UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Inactive Sysops

Initial Discussion

What about 5-6 months, 3 doesn't have any real reason does it?--Karek^maps?! 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ninety days is a long time to not do anything. I figure even if a sysop was busy in their personal life, they could spare five minutes come on and process a speedy deletion case (for example) before ducking out again. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with having idle sysops around? You never explained that, not even with the last policy. Its happened time and time again in the past that sysops from the earlier ages come back to post once more and hop back into teh rythm of the wiki as before. Ive done it twice myself. Zaruthustra has done it, the General has done it, and these are the ones i can think of just off the top of my head. If i took a moment to examine everything, i would find dozens of similiar cases. Inactive sysops present no threat to the security of the wiki, and they return with some regularity to adminsitrate the wiki once more, so why on earth should we demote them? Is there a problem? No. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC) -- Bisfan 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should we keep them around if they aren't doing anything? Several potential sysops had votes against them simply because we "had too many sysops", when in reality we have very few active ones. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that they aren't doing the job, this encourages sysops to, you know, administer the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, convert it to a year of absence (complete), or make it so that sysops who do drop off the face of the Earth due to comical or tragic mishap can regain their position easily without going through the voting process again. At the start of this year i lost my internet access for 6 months. I would not have enjoyed coming back to find that because of an accident, i had lost my status as a sysop and was heavily limited in my ability to clean the place up as a result. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC) -- Bisfan 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See my response below. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly counts as an administrative edit? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything that a sysop can do, in which a normal user cannot or should not. Such as ruling on Vandalism cases, cycling deletions, performing protections, processing undeletions, etc. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, exactly what I was looking for. The other policy that went through had too much rubbish with it. This is plain and simple. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no upper limit on sysops. The more the better, I say! (as long as they are good sysops, so to speak.) Because there is no upper limit on sysops, then there is realy no reason at all to remove a sysops power if they go inactive for a bit. If, by some bizzare act of chance going againgst the sensibiblity of the entire wiki and the rule of nature itself I was promoted to sysop and my PC blew up, I seriously doubt I would be able to either access the internet (for entertaiment purposes) or purchase a new computer for a good few months. Why penalise people for things outside their controll?--Seventythree^Talk 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are so many ways to gain access to the internet. I could go to the local library and gain access for an hour a day. Even if my computer exploded, my house burned down, my friends all died, and all my money was taken away, I could still get online through a library. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this Akule, but if I had my computer explode on me to-morrow, sadly the UD wiki would be the last thing I would concentrate on if I had only public internet access to fall back on.--Seventythree^Talk 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured. So if in three months you still cannot get back online, you would be demoted. Then, once everything is back up and running and you are ready to re-dedicate yourself to the wiki, you could re-apply for the position. I'm sure that the people who look at the promotion bid would take into consideration that your computer exploded, and you can cite prior work. I wouldn't see it as a big problem to get re-nominated. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflicted me ake, you punk!] Here is what I think. If a sysop is gone for like 3 months without talking to someone about it, that shows a lack of involvement and interest in the job. If that interest gets rekindled, great, come on back -- but in the meantime.... Also, a lot can happen in the way of policy changes and/or interpretations and ways in which old policies are being applied -- things change, and an inactive sysop might not actually be on top of things... far, far from it. I do, however, want some kind of humanity loophole put in place though ... While I support cycling through inactives, I do not like just purging them mindlessly after 90 days... Oh, and change the wording "forfeits" to just "loses" ... forfeits is a strong word that seems kinda silly here, considering sysops are volunteers, not world heavyweight champions.... --WanYao 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How would this special condition work, and how would we verify it? I'd assume that we would automatically drop the sysop in the event of catastrophic loss (as we would not know, because the sysop was unable to tell us why they weren't around), but then come up with a different way to have the sysop reapply? Perhaps a shorter wait with a small crash course on how the wiki has changed in their absence (policy changes, difference in how things are ruled, landmark cases, etc)? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Which, when I think about it, would be one of the big things. The sysop would be out of date with current policies and practices on the wiki. We'd have to have the inactive sysop get caught up so as not to get lost on how the wiki currently operates. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, you are assuming that the Sysop in question is inactive in the sense they aren't visiting the wiki at all - which may not be the case. In fact, I "lurk" on the wiki more than I edit: either because everything that I would say has been said, or there is nothing else to add that would further my viewpoint. Surely, sysops that have internet access visit the wiki from time to time. Whether or not they make an edit is superfulous in this argument, because they are still keeping abreast of changes to policy within the Wiki. This policy that you have made is a bit too strong for me. An edit to the administration pages within 3-4 months should be more than enough to keep them in; even if it's just to vote on a Deletion request. It shows interest and attention to the ebb and flow of the wiki. --Ryiis 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree, if they aint active they dont need to be sysops.--MisterGame 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like another policy in search of a problem to me. If someone can throw up just one single example of where inactive sysops have caused harm to this wiki, that would present a reason for this policy. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is taken out of context, but it was the easiest one to find (Sorry Grim):

