process. Otherwise it is unfair, as they would not necessarily have been aware of the new requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DJSasso. -- wiooiw (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking further another option would be to tie it to a Calendar year and have it start with the year 2011, so that on on December 31st 2011 anyone with less than 100 edits during 2011 gets the axe. That way its done on the same day every year, and we don't have people hounding each others edits so that the day someone falls below 100 they chop them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea. sonia♫ 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

<-We didn't do this with the old version of the policy, we don't need to do it now. Shappy was removed almost immediately after getting 1 year of inactivity. I (or a crat) will notify all admins affected so they can rectify the situation. Delaying implementation by a month seems proper (3 edits/day). We want active admins, giving them a year is crazy. 100 edits/month is not that difficult, and in many cases they already have some of that 100. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Shappy was, it was also many months between when Shappy went inactive and when we implemented the 1 year policy, giving him plenty of time to find out that the policy on how active he had to be changed. What problem are you solving by trying to basically throw people out of the position? Is the wiki being harmed? No. Is the fact we have these inactive admins blocking others from being promoted? No. So where exactly do we need to rush. Try being fair to these people just like you would want people to be fair to you. If you want to have the 100 edit minimum fine. But you are going to have to give them time to find out the policy changed. And you should do it based on the calender year so that there is no hounding of editors. Because if people are checking every day oh did they fall behind 100 edits in the last 365 days, not only are you wasting your time but you are giving the impression you are out to get them. If you want 100 min edits, you need to make it based on the calendar year, and you need to exclude anyone currently an admin until at the very least the end of the year. I would personally think you should go to 2011 so they have a chance to rectify the situation, not everyone has their talk page notify them, I know I don't. And not everyone necessarily still uses or even has their email enabled. So telling them that we just created a new rule and they had to have 100 edits over the past year won't necessarily work. And what if someone went away for a month and their edits fell below 100 but soon as they were back they would have edited a bit and reached the minimum. You simply cannot have a rolling year. It needs to be a fixed year, Jan 1 to Dec 31 makes the most sense but it can be any dates. And at the end of that time if they haven't had the 100 you remove them. That way there is no grey area whatsoever. Besides, the 1 year completely inactive will still apply to the current admins, so some of them will likely be gone in a few months anyways, and those currently editing will already know about the new policy and thus at the end of the year we can remove their flags if they aren't at 100 edits. You did suggest 100 edits in a year. So you need to give them a year to get those 100 edits. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DJ. There is no rush, and we need to be fair.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise: Quarterly (3 months) checks and implementation delayed till beginning of 2011. All admins currently in danger of removal will be e-mailed (all admins are required to have e-mail enabled). Griffinofwales (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's stupid. Do we not have anything better to do than check semi-active admin's contribs three times a year? One check at a set time would work. I say we implement this policy starting January 1st 2011, and have one check January 1st 2012, another January 1st 2013 and so on. There really is no rush. I like the proposal, but I don't like the rushing, we shouldn't be trying to find ways to remove flags.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I still agree with the 100-edit proposal, but in all fairness, I agree with Gordon and DJSasso that it would probably be best to begin this from 2011 (not that many months left anyway). There isn't any need to hurry things. Also, the dates confuse me otherwise. ;) Love, —Clementina talk 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Inactivity policies in general are rather daft, and create more problems than solutions. Trying to raise the bar is an obsession I've never really been able to understand. Everybody used to be happy with at least one action per year (if there had to be an arbitrary limit at all), now you want it at 100!? Why? Exactly what does this solve? Inactive administrators create absolutely no problems, and in fact their accounts are often (ironically) more secure than those who are active. This seems pointless all-round, really ... PeterSymonds (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think it's unfortunate that we have a bit of an antagonistic attitude here. Admins typically care about the project and are willing to abide by its rules and guidelines. I think if consensus is that an admin should have 100 edits per year to remain "active", then any one with fewer than 100 edits per year should be kindly asked to step down. If they object, and someone feels strongly that that admin is not active and has no intention of being active again, then a RfDA could be run. I think most current admins would be willing to resign their flag on this project if they are not active and have no interest in becoming more active, if they were kindly asked to step down per community consensus. Maybe I'm just feeling optimistic this evening. Also, there has been no discussion about deflagged admins getting reflagged. Would the requirement be 100 edits + request to any crat, or would they need to go through a RfA to show current knowledge and community trust? EhJJ^TALK 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• A good point, and if the 100 edits part was only checked annually, how would that affect the 1 edit/year part, which is enforced almost immediately? Currently, a new RFA is required but not sure how this will work out. Griffinofwales (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• If it's easier to remove the flag, perhaps it should be easier to regain it. sonia♫ 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess my thoughts are summed up thus; if you are an admin, you should be active and an example for other's to follow, not inactive and never interested enough to be around. fr33kman 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine, but to race to strip them away from someone is not the way to do it. Fair is fair. Because if we race to strip it, then what kind of example are we setting? A bad one that we are out to get you and that if you don't do as we wish you are useless to us. This is why we need to do it in a more civilized way than hounding a persons edits waiting for a day when they have less than X in the previous 365. This is why I think a fixed calendar year is the best way to go. It eliminates the illusion that we are hounding the editors and its a constant standard for everyone. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If what I say "is fine" but you don't like the method, how do you solve it then? fr33kman 23:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I describe it in the above posts that a few of us were discussing. You do it based on a calendar year, and you remove them once a year on a set date to everyone who hasn't had an edit in the previous year. That is how I would fix it. But to leave it open to being any 365 day period will cause people to stalk users edits for the minute their edits drop to 99 in the last 365 days. Do it on say Jan 1st every year for the past year and we are good to go. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 100 edits between Jan 01 one year and Dec 31 the same year? 100 edits is not too much to ask. Sure a deadbeat "busy elsewhere" admin can come in and do 100 edits, but that's better than them doing 1 edit and retaining admin. fr33kman 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol that is exactly what I have been saying. You really need to read the conversation lol haha :P -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh-hmm!!!! I did read the discussion, I merely summarized for others (not for you or I) :P fr33kman 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have consensus so a crat may check and remove inactive admins on Jan. 1, 2011 (or sometime around there), and every Jan. 1 following. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also support this change. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I do not support any requirement that would make folks edit to keep tools. Such a discretionary number too! Jon@talk:~$ 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hey guys. I would really like to get this discussion wrapped up. I don't have as much time for wiki as I would like right now, but I think it is only fair that we get this over with, make any changes, and then notify the inactive/semi-active admins of the change so they are aware of any changes that we make. A quick look shows most are in favor of a change, whether it be an extension of 100 edits or a lower number. The people in opposition do however make good points. I would look into closing this and implementing changes myself, however as I said I have almost no time for on-wiki stuff. I just think it only fair we decide this soon as to give the admins a full year to make the changes (If this proposal is accepted).--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Logs

