Forum:Admins, admins everywhere

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Admins, admins everywhere
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 April 2011 by TyA.
Previous threads: Forum:Inactive admins., Forum:Removing Inactive Administrators Powers, Forum:Requirements for staying a sysop/b'crat. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 04:08, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Added one. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:50, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that we have rather a few inactive admins. Why does this category exist? An administrator is someone who (actively) administers. In any case, threads passim have bounced around the idea of removing the admin crown from people who have left for a prolonged time and that is only part of what I wished to propose.

At the moment, someone who passes an RfA is given their admin tools and no more is said about it, essentially ever. Is this really the right way to deal with admin tools? The only method of challenging someone's admin status at present is, to my knowledge, to make a thread here suggesting that they have their status removed. I haven't seen any of these in my time but I don't think I am too far-fetched in imagining that they are quite dramatic affairs. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

I would like to see a system whereby admins are held more accountable to the community. There are several ways this could be accomplished, such as annual or biannual reviews, rolling review pages which are checked for too much negativity, the list continues. I'm not (yet) interested in exactly how that might be accomplished. What I am interested in is whether this is an idea the community supports. I support the idea of the community being able to say that they don't believe that a user should have admin tools any longer. Again I am not yet interested in criteria that might be used to sort the good admins from the bad - there is no point debating this if not enough people support the principle of accountability to the community. I should point out that I would not be in favour of quantifiable criteria such as the number of "admin-only" actions undertaken since the absence of these does not necessarily mean that the admin is not doing their job and watching over the wiki.

In essence I would like to see a shift towards requiring that admins perform their duties in order to retain their status, rather than the current system under which they must simply avoid doing anything too outrageous. It is here that I come back to that list of inactive admins, who are assiduously avoiding doing anything outrageous by avoiding doing anything at all. Being an admin is a privilege granted in return for fulfilling the expectation of services rendered, and should be withdrawn if these services are no longer being performed.


Support - As nominator. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 03:53, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - As I was originally the one who brought up the issue... These inactive admins were given a wonderful privilege, and they choose to no longer use it. So why should they still have it? Their names are very unsightly on our List of Administrators page, for a number of reasons.

One, someone might question, "Why are there so many inactive admins? Is it because no one wanted to administrate this wiki anymore? Did they get bored of this wiki and choose to leave?" That doesn't look very good on us, considering we are all pro-editing right now. What better way to tell people how awesome we are by showing them how many inactive users we have...

Two, we have no reason to keep them. If they haven't been fulfilling their duties and are completely out of touch with the wiki, what point is there to keep them around? At the moment, we have 30 "active" administrators, according to the list (which I would completely disagree with regarding the numbers), and 33 inactive. Of the 33 inactive, I've only seen 2 of them once or twice. They don't visit here anymore, their services to this wiki are no longer needed - they have long been replaced by the more active administrators. These inactives have moved on from here, and I think we should do the same. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:14, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

And for God's sake, I'll support the admin review too. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Inactive administrators are still the same person from when they became one to when they leave for years. There is no reason why anyone should not trust them to do our administrative work just because they left; it is unjustified. Smithing 04:35, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

