Forum:Requirements for staying a sysop/b'crat

Forums: Yew Grove > Requirements for staying a sysop/b'crat

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 9 April 2009 by Azaz129.

As you can see on this page [1], we have over 25 inactive sysops most who have not made edits in over four months and have left no messages indicating their wish to return or keep their power. Here I propose we institute a few requirements that all administrators must meet if they wish to keep their power. Please note that these guidelines are being crafted in order to make active admins not have to meet any quota at all and simply keep on doing what they are doing. The goal here is to remove power from users who truly dont need it or ever use it, and remove inactive admins who are gone and show no signs of coming back. Nothing is final.

Requirements to remain an administrator

• Administrators must be active on the wiki in some way.

Recommendations for administrators

• Checking the yew grove once a week would keep you informed of the latest policy changes and events.

Inactive administrators

• If an administrator is inactive for four months or more, a message should be left on their talk page by another sysop or bureaucrat informing them that their powers will be removed if no response is received within a week.
• After the week has passed, a bureaucrat must remove the inactive users power and leave a note on their talk page.
• If an administrator who had their power removed returns and wishes to receive it again, all they need to do is contact a bureaucrat and inform them they are ready to be active once more.

TEbuddy 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

From the info on this page [2], it looks like a more current estimate is 13 admins who haven't made any edits in 2009, and 8 admins who have not edited in the past 6 months. Tollerach hates SoF 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

this nclude scrats and sysops, and all inactive time periods. Since we dont have a way of telling who intends to come back or is on a wikibreak, we have to classify them as inactive, or active. TEbuddy 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I really oppose this whole process, removing power from inactive admins who have earned it. I'd only support under one condition - they do not need to pass another RFA to get their rights back. Assume good faith says that we have no right to assume the admin will suddenly abuse their power after some time of inactivity. The community in that time will have changed, and will pay no attention to the good work the admin had done before, or will oppose simply because they don't know the person. And they most certainly will do that. That's not fair at all. Christine 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Christine. Past admins, if they have their powers removed at all, should have them granted back should they return. They have already been granted them once, they don't need to run again. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ill add that in. TEbuddy 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If we revoke a departed sysop's privileges, only to grant them back if they return, what is the purpose of removing them in the first place? Hyenaste 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming every inactive sysop comes back it would be kind of pointless, but the point is very few will ever actually return (based on years of inactivity) and we will eventually prune our list of active administrators down to only those who use the tools they have been given. TEbuddy 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies change over time. Subjecting returning admins to do an RfA or at least a "rehabilitation period" means they're given the time and chance to bone up on the current policies and find out what's changed. Also it gives them the time to get back into the flow and brush off the rust before resuming responsibility. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it ensures that the administrator has come back for a sufficient editing period, rather than just poking the wiki distantly. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 20:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like all it will do is make unnecessary work for the bureaurats. What an editor does with their administrator powers and how often they use them is up to the individual editor, not the community. Administrators, like all editors, are volunteers. They do not get paid, they are making the internet a better place without any type of reward. If a sysop does nothing but block one vandal every year, that is one more vandal that can't disrupt the wiki. Policies may change, but the administrator can always be notified on their talk page if they do something wrong. Sysop powers can easily be removed by any bureaucrat or staff member if they are abused. There is no limit for the number of administrators we should have as long as they use their powers responsibly. And so far, that hasn't been much of an issue. Out of the 56 editors who have held sysop tools on the RuneScape Wiki, it has only been necessary for four of them to have their permissions revoked due to power abuse. Dtm142 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight..

You want to make people read the Yew Grove just because they are sysops?

Well, that automatically gets an oppose from me. Andrew ^talk 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you call clicking on the yew grove once a week and scanning through the topics an irrational demand? Its not like you need to create and maintain a certain amount of topics.

Dtm, perhaps in the beginning leaving a message on 27 inactive administrators talk pages will be a hassle, but we could easily modify it so any user can leave the message and the crat simply has to remove the power after the week deadline.