It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, but if we have administrative actions in mind, then how come are we not considering them? If a user is active as an admin, and say, makes 100 logged actions but less edits than that, will the admin tools be taken away if they're clearly using them? -- Mentifisto 16:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Because its not about being active as an admin, its about being active on the wiki period. The only reason we are removing the tools are because the admin is out of touch with the community and doesn't know the current guidelines/policies of the wiki. And as long as the admins are editing period they can be said to know that. There is no requirement on how often or which tools an admin chooses to exercise. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh I totally misread your comment....I would think we would be smart enough to know that 100 admin actions would also meet the requirement. Atleast I assume common sense would apply there. But I doubt there would be a case where someone manages to use their tools 100 times and doesn't atleast make 100 edits. ie warnings on talk pages or notices of deletions etc. It would be a pretty rare case. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

change to policy

After what's happened so far in this RfDA I would like to suggest that we alter the policy to make so many admin actions a requirement as well to keep the tools, as you can edit without the tools, but an admins tools are no good if the person is not using them. Maybe something like 100 edits and 50 admin actions in a years time to keep the tools. The edits to make sure the person is up to date with the happenings on the wiki and the actions to make sure the tools are being used.--  † CR₉₀  02:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're looking to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. That bar is set way too high, in my opinion. There are barely active admins who probably don't make 50 admin actions a year but aren't gone for good, and who still come by once in an awhile and delete obviously bad page creations or whatever. Kansan (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You might be right, but there needs to be a limit, IMO, as, like I said in my proposal post, that the tools are no good if there sitting inactive for a year or years on in. The 50 is just a preliminary suggestion.--  † CR₉₀  03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The inactivity policy is only to protect against admins not knowing current policy. Any admin who is editing but doesn't use his tools will still know the policy. There is no problem here. I would say a very large percentage of our admin force doesn't do 50 admin actions a year because there simply aren't that many admin actions to be made. And when there are, one of our super duper always watching RC admins usually grabs it before anyone else can. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this policy always struck me as to make sure only people have a need for it get it.--  † CR₉₀  23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Policy Change

Well since I made the comment on the RfA proposed change, I may as well start the discussion for change for the Inactivity of Administrators. There seems to be some concern that too many editor collect bits/hats and then never or rarely return. This has in turn created a higher standard for new editors, who are able and willing to help out. I believe a minor modification to that guideline, and a major change to this policy would help fix the underlying issue, of the bit/hat collection. I propose the following:

• Change 100 Edits or Admin actions a year, Active Admins can easily do 100 Edits or Admin Actions a month that is less then 4 a day.