Grim_s said:

"...i dont think we need more sysops. We have more than enough already..." [sic]

It surely wasn't the whole basis for voting down the promotion bid, (go here, vote #4, to view the quote in context) but it was stated. Surely, others feel the same and might vote against a promotion. Whether or not something like this causes harm to the wiki is not for me to judge. --Ryiis 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

heh, if we are using that quote as context. Then removing inactive sysops, would thus open room for more dedicated sysops, and thusly grim might not have a problem voting for said pledge. But then again, I like taking out of context stuff and running with it! Wheeee!!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

+Sigh+..., so many people took that out of context i probably should have cleaned it up sooner. This isnt so much a case of people being too silly to see what was intended so much as it was a case of people seeing what they want to see. The bit cut off right at the end of the quote reads: ", and promoting willy nilly is just a bad idea." The comment was there because so very many people vote commenting "why not" (On a lot of things. Policies, Suggestions, Promotions...). The comment was there as part of a genteral and subtle attempt to put forward the question "why?" as equally important. Besides, that was such a minor part of my argument there that it didnt bear considering in the long run as a major point. The main thrust of my argument was that he was the wrong kind of person to be a sysop, and particularly ill suited (demonstrably so) to a particular subsection of administrative tasks which he subsequently said he would be focusing on. Anyhoo, as i said. The general concept behind that was that promoting people willy nilly is a bad idea, and that the voters should be examining a candidates fitness for a role, rather than their popularity (Popularity leads to votes saying "Why not"). Not sure if i managed to convey the concept as eloquently as i would have liked, but the general idea whould be apparent. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) -- Bisfan 02:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We're going to want to have people who will be active. Remember how much stress is upon the current sysops. This job isn't very forgiving and can be very taxing. With more active sysops, we can take some of that burden off our current sysops and spread things out. We won't have to have one or two people doing everything if try and just maintain active sysops who all do a little bit and help keep the backlog of stuff down. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Funt here. The only problem here is that Akule needs a better project. As I've said about Nali - what if all this energy were focused on some major improvement initiative rather than on these non-issues? This is adding a satellite dish to the garage while the heat in the house isn't working.--Squid Boy 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestions. Feel free to let me know on my talk page what improvements you think I should focus on. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 

I'm guessing I may be one of the types this would impact. I do use the sysop features, but more or less just to clean up my own mess (deleting / moving pages I create) or avoid pestering sysops to edit locked pages on occasion.
So, would that qualify me as inactive under this proposals terms? I'd hope not, but if so, meh. Personally I think the answer to that would just be to have more sysops; anybody who demonstrates they won't abuse it deserves to be allowed to do that sort of thing, IMO. Not that I don't give a lot of credit to people who handle the support work here; I just think sysop status need not be restricted to such folks, as it has other legitimate uses.
On another note, it might be handy to sysops if there was a simple "administrators handbook" with some links to jobs that need doing. Because truth told, the majority of the administrative stuff here takes WAY to much digging through to figure out the process (both political and computer) that is expected to be followed. Or maybe we could just have a sysops page that has a "to do" list that people can grab an item from? "To Do's" could be as vauge as "go to x page and read / implement the vote results".  Swiers 23:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a good page to create. Experienced sysops can create an administrative page that gives tips or methods for new sysops. Now, as for a case such as yours, if you do one administrative edit, (say rule on a vandalism report or process a deletion) you would be fine. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind having sysops is that there are some functions that not everyone should have access to. Idle Power user accounts are a bad thing, we have and a few tech savvy vandals before, why leave obvious targets for a brute force attack. If they have not edited in a few months I'll bet their password haven't changed either. While it may not be a likely risk it is a extremely preventable one with minimal side effects.- Vantar 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the risk that their login details may become available to others if they get rid of old computers (their younger sibling gets it, they sell it on, etc) without cleaning out passwords. Maybe the cut off could be extended to 6 months, as said above? And perhaps if the sysops informs the wiki they'll be absent for a longer period, it could be temporarily waived -- boxy • talk • 00:59 1 December 2007 (BST)