As well, the problem doesn't come from that one block per year they manage to make, its the other edits that usually lead to problems, and since our decisions are made purely by consensus and not by any standard at all we have a very slow moving machine when it comes to dealing with disruptive administrators or sysops. I shouldn't have to remind anyone of the four people who were forcibly sysopped and how many weeks (months?) each discussion carried on before any type of decision was actually made. If we set at least a guideline to remove power from inactive admins and people who don't use their tools, all we are doing is saving ourselves trouble down the way. Besides, we don't even have any standards for our current administrator list. If you look at it, we have listed 29 active, 6 forum admins, and 22 inactive. The list as it is now is very difficult to patrol as there are so many administrators that checking each ones contributions is a very time consuming task.

Believe me when I say I really do respect volunteer work, I do alot of it and I spend alot of time around it and I dont overlook what people, administrators especially contribute. But using that as a defense like I am trying to dishonorably discharge every single administrator who doesn't meet my criteria is truly ridiculous. TEbuddy 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're telling me that I would be desysopped if I didn't check the Yew Grove once per week. What happens if I'm busy that week and I'm not able to log on to tell you that I'll be too busy to check? I'd rather quit than be forced out because of a pointless rule like that. =/ Andrew ^talk 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Soldier if you are already very active in the Yew Grove, why are you threatening to leave over a minor regulation asking you to only check the topics once during the week. There are much stricter regulations in the current RFA policy, why dont those bother you at all? TEbuddy 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not threatening to leave. I'm saying that if I was going to be forced out then I would quit anyways. I'm telling you that the rule is pointless because we sysops have lives too. Andrew ^talk 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Requiring someone to look at something is pointless. Are you going to track me looking at something. What is the conversation doesn't not pertain to the admin, do they have to reply to say "hey I looked at this?". Admins should not be forced to look over the yew grove or have anything pushed on them. The thing I also keep hearing is "don't worry atlandy/solider this doesn't pertain to you. But in the future it may. Nobody knows how active all of us will be in the future and requiring all of us to "make sure you keep your edit count up" it just making more work for a non paying job we have. You also want to revoke admin powers, but will give them back if they want it? That makes no sense at all. Who really cares that there are inactive admins? So what? I see people like Vimes and even Christine for that matter taking a few weeks off and coming back. Also, the wiki is not our lives. If something personal comes along and I cannot edit for a few months, I am going to have to ask to become an admin again. This whole new proposal that is being used is more or less to keep admins in check. Every issue the the wiki has had with an admin that has quit, resigned, or removed has been handled accordingly. This new policy is going to chase active admins like myself away because I an not keep up with Tedbuddy's standards. ‎Atlandy 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to mention that all four of the administrators who had their sysop powers removed were active prior to the desysopping. If this was if effect, it would not have solved anything. All it does is create more problems. Dtm142 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My big question is how this benefits the wiki. As Dtm said, all it does is make people busy. 25 admins are inactive. So what? Now, if they said "I am leaving the wiki" or no one's heard from them since Hurricane Katrina, I could understand, but even if someone is only active as an admin once every few months, them having admin tools benefitted the wiki. Also, forcing people to read the Yew Grove once a week is unnecessarily autocratic and not really even enforcable. So, I oppose. Butterman62 (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't solving anything, and will upset some people for no good reason, so I too Oppose. Hurston ^{(T # C)} 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Idea

Hey I have a crazy idea that might just diplomatically solve this problem. Have we ever though of asking the inactive admins if they still want their tools? Someone (anyone) could go and leave messages on the admins talk page and say...

"We are trying to clean up our list of admins, we've noticed you haven't been on the wiki in a while, would you agree to relinquish your administrative tools?, of course you can ALWAYS reinstate yourself as an administrator simply by asking a bureaucrat, no need for an RfA since you of course remain in good standing and a trusted user of the wiki"

This seems like a simple, fair, and polite thing to do. We could do this every year (on april fools day perhaps? ;p) I still don't see the need for any of this, but I thought of the idea and I wanted to put it out there. Tollerach hates SoF 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) PS - I hear the word power being thrown around a lot, in my opinion, the only difference between an admin and any other editor, is a few tools.