• Change policy to read that Admins must maintain an average of 100 Edits a month.

• This should be looked at, at least 2 times a year. In June and December, if the Admin has not performed 600 edits or actions in that time frame, they are put on notice. If by the time the end of December comes around and they and they do not have 1200 edits they are stripped of their admin bit, on January 1. The notice will apply to either half of the year. If by the end of December they have over 1200 edits, but have not completed 600 of them from the July to December time frame they shall be placed on notice.

• This policy would require 1200 edits or actions a year & would create minimum standards per half year, and penalties for not following through with the commitment require to be an admin. This also gives some flexibility for admins real life commitments.

• Create a gaming the system rule.

• The notices I have mentioned would be to eliminate much of the gaming of the system for admins to keep there bits. Create a 3 strike rule. Upon receiving your 3rd notice in say 3 years (meaning you did not have 600 edits or actions in 3 of 6 half years), you shall be considered and inactive admin, and you bit removed, at the start of the new half year July 1, or January 1.

• Create a Resignation ability to Adminship.

• If an Admin knows that they are unable to be active during any 6 month period or needs an extended leave from the wiki, they may resign their bit, and may re-claim the bit at a later date, as long as this is done so not under a Cloud, if the resignation is Under a Cloud, then they must re-run for RfA. The cloud determination will be up to the Crat handling the request This will give the Admins a way to come back, when real life/world commitments no longer interfere with their editing.

• Steward-Admins may use both their local edit/action count & global edit/action count in order to qualify for the 600 & 1200 numbers. Since they serve the entire Wikipedia it is only right since they can not be here on this wiki all the time.

I believe that a change needs to happen to address the concerns that are being brought up at RfA. I do not believe that making someone wait a year or more to become an admin is appropriate. I believe that the bar should be raised for the admins to keep there status. As being an admin is suppose to be No Big Deal. Which it certainly has become on en.wiki, and if we continue here, it will be a BIG DEAL here too. Too many times on en.wiki, I saw qualified editors get brutally dragged over the coals, and then end up leaving. This is not how we want to treat people who are trying to help out. The goals should be to raise the bar for the standard of Admin, not the requirements to get there. Enfcer (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I think that this is needless bureaucracy. How many issues do we truly have with the current system? Even if an admin "games" the current system by coming in and making 100 edits in 4 days, what cost is there to us? We're a small enough community that we'll notice if an admin account has been compromise while it's been sitting idle. We'll also notice if an admin returns and is making actions that go against our newer policies/guidelines, and we can talk to them about it then. I have not seen a clear reason to change from the current system, especially to one that has as much bureaucracy as this proposal. Only (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that gaming the system is a problem here when it comes to inactive administrators, and think that we need to do something about it. An editor previously mentioned off-wiki that he would want to open a dRfA for a particular administrator who has consistently been "gaming the system". If I remember correctly, said administrator was eventually desysopped under the inactive administrators policy (ie. no more gaming, and the flag was removed due to <100 edits/actions), but the point I want to bring up here is that the inactive administrators policy does not prohibit any member of the community from opening a dRfA for any administrator (even inactive administrators, but most of the community will tell you to wait it out for the end of the year). Wording the three strikes rule into the policy can be a good thing, but I am not sure about the resultant additional workload for bureaucrats.