I don't think there is much of a problem with leaving them be... though Vantar does make a good point. What I would like to see, if this must go through, is a fast-track through the promotions process for returning sysops. It's pointless to make them wait the full two weeks if they're just going to be voted back in anyway (I don't think it's fair to be able to reject them if they have a good reason for their absence). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with creating a fast-track for nominations of formerly inactive sysops who were removed with this policy. What would you say is fair? A week? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A week sounds good. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What do other people think? Are you okay with that sort of timetable? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Vantar has a valid point there. There really isn't a point to having sysops that don't do anything. With the added problems of sister/brother/malicious person taking ahold of an account, I don't see the reason for keeping them.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the security issue is a straw man. If you are gonna do a brute force hack, why not hack root and smash the entire wiki? If somebody is so careless as to hand their passwords to untrustworthy siblings, why did we make them sysops in the first place? And its not like being active really protects you from a brute force hack or a sibling getting on your comp and nosing around anyhow!  Swiers 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that should be the primary example of why we should have this policy. Certainly it could be one concern, but I believe the biggest is that we would want to have active sysops to prevent burnout like what happened with Vista. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, what we REALLY need is a way to encourage sysops to do the jobs that need doing, and to otherwise lighten the load on people who are taking on a lot of work. Which would seem to call for... I dunno, but this doesn't accomplish that end. Dropping inactive sysops != gaining active ones.  Swiers 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, however, some people wanted this policy separated from the previous and requested I make this one. We can talk about another way of encouraging sysops to do the jobs that need doing or parsing out duties so that a few people are typically in charge of deletions, etc. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 04:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I was a vandal, I'd find it much more entertaining and drama filled to get a hold of a sysop account. True enough on the sibling part though. But why have inactive sysops? They're misleading. There's no harm in having them take the time reapply. It shows that they still have a will to actually do something productive as a sysop, rather then being dead weight.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vista Example

Vista is one of the finest examples of an inactive sysop that returned from RL and kept on with the good work he was doing before going inactive. Yes, he did put himself for promotion again, but not after some weeks interacting with the community and doing his job as a sysop. I'll not get into details that policies such as these were already discussed in this wiki, and all of them failed. This is simply not needed nor wanted. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What case are you exactly referring to?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you doubt that Vista could have gotten re-elected? -Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you expect that there was anything to be gained by making him do so?  Swiers 03:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there isn't going to be examples of people who we would definitely want to come back, but there are several people who simply won't. We could go with the week reaffirmation where the other sysops could bring the formerly inactive sysop back to speed. However, if a sysop comes back for a week, then is going to go away again for months, do we really want to continue having that person as a sysop when they clearly aren't going to do the job? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What would Vista and the Wiki gain to have him re-promote himself for 2 or more weeks before he could start working ? Besides, if he noticed that he was without his sysop powers, he could have not run for sysop again... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget all the people you've had to assist that have returned and started enforcing policies that have been done away with or changed according to the rules they understood when promoted. Part of the problem with inactive sysops is they don't really know the rules anymore, they shouldn't be enforcing them until they've had a period to adapt to changes. And that is harm that is caused by inactive sysops returning. If I need to find examples I will, although I won't like it.--Karek^maps?! 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not again...

Another Akule proposed policy which is completely uneeded. What is your obsession with getting rid of MIA mods? What possible harm can happen if you just leave them in limbo? --Rogue 03:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the potential for harm is low, but as Vantar said - there is the possibility that techno-savvy vandals or even family members could gain access to their accounts and mess things up. There is no harm demoting them as long as they're basically guaranteed re-promotion upon their return (that is, if their reasons for being absent are good enough). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If a tech-vanedal can steal an abandoned mod account, they could just as easily borrow an active mod account. And unless the absent mods have managed to go for months without deleting cookies or they decided to tell everyone they know about their UDwiki password, I doubt family members will get ahold of it. --Rogue 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit... now I don't know which side I'm on. I withdraw my previous sentiments, and will wait for the next Good Point. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how good Rogue's point is. Yes, active sysop accounts can be hacked just as well as inactive sysop accounts. However, having a surfeit of inactive accounts attached to the wiki gives a vandal that many more points of entry.--The Envoy 14:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, I dunno... because Boxy asked him to resubmit this. Could have been one of the major selling points of doing so.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The methods required to steal an inactive op account are drastically simpler then the ones required to steal an active account. An inactive account's password does not change thus making a brute force attack possible because the attack has unlimited time. An active user on the other hand should be changing there password every so often. This makes brute force a less effective method because as soon as the password is changed all previous attempts the attacker made must now be repeated. Even if the active user isn't changing there password just by being active they would be capable of doing so at any point during the attack making them a less ideal target. So yes while an active sysop account could be cracked, inactive accounts require less effort and can be cracked much faster.- Vantar 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the Harm?(of inactive Sysops)