I say power in order to avoid saying they have this ability and that ability, and to summarize what they can do. (they have the power). Also, this is exactly what I am suggesting, why hijack the topic to suggest the same thing being suggested? TEbuddy 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The important difference I'm suggesting is ASKING people to relinquish their tools, instead of TELLING them they are going to be desysopped. I think it's an important difference. Tollerach hates SoF 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If they never come on why would they check their talk page -- Poppop24 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a feature that sends e-mails to users if anything they own or have edited is updated. It can be found in the control panel. Some users do peruse, but never actually look at the yew grove so while they may occasionally look on they dont know they are going to be desysopped or otherwise have no way of knowing. This way, it makes the people who want to give them a chance happy, and doesnt slow down the removal of inactive admins much. TEbuddy 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Give them a month to respond instead of a week. --Degenret01 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? The week is a period after a huge amount of time that they have been inactive, if we give them another month we should just make it 5 months total and then you automatically lose your power after that. The week makes it more official and gives us more of an actual policy to enforce. At this point even after a week they havent responded to the message, it would only be by pure luck they would come back so the waiting time after the message should be purposely short so we can take action. TEbuddy 04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My Position - I feel that we should clear up the list of inactive admins, but only is specific circumstances. These being that they have been in-active for 1 year or more, and are welcome to their tools should they return with no hassle. This be a promise to them, I DO NOT SUPPORT minimum requirements for an admin. They are not your politician, there are trusted community members. Do not take advantage of the time admins spend on the wiki by limiting them and giving them rules...that will not work, at all.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

05:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not needed. What is wrong with inactive admins. They don't hurt anyone, damaged the wiki or anything, so why axe them. And you can't remove b'crat status, so the crats are safe, but all some bureaucrats do is close rfa's and grant rollback, no mainspace contribs. Admins activity seems to go down after becoming an admin as well, so I think people who have worked really hard to become a sysop and then just lounge about doing little, they should have their powers revoked. Joe Click Here for Awesomeness17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"...all some bureaucrats do is close rfa's and grant rollback, no mainspace contribs...Admins activity seems to go down after becoming an admin as well...". All editors contribute to the wiki in different ways. The reason that I requested access to sysop tools was so I could deal with vandals and unused images more efficiently, doing anti-vandal work was how I best improved the wiki. I was never much of a fan of making large edits to articles. Along those lines, I certainly wouldn't call the maintenance work that the sysops do "lounging about". After all, the wiki would be a mess if no one ever did the small jobs. Laser Dragon 07:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they do sort stuff out, but their activity does seem to go down after being sysoped.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness~}2+2 08:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, not again

I guess this is going to be an eternal proposal. I don't want to keep responding, but I suppose I must again. (See this discussion for more points on the topic)

I've said my piece on this issue already, but my main issue is that I find it actually offensive for some trigger happy administrators to go and remove admin privileges purely for the purpose of "cleaning out the deadwood" due to somebody taking a wiki-break. Furthermore, periods of just a couple of months are way, way too short and we should be talking years, not months of inactivity if it is even considered.

The main point is that there is nearly no proof of vandalism from inactive administrators, and very likely they can help perform some tasks (especially anti-vandalism issues) even if they aren't completely up on site policies that have changed over a substantial period of time. The one, the only possible rationale that I can think of is if an inactive administrator has a weak password and some determined hacker/vandal was to discover that password through a brute-force technique... something I would hope catches the attention of Wikia in the first place and can be dealt with through other technical means besides having to de-sysop a user account.

As long as the user hasn't been abusing their admin privilege in the past, there is no logical reason to assume they will cause any harm to the wiki. In addition, it is a very clear way to tell formerly active individuals that their contributions are no longer welcome and that there is no desire to include those user in the larger community. --Robert Horning 08:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said Robert. As you may know, I was very active a while back but I am rarely seen anymore. But look, I am back and helping out for, 17 minutes! Do not remove our privileges. It may be a good idea to ask the admins if they still want their tools, but if they are inactive how will they know theyve been asked. And they will more than likely say yes, in case they come back. Old admins, leave a message on my talk page and say hi! Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert, this issue has come up a total of three time ever on this wiki. Just because you don't agree with the issue doesn't mean its some dark annoying secretive attempt to backstab every sysop and crat. That being said, I would appreciate a little more of a tolerable attitude, I only proposed these changes because I thought it would end up helping the wiki. Also, I don't know if you cared to read what I posted, but the deadline was four months, then a warning on the talk page of the inactive user, then after a week (or a month, still up for change) a crat would remove the inactive users power and they could easily regain it if they came back and decided they wanted it. Those numbers are also not finalized and up for editing. As far as being as malleable as possible on this issue, we have been incredibly generous to those users who are likely never to return. As well, consensus on the thread you posted was never reached, it just kind of died out with several people voting each way. Also, there is no reason that we would be sending the message that the user is not welcome back. As I said above, should they come back they would get their sysop back immediately with no RFA pr questions asked. One final thing I have always not liked about your argument is that you would be alright with a desysop only after a couple of years. What does it matter if we desysop them after four months, or 1 year. Nothing between those time periods change in relation to their activity, their power, their use of their power, or anything else. So delaying the entire ordeal because you think it would be rude is downright ridiculous.