About stewards: it does not make sense to allow stewards to use their global edit/action count for this. For one, the role of stewards differs from the role of local sysops. Extending from that logic, any global sysop who happens to be a local sysop should also be entitled to the global count qualification (which should not be the case, by the way). Chenzw  Talk  11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Chenzw, as a user/bureaucrat, what do you believe we "lose" when someone "games the system"? I've never seen an issue when an admin has "popped in" for their 100 edits. They've never been unhelpful/wasteful edits, and they have never been actions where we had to speak with that admin. If anything, it's given the project 100 edit we wouldn't have had otherwise. So what do you believe are the "negatives" to Simple Wikipedia with someone doing this? I ask because I haven't heard a clear explanation for why this is a problem yet, only that it is a problem. Only (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The point I believe behind this policy was that admins who are gone a long time fall out of synch with what the policies are here etc. And so if they are inactive they can do things that are completely wrong. It has happened in the past and admins have had to be desysoped for it. The reason why the 100 edits in a day or whatever just to keep the bit is a problem is that it doesn't solve the spirit of the policy which is to make sure that admins keep abreast of changes while they have been inactive. If they can keep their bit by rapidly doing a bunch of edits and then disappear for another year then they probably aren't up to date on policies and nothing prevents them from coming back and doing something very bad against policy because of ignorance. Whereas if they have their bit removed they will have to show they are up to date to get it back. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out a way to not run off our Steward-Admins, as they can be very active on other issues on other wikis, maybe a better way is to give them a lower edit/action count. Enfcer (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"It has happened in the past and admins have had to be desysoped for it." You've mentioned this here and you mentioned it at the RFA. Can you give some specific examples/links? I can think of only two cases where we desysop'd someone for things they have done that were "completely wrong" (a wheel war [BG7] and alternate account [Kennedy]). Both of those were not cases of someone being away too long and then coming back and making poor decisions out of ignorance to new policy changes. All the other desysoping I can think of has been for being idle. What cases am I missing? Only (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The incident DJ is talking about would be the desysoping of Blockinblox. Chenzw  Talk  07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong (this incident was years before I became active on any wiki), but that desysop request seems to mainly revolve around the fact that the user was abusing the toolset. Inactivity barely gets a mention. Furthermore, the user seems to just have broken the most basic of policies like NPA and NPOV, not policies that would have changed dramatically in whatever time period he'd been away or policies that require days or weeks to get accustomed to again. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. TCN7JM 08:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TCN7JM here. DJSasso even says so himself: "While I usually don't like desysoping admins who have edited recently, that really doesn't apply in this case since he broke many policies that have always been around." His inactivity wasn't really an issue here because he was violating policies that were always in place. Only (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They had actually changed drastically, some of the things he did would have been accepted as ok or not that bad in the days when he was an active admin. In the early days this place was sort of like the wild west, while it had policies they weren't followed that closely like they are today. Its one of the reasons this wiki got the reputation for being a haven for people blocked/banned on en. The wiki has changed alot over the years, especially from the time period he had been admin. And yes Only that is the main one I was talking about. He was the reason we created the original version of this policy. We later increased the policy to have the things like 100 edits because of Vector who while not as blatantly breaking policy like Blockinblox kept returning only to make very controversial decisions that didn't really jive with what community opinion was. So the 100 edits etc was added as a way to force him out without the drama of a DeRfA (and a few others like him that were gaming the 1 edit in a year former policy). So while there was no DeRfA stripping him specifically, this policy in its current form was directly the result of him. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Violating common sense policies like "no personal attacks" and "maintain a neutral point of view" was common and accepted in the beginnings of this wiki? TCN7JM 13:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV less so, but it did definitely happen. Personal attacks however were very common right up until fairly recently. On a wiki this small everyone tends to interact with everyone. And as such very rarely do people want to take sides in arguments. This wiki is very lenient on editors behaviour. Less so than they were 5 years ago mind you. But it still is the case to some extent. Its why simple.wiki is the joke of the WMF. We have people like BG who were stripped of their adminship a couple times. Blocked and banned multiple times but then brought back and repeat over and over. Very rarely does a block/ban stay in effect here for very long if you are a regularly active editor. Simple.wiki is the home of second chances and assumptions of good faith against all evidence to the contrary. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In the very early days there was a Crat/Admin Netoholic who became notorious across the WMF for basically running this wiki like a dictatorship who had to have his rights stripped as well. I forget all of what he did exactly cause I wasn't around back then. But I vaguely recall being told he would add/remove flags at will. Harras users, chase users off the wiki that he didn't like. I believe in the end he had to have his rights removed by Stewards but I am not positive on that. But you can imagine if the 'Crats/Admins are acting like that, then it filters down to the non-flagged users to act like that as well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That just sounds horrible. I can see where all of this is coming from now. TCN7JM 13:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an issue with our inactive admin rule. DJSasso seems to be the guy who keeps on top of it and is handling it rather well. The problem I see is; Imagine a scenario where an admin is inactive, gets the bit removed through inactivity then returns x weeks later and asks for the bit back, still inactive and the process can repeat. Under both proposals this can still happen a number of times. A set figure is not appropriate. Anyone can launch a DeRfA against an administrator citing prolonged or repeated inactivity and let the community decide at the time. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy sums up my position. Its always been talked about (on IRC admitedly) that if an admin were to clearly be gaming the system then someone would just put up a DeRfA for them. So I don't think gaming will be all that big a deal. For those who think its an issue they can place a DeRfA and the community will decide at the time. I should note this is an Oppose if it isn't obvious. 100 edits was chosen specifically because it was low and we wanted it low. It used to be a single edit and we found that was too easy, whereas 100 forced them to stick around atleast for a bit and was enough to show if someone was gaming but wasn't so high as it was unreasonable (1200 for example would wipe out almost every admin we have). As for notifications they are already notified. They get put on the inactive list if they are below 100 edits at the 6 month mark and then if they are still below 100 at the 9 month mark they get messaged to let them know they are still below. Giving them 3 months to get active again. The idea about voluntarily giving up their bit to get it back later defeats the point of the policy in that we want them active so they are up to date on policy changes and don't return after an absence and start making actions that are counter to policy, thus we force them into a new RfA. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it not an issue about inactive admins? The comments about needing to be here a year to gain the bit (per last RfA), or they tend to get it and leave. I do not think we need to raise the entry standard to 1 year for getting the bit (maybe 6 months), but hold the people who become admins to a higher standard. That is what the underlying purpose of the increased edit counts and making sure its checked twice a year. Enfcer (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We aren't raising the time people need to be admins. Everyone has their own standards. You can object to someone being an admin for any reason you want. And the 'Crats will take the weight of the argument into account. Remember everything is done based on consensus. Despite the often misquoted and no longer accurate or relevant comment that being an admin is no big deal. It has been proven time and again when we have a bad admin that we do need to make the bar to becoming an admin high enough to avoid those situations. Activity is just shorthand for indicating we haven't seen enough of you to trust your competency yet. Its not really about edits or a specific amount of time. I just personally use a year because I have seen most people at less than a year have had pretty significant issues. Does that mean everyone under a year does? No of course not. Other people think six is fine, some think three is fine. And as such they !vote that way in the RfA. There is no static number for when it happens. Nor should there be. In the most recent RfA people felt there wasn't enough time to judge this particular candidate at 6 months. But someone could come along that blows us away and we say you know what 3 months is good enough for them. Changing activity bureaucracy doesn't change the fact that different people trust at different times and that different people earn trust at different rates. That is just human nature. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And the way you say it here makes sense to me. But that is not how it comes across on the RfA. My other concern, is that people say we have enough admins, but yet we have VIP's that go stale due to not having an active admin on at the time, or I know of a time it took a couple of hours to get attack pages deleted. Attack pages and active vandals need to be dealt with quickly, letting the VIP's go stale, and allowing pages with attacks on them to stay visable due to lack of admins being active is unacceptable. I know admins have real life commitments and if we don't have an admin on to deal with issues, means we do not have enough to cover this project properly. So we need to find a way to have more qualified admins to deal with issues, and if we increase the requirements to stay active, it won't fix the problem, but will help the problem. Enfcer (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying, but I think people over estimate how fast VIP needs to be responded to on a wiki this small. We get very very few page hits compared to en.wiki. As such chances are that vandalism won't be seen by many people in the time its sitting there. And in cases where an active vandal needs to be stopped right away, usually the small wiki monitoring team will catch it if there isn't an admin around. And usually those wait times are more due to the time zones admins live in, than not having enough. I think people also over estimate the number of active editors in general we have here. We have less than 25 active editors as of the last time I looked at the stats. There was a point not too long ago where almost every single active editor we had was an admin. And that was just ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we may have to agree to disagree on the point of too many admins. While I understand and appriciate your points, and the statement that at one point "every single active editor we had was an admin", that just means that everyone that is on could deal with any issues that may come up. To quote the en.wiki policy quoting Jimmy Wales "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*" & "Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be". As such, as long as the editor is using the tools appropriately there is no reason why as many editors who can demostrate they can use the tools can not have the tools. Enfcer (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, any editor who has the support of the community should have the tools, regardless of how many other admins there are.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose though a stricter requirement for CU/OS holders might be beneficial. --Rschen7754 05:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments here yet, but I think that proposal goes too far. While I generally support the inactive admin policy, I think this change would be too much. 1200 actions per year is quite a lot (no idea if I've them now, maybe when counting in my CUs etc). The policy is in place to have an unbureaucratic way to remove the really inactive admins. Before that policy existed, for any such removal a new deRFA was needed. That policy actually reduces the bureaucracy for such actions. Raising the bar too high will cost us several admins. And honestly, when I really want 1,200 actions, I simply start AWB and do 1,200 changes, that takes me one afternoon or something. Raising the bar would most likely result in more and more useless/unneeded edits, maybe even more and more unwelcome one-line-stubs. I see actually no reason to change our current policy. -Barras talk 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)