I'm making this section for the sake of clarity and discussion on this one subject. What's the harm to a Sysop coming back from an extended absence and jumping right back into their administrative duties? Well, what would happen is Novelty or LeakyBocks came back, after more than a years absence from the wiki, all administrative duties, all rules precedents, all rules discussion, all heated debates over the limits of users powers in various ares of the administrative pages and wiki, and began ruling on vandalism cases, deletions, move requests, page protections, sorting archives, or checking on users IPs, some of the sysops that have been approved in the past weren't always approved because of trust or belief that they would enforce the rules justly(many were promoted just because sysops were needed). Things have changed in the last 2 years/1 year/6 months/3 months. An important part of a Sysop's job isn't just being a sysop and fulfilling request but knowing the precedent set forth by past rulings and discussions about when things are not, for example, vandalism and intimate knowledge of that precedent is just as important as anything else they do, often more so. If they are demoted for inactivity they can always spend some time about, get reacquainted with the wiki, and re-apply for promotion but, it's negligence to allow them to jump right back in without knowing anything about what has happened in their absence.--Karek^maps?! 07:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The harm is in the potential of having accounts with sysop powers that are no longer secure. Passwords can possibly come into the hands of others who can then log in as sysops and cause a whole load of drama before sufficient evidence of the change warrants forced demotion. Old computers, possibly with account and password details still intact can be either passed down to younger siblings, or sold to others, allowing this third party rights on this wiki that they just have to turn up and take. A smart person gaining such access could really cause some problems that would mess with the smooth running of the wiki. As long as they only get sysops powers (and no bureaucrat powers), it's all revertable (but still a risk of a major pain in the arse)... but why take the chance when the solution is so simple -- boxy • talk • 10:10 1 December 2007 (BST)

I would question whether such a person should have been made a sysop in the first place. Basic common sense leads me to destroy the hard drives of any old computers which are going to be removed from my hands, I would hope that others would do the same or at least have the sense to log themselves out. It is highly unlikely that the sysop would have remained logged in all that time, as cookies do expire in time.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the potential that we'll all be enslaved by an alien race. Doesn't make it likely. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Guarding against that possibility is more hassle than it's worth... simply demoting inactive sysops is easy, and costs very little in the way of inconvenience to the community -- boxy • talk • 11:04 1 December 2007 (BST)

Bad example with alien enslavement, There was Project Blue Book, the United States Air Force study into what level of threat an "alien race" might be, which lead to Condon Report and the recommendations they outline within were followed by the US government (Of course the recommendation was to stop studying the subject and to accepts UFOs where mostly imaginary, but the research was still done) - Vantar 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh... You are joking, aren't you Vantar? Next you'll be telling me that there was a project green book or something studying the leval of threat posed by a real zombie apocalypse!--Seventythree^Talk 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I kinda wish I was , as for "green book" the closes thing to that is Article 246 of the Haitian Penal Code but that is designed to prevent to creation of zombies not look at there treat potential- Vantar 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Inactive Sysops Reapplying

So, do people want it to be included that we have a slightly faster way for inactive sysops to reapply for their old positions? Perhaps a week applying process? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How does that look? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything to change. Looks good.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm?