Chicken, I took a look at your contribts and saw that you were active as recently as mid february. Under that circumstance you would still not even be considered for desysop for another 2 and a half months, and even then you would be messaged on your talk page and have an entire week (or month) to followup. Even after that, should you come back you would be able to get your power back immediately.

One thing I would also like to point out is that in this thread there has been alot of people assuming that because we are doing this we are enforcing some sort of quota or demand on volunteer sysops. I only have to say that just because you are a sysop or someone with significant power around this wiki does not make you immune to standards or judgment. We are all volunteers, we all do this for fun on our own time to make a better resource for other people to use. But we all have rules, and standards, and regulations, and things that make us work like a well oiled machine and usually only for the better. We make these people sysops because we trust them enough to enforce things that other users cant, and make changes that other users cant that effect this entire wiki. If they are not around and show no signs of coming back, why keep them in the list? I don't want to make these changes because it would make active administrators need to work harder, I want to make them so we can be more efficient as an entire populace and make the wiki better.

A couple of people have pointed out that these new regulations would chase them away should they be required to actually be active. This is downright ridiculous. The draft I wrote up which is not only terribly similar to the current guidelines we have, are incredibly lax. There is no quota, no demand, no anything. You are required to be active in some way. Be this blocking a vandal once a week or changing youre to you're in some random article. Also, I have changed to the yew grove part to be strictly a recommendation. I would prefer that all crats and sysops regularly check here to see whats going on the wiki at least once a week, but obviously some people are not comfortable with that.

Also, could you guys stop making new sections to say what you want to say? All this does is make the issue harder to have a unified discussion on and add more unnecessary text to the page. TEbuddy 19:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't much different from blocking inactive editors. Administrator tools are only an extension of normal editing abilities. To remove some editing tools from an inactive user isn't much different from removing all editing privileges. How exactly would desysopping inactive users make the wiki more efficient? It hardly seems efficient to waste the bureaucrats' time with desysopping (and later resysopping upon request) inactive users. Inactive administrators do not affect the wiki one way or the other. There is no reason to desysop a user unless they abuse their power or request it, just like there is no reason to block an editor unless they abuse their editing privileges or request it. Dtm142 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we be more efficient without more administrators? Take a look around.

Our list of administrators is seldom updated because no one can accurately say who is doing what with their priveleges and who is really active or just on a wikibreak or just got plain bored. Because of that we cant say who is really doing what, we cant keep a formal list of administrators to contact in case of a problem. Take a look at this page [3], I cant even sort through all the information.

Recently someone brought forward to the yg something interesting, with so many admins each has their own rough interpreation of the rules and little consistency [4]. As I have also said before, tightening RFA's and keeping our administrator base to a group of people that actually need and use on a regular basis would make sure more things get done in a timely and efficient manner, and that eventually a certain unwritten standard becomes common as the administrators learn about each other and how they work together.

Theres the security concern that karlis brought up a while back, while I dont think its the biggest problem it is important. Keeping a huge number of potential security vulnerabilities is never a good thing, ask any system administrator and you will get the same answer.

Frankly this whole "throw more administrators at a problem until its fixed" thing you seem to like dtm is what annoys me the most. You shouldn't just allow more and more administrators because you don't seem to think there wont be any negative effects. As I said in my very first post on the issue, there is a reason that large and successful wikis and forums only have a select group of trusted administrators. TEbuddy 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an active administrator's assistance isn't hard. We have the counter vandalism unit and admin requests for one thing. Administrators' names are highlighted in the recent changes, and new editors are automatically welcomed by the administrator who last edited the wiki. All of those require little or no maintanance.