We should not have to justify removing an admin, we have nothing to prove. Rather, admins should justify their status by being a good at their job. It is not unjust to take a privilege from someone who no longer merits it. If anything is unjust it's to allow inactive admins to retain their status despite doing nothing to deserve it. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 05:23, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
If there is no proof that an admin has done anything wrong, then there is no reason why they no longer merit being an admin. There is absolutely no harm in letting an inactive admin keep his duties. Only if the admin has done something wrong etc. should they be desysopped. Smithing 05:34, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
We never said they did anything wrong. We're saying they do nothing at all. Perhaps you should read the entirety of the thread, comments included. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:31, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I know what it said, but I still stick to my comments. If there's no proof they did anything wrong etc.; that they did nothing at all, then they still deserve to be trusted by the community (I would fully trust them to come back and make good edits even if ten years have gone by since they made their last edit). If they come back and make bad edits, then they should be desysopped, but not because they left. Assumptions that an admin changes from good to bad after leaving should not be made, as there's no proof until they come back, if ever (but I don't think there has been a case of an admin coming back making disruptive edits on this Wiki). I also think it may force people who just want to leave to make edits they don't want to, just to retain their admin status. If admins want to leave, they can, but there's no reason why they should be discouraged from doing so. Smithing 18:50, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take into consideration that not only may the person change, but the Wiki changes as well. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:57, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
That's a better argument. But I think what I said still applies. If they make a mistake by forgetting to read the policies section (and they should have a message encouraging them to do so), then they should be given a warning, if they do it again, only then should they be desysopped. We should tell admins about this before they become an admin, tell them to continually review the policy section and watch for updates. Smithing 19:06, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise that the burden is solely on the administrator to watch for policy changes. Sysops should be notified of such things in some manner, whether it be a talk page message or an addition to the sitenotice. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

An excellent idea You are right, this has been proposed before and leads to some drama. But it just makes sense that we have an annual review of our active admins at least. If they truly represent the current ideals of the wiki they will keep their shiny little crowns. It is much much too hard to desysop people.--Degenret01 04:52, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - While we do have an abnormal amount of sysops at 42, where some are bot accounts, having these inactive administrators might look odd to someone at first glance. Now I would be in support of the removal of inactive administrators (have not logged in within the last three months as seen on the users list). There is one issue with this, as it currently stands, if the administrator left on good grounds, they could request their tools back without consensus a second time as they received it once for the tools. This would have to change and I'm not entirely sure on these grounds. Now we apply this to just more than the administrators, but to the 3 bureaucrat's and we will see a true image of who is still editing. Not many left standing and there is little that could be done to change whether they will edit or not, let alone log in. In the end, I'm conflicted over whether we should do quarterly, bi-annual or even annual health checks on the sysop group right or just outright remove rights from those who have retired/moved on/left account offline for an extended period of time. Ryan PM 05:10, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Full support, it's an idea that I've been thinking about since Harle's thread. There are more problems with admins that are inactive than just being tidy or holding admin rights hostage unless they use them frequently... Inactive admins are, as Fergie stated, out of touch with the wiki and with Runescape itself. With the rate that Jagex releases updates and patches and how often we mess around with policies and precedent, being inactive for even a few months can lead to issues regarding counter vandalism (blocking and reverting) and other responsibilities like closing threads and Uotm/FIMG.

Now, im not sure what Smithing is smoking up there ^, but people DO change after long periods of time, especially those who have been gone for years >_>. This is only to be expected, seeing as the majority of editors are still teenagers. This issue was brought up very recently in Forum:De-rank Whyhavealife. It was evident that he had undergone a large change in personality from when he was given Forum Admin rights and they were removed from him due to it. - [Pharos] 05:27, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Full support - I was expecting something like this in the near-term, and it makes complete sense. Removing the sysop tools of inactive administrators would reduce confusion and tidy up the list, so we know who is actually active. However, retired sysops should be allowed to request their tools back, if they choose to return on an active basis. I think it would be a good idea for a bi-annual review of sysops, twice a year means that it isn't too frequent but not too far-spaced either. The format would need a lot more discussion, but it would be best to not have every single sysop reviewed at the same time, but instead smaller chunks, maybe determined by their time served as a sysop. I agree that sysops need to be pressed to perform their duties properly, instead of just lingering in the "correct" side and keeping their tools, it would increase accountability and may reduce the aura of superiority some users may see by making it clear that sysops must behave like everyone else. 222 talk 05:35, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't want to be accountable and there's nothing you can do to stop me. ʞooɔ 05:43, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