The user block policy is a separate issue. A consistent written policy that has achieved community consensus is more in the spirit of our wiki than establishing an oligarchy. If the user block policy was formally worded and had strict procedures, blocks would be consistent. Currently, I don't have much of an issue with blocking being at the discretion of the individual sysop. More administrators also means more people to check each others' actions and if necessary, overturn a block. Wheel wars between administrators are very rare on the RuneScape Wiki.

Desysopping an administrator is not much more difficult than blocking a vandal now that bureaucrats can remove administrator access. If an administrator account was compromised, one of the bureaucrats would be able to deal with it quickly before much damage is done. So far, account security has not been an issue. In addition, this policy would not have fixed this concern. If a vandal did manage to get access to a former sysop account, they would just be sysopped again if they requested it.

"Large and successful wikis" and "large and successful forums" are two completely different topics. The RuneScape Wiki is unlike any other RuneScape fansite: Anyone can edit it. Most fansites only allow the owner and a small group of highly trusted community members to edit the main site. Normal community members are limited to posting on the forums, which are overseen by a larger but handpicked group of moderators. This wiki is different: There is no owner. Community members are allowed to participate in every aspect of the site's maintenance. Everyone has an equal say. What do you mean when you say "large and successful"? We have 44,138 pages of content, placing us in the top six gaming Wikia wikis. I consider that successful. If you wish to compare us to Halopedia like Karlis did on the other thread, we have nearly twice as many pages as they do. They are also the receiving end of many jokes due to their point system. A little while ago, there was a community rebellion due to the draconian RFA system and cabal that was controlling the wiki. Wikipedia is approaching three million articles and its RFA procedure is unrestricted. Granted, neither us nor Wikipedia are perfect. However, it is not relevant to compare us to other wikis. We have a different community composed of different editors. What is right for Wikipedia or Halopedia may not be right for us. Here however, RFA has served its purpose as it is for many years. There is no need to change what we know works for us. Dtm142 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We could go back and forth all day assuming what a vandal would or wouldnt do if they had the chance, but my experience says that vandals only concern is quickly causing as much damage as possible before they are banned. So if they came into control of an account they didn't know was once sysopped, do you think they would go digging through their contributions to find out, or even take a peek at the yew grove to see the discussion about desysopping inactive admins? I dont think thats a realistic expectation of any vandal.

All editors are equal in the sense of their due weight in a discussion, but the fact that administrators have power makes every user not equal. As well, they have that power so they can do things most users cant. I didn't use wikipedia or halopedia as a comparison. I used guildwiki, and wowwiki, the two largest game wiki projects in existence. I used them specifically because we have near the same number of people who actively play the games, yet when it comes to community involvement or wiki we only have 1/6th the activity they do. While the wiki doesn't work like a forum, we have an attached web forum with the same policies applying to administrators that want to obtain forum administrator status, and surprise surprise, its essentially dead. Simply throwing any comparison out the window because we have different people editing articles is ridiculous. The overall process and layout of the system is the same and as such is capable of being compared. Also, wikipedia only has 1360 administrators total including those inactive for its entire content and userbase which spans in the millions. Obviously they are a little more judgemental of RFA candidates. Also, what works for us lies with your interpretation of the current situation. I would say the current RFA system and policy is flawed, and because every user who uses the wiki cant and wont post here, we will never be able to accurately say so.TEbuddy 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We have never seen a vandal gain control of a sysop account, so we can't know for sure what they would really do. Getting at the account in the first place isn't very realistic to begin with. If a vandal was clever enough to do that, they would probably take the time to look at the contributions. I can't say for sure, I am not a vandal.

All editors are equal means that every editor has an equal say during any type of community discussion. This includes everything from VfDs to RfAs to Yew Grove discussions such as this one. Administrators are only trusted editors who have been given an extension to their normal editing abilities. They are in no way higher than other trusted users who lack sysop powers. One of the wikis you mentioned (Wowwiki) has a very similar RFA system to us. There are no formal requirements for an RFA and there is no limit on nominations. No Wowwiki administrator has ever been desysopped for inactivity. The only real difference between them and us is the number of administrators. I cannot say why that is so. Perhaps it is due to a lesser number of editors who are qualified for adminship. Perhaps the community is more judgemental. Or perhaps fewer editors express interest in adminship on Wowwiki. It seems that the only difference is (again) the editors themselves. The policies, scope, and size of the wiki is similar but the community is different. As you can clearly see, every wiki is different. I would agree that our forums have little to do with the wiki (many forum users do not use the wiki, and vice versa). However, that belongs on another topic. The issue at hand is inactive administrators keeping their additional editing privileges.

Whether the system is flawed depends on one's interpretation, as you said. However, I cannot find any serious flaws with our system. A few isolated incidents such as the recent desysopping discussion are all you have to show that our system is flawed. The issue is not how many people we sysop, but whether we sysop the right person. Dtm142 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ty

Let me get the door. Dtm's wisdom is knocking. =) - (I agree with him.)  Jedi ^{Talk HS Log Tracker}  08:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know of about three different situations where somebody with sysop privileges actually did engage in behavior resembling a definition of vandalism. In only one of them (on Wikipedia no less) was it with what we would call an inactive account. In none of them was it disputed that the user involved was anything other than the person who contributed most of the earlier edits. Basically, an editing/policy dispute came up and the user decided to leave in a blaze of glory by burning down the wiki using all of the tools available. In one very unfortunate case for a small wiki the user essentially deleted every single page, image, and template in the wiki and went on a blocking spree too. Let's just say that it devastated the community... not just from the loss of leadership but also trying to pick up the pieces. In the case of Wikipedia, the user got caught by the other admins and shown the door very quickly before much damage actually took place. For this, having more admins and not fewer is the answer, where we can check on each other and keep damaging stuff from happening or at least keep in under control. --Robert Horning 13:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the time issue

Tebuddy mentioned that there was little difference between desysoping somebody who has been inactive for four months vs. somebody who has been inactive for a couple of years (I'm not even suggesting one year is enough time). What is the difference? Plenty.

If I follow Tebuddy's logic further, what is the difference between somebody inactive for 4 months vs. somebody inactive for only one month.... one week? I'm suggesting that there is a continuum of activity levels from the very active to those who played around at the beginning and simply aren't with us at all any more.

One thing I do know is that there are seasonal issues that do come up... at least for me and from my experience a great many wiki contributors. Sometimes the only time a user can contribute is during the Summer, Christmas time, or other holiday periods. Perhaps (as has been my case on more than one occasion) a major project of some sort (like building a house... try it sometime even if you hire contractors) can eat up all of your free time. I say we give these sorts of users the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith, and treat them as full members of our community even if temporarily they seem to be missing in action.

Both Runescape and this wiki have been with us for years already, and by every indication they will be with us for years into the future. I am trying to say "have patience young grasshopper" to those who are younger and less experienced in life, and certainly don't press your hurried lifestyle on the rest of us. It takes all kinds of people to build a project of this nature, and it helps if you keep an inclusionist attitude at least in terms of participants if you want to see this community grow and become even better in the future.

Yes, I am suggesting that adding restrictions in terms of time limits of activity on administrators is exclusionary and windows the major policy discussions only to those who have a similar viewpoint. Four months of inactivity in particular is far, far too short even if you accept the basic premise that at some point inactivity should be the basis for removing these editing tools. --Robert Horning 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to round 2 Robert. =) I would agree, 4 months is too short, I think a year of inactivity is a good point to begin the process, if one were to be created at all. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

13:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that completely. For example some user's are way more active when school is off (E.g. Summer), like me. I will be alot more active until the 19th of april, when our school's easter hols end, and my activity will go down considerably. Some users may have this in extreme, so a year is good.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately robert you seem to have missed my point completely, I also do not appreciate being called a young grasshopper with a hurried lifestyle as you know zero about be except what I have said and whats on my userpage. I disagree with DTM but understand where he is coming from and think Robert's argument is based on pure speculation as him and none of his supporters meet the criteria to have been desysopped even by my standards or have responded to the fact that leaving an "im away" message on your userpage is quite simple. And that more active during certain times of the year bit is garbage, your either active by doing at least something sometimes, or your inactive by not logging in. Making an edit a week still makes you "active". And because holidays are very nicely dfispersed throughout the year only editing during holidays or breaks would still not put you past the "be active" requirement. Also, robert. Its quite unfair for you to make it seem like I am pushing my agenda or manipulating something to get my own way, the only thing I have done to get this policy change is post here and respond to a few peoples well put together arguments. I have not had a temper tantrum or lost it because you guys dont agree with something I think would be nice, so please dont make it seem like that.