... Suppa chuppa Talk 05:49, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Damn, how did you manage to figure out that this thread was targeted at you? - [Pharos] 05:50, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I heard you and Bull plotting to overthrow me. ʞooɔ 05:53, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I pressed the wrong button. But I do agree that being a sysop should not be a permanent position without oversight. I think a good place to start would be to have administrator review, which could maybe be a three-day long process where all sysops would be reviewed by the community. This could start with volunteers, and move on to the unwilling and inactive sysops. After the review is over, the sysop can take it unto themselves to decide whether to step down, or face a possible recall. Just my 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars. ʞooɔ 05:53, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Amg why do you only give us only 2 cents? I want moar! Gimme! JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:15, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I know I'm one of them myself and I haven't been editing a lot since the time I've been sysopped. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 08:53, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I support desysoping admins that are not going to use it anymore, but if the admin says he might be using it some time, I think he should keep his adminship until he becomes completely inactive without any plans to do anything with admin tools anymore. Or, if someone requests adminship to be removed, he should be able to request it back whenever he wants, because it was agreed by the community that the person would get adminship, and a request to remove it doesn't make the community change minds suddenly. So, I think admins should not have their rights removed without their permission (or community consensus of course), and they should be able to request adminship back without running a RfA. Of course people might request their adminship to be removed when there starts a desysop thread, so this should not be allowed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:48, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points
  • If they lose it by not passing the review, they will need a new RFA to request it back.
  • If they lose it by inactivity, they will need a new RFA. In this case we can consider a shortened process, just to see they have really come back and are fully active again.
  • If they request it to be removed but in the midst of questionable actions, they will need a new RFA. This happened in a recent case where if the sysop had not requested the removal of tool, a desysop thread was about to start. When he requested the tools back it was denied. He is of course free to come back and run a new RFA any time he wants.--Degenret01 11:45, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
We can discuss exactly how we go about reviewing sysops and what happens if they come back later in the thread or in another thread. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:21, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
My point was that I don't actually agree on all of those points you made. I think reviews should have consensus to desysop to let someone lose admin rights. Not passing could as well mean that the admin should improve on certain points, but if he does people would want the admin to keep his rights. There should be a difference between those things imo. Also, I think inactivity is not a reason to desysop someone. Psycho Robot has had a period of inactivity. I would not support needing another RfA (even if it's a shortened process) before. If the user quits, and feels he doesn't need the tools anymore, he should be able to request his tools to be removed (or on the review they would be removed, with the user able to request them back at any time), without needing another RfA to get them back. I don't see why we would desysop users who are inactive, while they might as well return, while still very well able to use the tools. It would be unneeded to have another discussion on those users in my opinion. And even if the user is not really active, but might use the tools, why not give them access? they are trusted (else a review would result in removal of rights) and they still use it. Of course, like I already said, requesting tools to be removed when a desysop thread starts, just to be able to request it back should of course not be allowed. I totally agree on that. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:53, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I think that the idea of annually reviewing all sysops is a good one. As it is, people are wary of nominating a candidate for deadminship because they fear the drama - perhaps a more regular process would lessen that fear. Also, I'd support completely removing the list of inactive admins - there is no reason why they should have their names anywhere, they are inactive, and all it serves is as a vanity list. Oh, and let's remove the hilites while we're at it :D (jk, don't want to start that drama here) ajr 13:23, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Says Mr green signature :P --Henneyj 14:07, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Nou. Actually, my signature is green because on my [[w:c:mylegonetwork|home wiki]], the colour scheme was like that, and I adapted someone else's sig to use those colours. I found out that the RS wiki used a similar colour hilite a couple months after that, and I became active here about 8 months after that... so yea, completely unrelated. ajr 19:49, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I certainly agree that some admins, such as those who haven't even edited in a year, should be de-adminified. As for semi active admins, such as perhaps Powers (above), I'm not too bothered either way, since their admin weapons tools may still prove useful, and I don't see any harm with them keeping those tools whilst their still editing in some way. As for a review, I'm not sure it's completely necessary, but certainly no more than once a year due to the amount of review likely required. --Henneyj 14:07, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Per Gaz (Emphasis added) "the only situations in which someone should have their admin powers taken away are blatent vandalism or consistently breaking any other of the wikis policies without valid reason". 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 16:19, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