I'm cool with the fact that few people are comfortable with this so I think I am just going to drop it. TEbuddy 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what all of us are saying is simple. If it is not broken, nor does it effect (or affect idk which), anyone why are we fixing it? It seems that to remove an admin just for the sake of removing them is pointless. ‎Atlandy 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I have put that many times.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Atlandy, and Robert, and DTM. I am barely ever on the site at times, but that is because I take breaks from RS on the scale of half-years. And inevitably, I eventually come back. You say we have too many admins. I agree we have more than the average number of admins for our size. But to say it's too many...what defines "too many"? I'd say the more the merrier. Even if those sysops are inactive, it's only to the wiki's benefit to keep them as sysops on the offchance they will do some very occasional editing/maintenance. Taking away those permissions will only encourage inactive sysops to stay inactive, to the wiki's detriment.

I have yet to see any opinion as to why it's a good idea to have less sysops. If it's just a case of cleaning up the list of sysops, then remove inactive ones from Runescape:Administrators. Oh wait: that's already been done! So what's the point? Endasil (Talk) @  03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to rant now. Here goes... What is the point of desysopping admins, they are not vandalising or anything, so this is silly and the most pointless yew grove topic ever. TEbuddy you seem to be waging a war against admins, just stop! Everything is fine, we don't need any changes to anything involving sysops so can we please close. Sigh. Joe Click Here for Awesomeness13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa my eyes are opened, thank for that very informative position changing speech, I will never have my own opinions again. If you only read a mere two paragraphs above you, you would have seen that several days ago I said I recognized no one wanted this and would stop posting. But this thread has yet to die because most of you cant read and think you need to knock me down a peg or two. And lastly, you spelled my name wrong on the easter thing you left on my talk page. TEbuddy 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While I love the sarcasm here, you need to realize that there are people of significantly different attitude about this issue. Some questions have been asked and a challenge to your line of reasoning on this topic have been issued, yet it seems like ad hominem attacks seem to be the prevailing attitude of the day. You have said there are too many sysops on this wiki, yet I and others are glad there are so many and wouldn't mind it if there were more. A demonstration of the real danger presented to this wiki if "inactive administrators" were allowed to keep their editing privileges has yet to be made. In addition, you haven't really addressed the reason why an editor is considered inactive if they haven't logged in and made some kind of edit or joined in a discussion in the past week... or why the magic number of four months has been chosen as well. These are all substantive issues that I would like to see addressed, and there have been other issues raised as well.

BTW, I do see a larger issue here that seems more akin to a coup d'état. Changing rules about who is granted adminship... particularly by eliminating those who may wield power and can make major changes... is a recipe for disaster in terms of forming cliques and setting up exclusionary policies that will only alienate and drive away other users. Where you see problems coming to a consensus due to no single administrator being able to establish policy, I see a diffusion of power that comes from a group being forced to make compromises and deal with often radically different opinions. I see this as a strength in the current status quo, and I really don't see why this change is needed.

Look, I like the fact that you've come up with an idea here, and it deserved legitimate commentary. I've given it, and I've tried to address specific issues that I have with that idea. Heck, I'll openly admit that on other wikis I've suggested the same idea (only to get it shot down to heck as well for the same reasons I'm giving now). I'm suggesting that from the years of experience that I've had from editing and participating on wikis, I have found such limits on administrators/moderators tend to have a negative influence on the community as a whole, and that individuals who insist upon such limits have... again from my experience as a whole and not just directed at you TEBuddy..... been very cliquish and "power hungry" for the political power that usually stems from administration of the site. Every person is unique, and I don't want this to upset you either. I'm simply trying to suggest that I have been around the block a few times on this issue and I've even changed my mind on this topic when it has been raised. --Robert Horning 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I's simple I think. Inactive admins aren't hurting anything, so why desysop them? To me it doesn't make any sense.  Jedi ^{Talk HS Log Tracker}  18:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)