And this thread is challenging to change that... ;3= Also, I don't see where Gaz opposed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:31, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Serenity's got it. Admin tools should only be removed when the admin in question has abused the tools and/or requested them to be removed (for whatever reason). We may not know why some admins are inactive, but they may well return - having their tools removed in the mean time (without their consultation) could dishearten them or even drive them away. (Gaz's answer) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atlandy (talk) on 16:33, April 8, 2011 (UTC).
Gaz hasn't commented in this thread one way or the other. This thread is not solely about inactive admins, it is about whether we agree that admins should have to actively retain their tools rather than merely avoid losing them. There is a significant difference between the two and I'm of the opinion that we favour active rather than passive admin policies here. I'm not sure opposing per the policy is strictly relevant when the thread concerns possible changes to said policy. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 16:42, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict yay) I should point out that I no longer have this viewpoint. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:45, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support While I'm not around much on here, I'd like to say that inactive admin accounts are in a way a security risk to the wiki as well. Imagine what happens if someone were to want to vandalize in mass -- an inactive admin account is the perfect target - the user won't change their password for extended periods of time, leaving the account easier to get into. Also, if adminship is Not a big deal, then those with it shouldn't CARE whether they have it or not if they're not active or not using it. Otherwise, you'll find that it's become a thing of status -- whether the admins realize it or not. Grim reaper hood.png Ben RyfosTalk 16:54, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Inactive accounts are not any easier than active ones to hack: your argument is not compelling. (wszx) 08:14, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per all. I was given admin tools so I could use them to help the wiki. If I'm not using them, then they aren't doing anyone any good. Who knows, this might even push some of us to edit a tad more. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:35, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Also I like the idea of annual reviews. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:38, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Not really bothered how this goes - Both my account and AzBot are sysops. I still play RuneScape, but I occasionally stop playing for extended periods of time.

I started using this wiki as a casual "reader", and occasionally contributed. The first thing I noticed on the main page was "X was sysopped by Y". But I never knew what it meant and never bothered to find out. But after becoming more active, and probably after amassing PQRS number of edits, I was nominated for adminship. It felt good to be recognised, and as I was familiar with MediaWiki, it meant that I could do more with these admin tools. I rarely used it for counter-vandalism since we had much more active admins for that.

Even if I use them rarely, these tools are proven to be useful and has become a part of me. Editing in other wikis without these tools feels weird and limiting. Going through another RfA, especially nowadays, when there is so much emphasis on counter-vandalism, I would probably not pass. Even if the RfA is a shortened process or whatever, I would not bother. Why? Because being sysopped shows that you were trusted to use these tools properly. Being desysopped for whatever reason would imply that you are no longer appreciated or trusted anymore. Like some overgrown weed that needs to be pruned...

If I ever lose admin tools by not passing the review and due to inactivity, I would probably continue to use (read) the wiki as I do now, but I would no longer contribute. After all, I'm not getting any gain from contributing... It's only voluntary.

If it was me, I would be stop bothering about inactive and semi-active admins, and let them be. They might come back, or they might not. My only suggestion is to remove the inactive list. Arguments against compromised accounts can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Demoting inactive admins.   az talk   21:09, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Inactive admins are not a problem, bad ones are. No harm is caused by allowing inactive administrators to retain their flags: even if they perform only one action, the Wiki benefits. This thread promotes a "people must actively be shown to be worthy" approach to adminship rather than "you can be one so long as you haven't fucked up and we don't think you will": the former promotes elitism which this Wiki so righteously abhors. Though I generally favor systematic reviews, (ideally with the default being do-not-renew) going after inactive admins rather than poor ones is misguided. (And passim? Really? Dial down the bombast-notch a bit.) (wszx) 08:09, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - They are not causing harm by being inactive. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 19:42, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

This is not only about inactive admins, but also for a review on active admins if they are doing their "job" well or not. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:46, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Very few of the supporters have expressed any opinion on review of active admins. So no, it's not. (wszx) 21:39, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
A significant number actually have, and the idea is additionally included in the nominator's proposal. So I would say that it is. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:40, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
There are twelve supporters. Three have explicitly supported review of active admins (Henny, Ghosty and AJ); Joey made reference to it in comments after his initial support, and Brains referenced it (I think). Five is some, but it's hardly enough to draw a consensus to that effect, particularly when there is no actual discernible proposal in this thread. (wszx) 22:00, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Suppa, that is included, but it is not the proposal: "In any case, threads passim have bounced around the idea of removing the admin crown from people who have left for a prolonged time and that is only part of what I wished to propose." Read carefully. Smithing 22:04, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
I explicitly supported it. And the proposal is clearly about all administrators, not just inactive ones. ʞooɔ 22:17, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, this is true. You don't usually say anything worth reading, so I just stopped after should not be a permanent position. Amended. (wszx) 22:28, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
How kind of you. ʞooɔ 22:44, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - By suggesting that old admins might come back and be less trustworthy that when they passed RfAs, you are violating policy. They have been deemed trustworthy by the community, and they stay that way until conclusive evidence shows they are abusing their rights. Please link me to the logs where Skill blocked 10 users for the laughs, I must have missed that one. Real Nub 21:56, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

I am not making any assumptions in either good or bad faith about admins who have become inactive. What I am saying (among other things) is that inactive admins are not performing the useful services their status implies. If you are not performing useful admin duties for the wiki I don't believe you should be an admin. That is what this thread is all about. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 22:31, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that AGF literally has nothing to do with this? ʞooɔ 22:44, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
So the reviews would essentially be "Admin X hasn't been here for a while, therefore they don't deserve sysop tools". How Admin X was hurting the wiki by sitting on the inactive list I have no idea. Save the desysopping for the admins clearly abusing their powers. I will not respond to further replies. Real Nub 06:35, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
You may not reply, but I'll say this anyway: I don't know where everyone is getting this "how are they hurting the wiki?" view as that is clearly not what this proposal is about. No one has said they're "hurting" anything. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:59, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
In general when proposing solutions, you need to identify that there's a problem. If inactive admins are not hurting the wiki, we have a solution without a problem. What good does hunting down inactive admins do. (wszx) 16:53, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - The reason there is no concrete proposal in this thread is that if the community didn't support even the principle of admin review, proposing some methods by which this might be accomplished would be a waste of everyone's time. I thought it better to have this thread first to judge the level of support, and then proceed to how it might be implemented later on in a second thread. This is not just a pie in the sky thread assessing the level of support for an abstract idea, I have definite plans to take it forward if it's popular. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 22:26, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a waste of everyone's time to make two threads when only one is needed. Wikians tend to get hung up on details, so some might support review but ultimately oppose your proposal because of specific implementation. It would be best to just have made one thread with your concrete proposal. (wszx) 22:32, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
My time isn't wasted. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
How generous of you to say. (wszx) 23:32, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
I kinda like the staged proposal method... 222 talk 23:46, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. Smithing 17:47, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support reviews - Annual reviews seem like a good idea to make sure all admins are doing their job, and not abusing their tools. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:01, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Explain how it's abuse? Christine 16:59, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
He means in general... ʞooɔ 20:30, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Would this include other so-called "authority" positions in other places on the wiki (such as the clan chat or IRC)? ʞooɔ 20:30, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Review of cc ranks was pretty decisively rejected, and since IRC is comparable to the cc, I assume such sentiment is the same. (Though I obviously still support it.) (wszx) 20:35, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
I likely should have phrased that better. Would sysops that were recalled lose their Clan Chat rank and/or IRC op privileges? ʞooɔ 20:49, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
I believe in a previous thread the decoupling of sysop status from cc ranks and IRC privileges was defeated. Based on this I would assume that the removal of sysop status would necessarily involve removal of these other attributes. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 21:24, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Inactiveness on the wiki doesn't correlate at all to inactiveness in other related wiki forms of socialization, and we've had non-admin IRC ops before so one doesn't necessitate the removal of another. Christine 22:53, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure in previous cases said sysops lost their admin for a reason, and so losing chat rank followed. In this case the people losing tools would still be trustworthy and as Christine pointed may still be more active in chat. Furthermore, having a rank in chat is not really as 'cluttering' as inactive admins. --Henneyj 23:29, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. To lazy to write my own reasons -.-  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spamnub (talk).

I agree with Az and the opposers more - I don't really see why we should bother with sysop reviews. The nature of the bulk of sysop tools (block, protect, delete) is that one doesn't know when they're needed. If an inactive sysop is the only one around when a vandal strikes, then that is a case where having that sysop keep the tools is helpful. Unless one drastically changes, the community trust that was established before should still hold today.

Of course, a former sysop can always use the CVU or IRC or CC or whatever to request a block in the unlikely situation that he actually is the only sysop on the wiki at the time, but it seems to be a bigger hassle than needed. There just isn't any substantial benefit to having these discussions periodically and bothering bureaucrats to remove sysop tools all the time. I wouldn't use this argument on an RfA, of course, since it doesn't establish a need for the tools, but in the case where one already has them there isn't much point to removing them when one hasn't done anything wrong.

I could use myself as an example. My one-year anniversary as a sysop is coming in two days. I haven't really done much anything for the past few months. If my tools were removed, then I would have to go to someone else in the infrequent scenario that I need to block someone or protect a page. Would this have a large impact on the wiki's countervandalism efforts? Absolutely not. I haven't blocked anyone for a long time and I doubt I'll be active enough to do so anytime soon. But, I don't think it's a worthwhile use of community effort to have myself and every other sysop go through some discussion.

As long as the sysop hasn't changed and still displays excellent judgment in the cases where it's needed (exempli gratia, I don't think anyone would say I'm unfair in things like consensus determination), there really is no harm done in leaving things alone. --LiquidTalk 01:34, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that sysops should lose their tools for not using them, but I think the proposer is saying that sysops who don't edit at all should lose their tools. You are also assuming that the community will be extremely tough with the sysop reviews, while I believe they will be a lot more flexible. I highly doubt that we will need to frequently pester bureaucrats to remove dozens and dozens of editors from the sysop usergroup. This would look better if it was longer, Wink 222 talk 01:40, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'd be tough to myself ("Oppose") if I were reviewing me, and I'd assume and expect that others would be too. Anyways, that's beside the point. Unless the old sysops changed, I do not believe that it's necessary to remove any tools. If they have changed for the worse, then it's a simple matter to desysop. --LiquidTalk 01:51, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Why may I ask would you be tough on yourself, and expect others to act the same, you have also not considered my other point that the reviews would focus on general activity, not just use for the tools as a single block or protect would benefit the wiki, and be counted as a use for the tools. Your last point is part of the issue, it is not a simple matter to desysop; desysoping is something which is met with the strongest dose of status quo-ing. If you believe the tools are tenured for life unless they are misused, so be it, I'll stop here. 222 talk 02:04, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
"reviews would focus on general activity" ...and if the admin in question is using the tools in a correct way. What's proposed is that inactive admins have their rights removed and the active admins get reviews for how they are doing, and maybe also what they should improve in what they do. So, it's 2 suggestions in one. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:39, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Desysoping is not a simple matter, this 123kb long thread, that takes half an hour to read shows how 'simple' desysoping is. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 15:09, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support and I'm leaving this here -   Thunderous My WallpapersYk'Lagor the Thunderous.png 02:47, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support --AzurisProblem, wiki? 02:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support k   Swizz Talk   Events!   14:25, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Reviews? Are you kidding me? How's that going to work? "Oh, they missed the quota by thiiiiiis much, sorry, gotta desysop 'em!" pfffft Andrew talk 20:36, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

What quota? ʞooɔ 20:41, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I explicitly stated that I would be against quantitative criteria for any sort of admin review procedure. Please read all of what I had to say before commenting. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 21:24, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I did read what you said. You said that you "wouldn't be in favor of it," which doesn't necessarily rule the idea out if someone else proposes it. Anyways, it was merely an example. Andrew talk 23:38, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I see... so you are then likewise OK with reviews, but no quota? You haven't actually mentioned what is wrong with his proposed idea of qualitative reviews. ajr 23:46, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
What else would it be based on? Christine 00:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Partial support - I support the admin review, but I oppose desysopping inactive admins. Whenever a previous admin becomes active again, and has had a chance to become reacquainted with how things work, they could then be reviewed. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:18, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

But there's a good chance a number of admins won't become active again. Henneyj 22:14, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
But they've never done anything to show us that they are no longer able to be trusted with the tools, nor that if they were to return that they'd be incompetent. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:00, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
My activity has been greatly sporadic, and even though I've been inactive for decent periods of time, I've been active for multiple periods of time as well. There's no way to know if someone will come back or not... Christine 00:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support admin review - Although I still oppose desysopping admins which are not using their tools (my reasoning for this can be found above), I believe that admin reviews every one to two years would be beneficial to this Wiki as they help ensure that admins are not doing bad. Thus, I support admin reviews. Smithing 23:37, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of reviewing admins is if it's not just inactive ones. Because if an active admin does something inappropriate, then you know that a YG topic will sure as hell be made... Christine 00:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Which degenerates into the kind of thread sentra linked above. I'd much rather have a smoother system such that if the community issues a clear mandate the sysop steps down or is removed with a minimum of fuss. If they really think they're being ganged up on unfairly they can make a thread and we can have the drama, but I like the idea of there at least being an opportunity to circumvent it. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 01:11, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
So as I asked above... what would we even be reviewing then? Christine 04:05, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think the theory goes that systematic review would lower the temperature on discussions recalling admins. Review would be mandatory and regular, so there's no political ramifications suffered when specific person brings up a recall. Further, I think that implicit in the proposal is that the threshold for "terrible admin—desysop" will be lowered under these reviews. (wszx) 04:09, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
What we will be reviewing is the admin's behaviour on the wiki. If people think the admin does things admins should not do, they can say it there, and the community can look at it then. Also advice can be given for what the admin should improve. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:52, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
I'm still convinced that if "the admin does things that admins should not do," there would be YG threads about it... Christine 17:36, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I'd like to outline my objection to this method of YG threads a bit more clearly, prefacing all of this by nothing that I am in favor of active-admin review, and have stated so before. There's no specific proposal in this thread, as we've all agreed. Rather, Bull wants to gauge support for the general idea of admin (both active and inactive) review. He wishes to do this so as to not waste his time developing a detailed proposal, only to be shot down on principle, rather than specific implementation.

The problem with proceeding in this way is that what happens when this thread is closed? If Bull is satisfied that there is enough preliminary support to justify his developing a specific proposal, what is the tenor of that proposal's discussion going to be? I fear that it's going to be "we've already decided that admin review shall be implemented, so this thread will effect the proposal in some form", without any room for us to say "no, we don't actually support this", either because we don't like the specific proposal or we've changed our minds on the principle. It's kind of going to hog-tie the participants into supporting things they don't really support simply because of the precedent created by this thread. As I said, people may support review in principle, but not in some specific executions—but because of this thread, they're not going to be able to block the proposal since we've decided here to enact it.

In light of this, I request that this thread be closed. More specifically, that Bull close it without proclamation. It has served its purpose: there is general support for both prongs of your idea, and allowing this to continue any longer will unfairly cement the mindset I just detailed. Close this thread, and make your proposals so that they may be exposed to fair discussion, rather than this theoretical debate about proposals that have not been proposed. (wszx) 06:18, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Admins, admins everywhere. Request complete. The reason given was: Time to see what people actually want to do about it.

Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 19:55, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator requested closure. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:07, April 12, 2011 (UTC)