This policy wouldn't be targeting any particular inactive sysopp would it?
Just wondering...
'cuz... well you know....
Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you deleted, banned, moved, protected... anything in the last 3 months? Then you're fine. (right?) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not targeting any particular sysops with this (I consider you a less active sysop than an inactive sysop). I just notice that one hasn't been around since 2005, and several haven't been around since 2006. With 2008 rolling around, I figure it might be time to remove some of those people who aren't planning on being around and get some people in who are. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

People like... YOU perhaps? --Rogue 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Akule has stated numerous times that he is not going to persue a run at being a mod. But people tend to always ignore that, just so they can say that akule is only doing these things so he can run for mod.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not like he'd had much of a chance if he tried anyway.--Karek^maps?! 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that people are way too paranoid thinking Akule has some grand ulterior motive behind everything he does.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That might be because he frequently does and doesn't hide it.--Karek^maps?! 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And no one else on the wiki ever has an ulterior motive. *eyeroll* -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 05:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I do question your intelligence by stating that I could successfully run for sysop, however. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you can never suceed in running for Sysop. I'm just not sure you're sane enough to know it. --Rogue 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. Then stop telling everyone that is the reason that I do things on here and stop making up my backstory. If you'd like to actually contribute to the conversation, then you are welcome here. If you aren't planning on contributing and just going to continue making asinine comments, you can just skip repeating it and stay off the page. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from Voting Section

1. Against - once again, concerns brought up in the discussion have been ignored. You'll note that this demands that a sysop makes sysop-specific edits within the three-month period, whether any are needed or not. So, any activity as a normal user is not counted, which hardly seems fair. Also, there is evidence of sysops returning after long periods of absence (sometimes not within their control) and picking up perfectly well where they left off. This would essentially create a conflict of interest, whereby a sysop might make sysop-specific edits just so that they remain active, whether such edits are required or not. They could then be accused of misconduct. The current system, of course, has not been shown to create any specific problem on the wiki, so this change is not required at all. It is, in effect, an ego-policy. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

   You had five days to respond to comments made on the discussion page, and did not, despite having an argument against it. Don't feel like discussing things, but would rather pull out your soapbox? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   You're jumping to conclusions. I was referring, in my vote, to concerns over the timing that were brought up by other contributers and summarily dismissed. In my opinion (which is all it is), you aren't willing to compromise. Your high-handed, antagonistic response simply confirms my feelings. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Against - Completely ignores normal wiki edits and contributions. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   They don't need to have sysop powers if all they do are normal wiki edits.--Karek^maps?! 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   But a normal edit, made by a sysop, carries more weight than a normal edit by a non-sysop. Users are less likely to edit war with a sysop, less likely to ignore a request from a sysop, less likely to fuck with content created or maintained by a sysop. What I'm saying is that the mere presence of a sysop (active with sysop duties or not) maintains some of the equilibrium of this wiki. None of these things have been taken into account with this policy. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks Funt, you put it exactly as I was intending to. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   SysOps are not Moderators Funt, they should not be treated as such.--Karek^maps?! 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Sysops should have the same weight as a normal user for normal edits. Even then, if those sysops aren't around or are around but in either case are not doing their job, why should they have it? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Karek, it's easy to say sysops aren't moderators, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the reality we live in. The effects I mention are in place, whatever label you apply to the post. And, Akule, you seem to be deliberately missing the point and falling back on repetive rhetoric. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Agaignst There is no harm at all in apparently having more sysops than has been arbitarily deemed as neccisary. Sysops provide , amongst other things a certain defence agaignst vandals as well as providing janitor duties on the wiki. There can, and should be a level of redundancy built into a system such as this due to the fact that 1) They're not actualy doing any harm if they're not using their sysop powers 2) Greater redundacy provides more saftey againgst vandals. THere's more likely to be a sysop online during a vandal attack 3) Seeing as we don't pay sysops we might as well have as many as possible good sysops. There's realy no downside to it. --Seventythree^Talk 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   As for 2) and 3), the whole idea is the inactive sysops aren't around, to provide safety or anything else. As for 1), the first rule of internet security is that you don't leave accounts with god-like powers out there unattended. So there's an argument to be made that inactive sysops are causing harm, or at least the potential for harm. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   the whole idea is the inactive sysops aren't around - that's not what this policy caters for, as it dismisses sysops even if they are making edits on the wiki, and are demonstrably "around". --Funt Solo ^QT 09:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Show me a sysop to whom that might apply, and I'll show you a sysop who pretty clearly doesn't want or need his powers anymore. Again, if a sysop can't be arsed to do a delete or a move or a vandal ruling en banc every three months, they really needn't be a sysop. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   If a sysop can't make a SINGLE administrative edit in 3 months, then why are they sysops? Because its cool to "have cool he-man like powers"? When people are voting against competent users who throw their name in to be users, those contribute to the wiki often, and are voted against with the reason that there are too many sysops already. Especially when there are sysops who havent done anything since 1873.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Slippery like an eel, Atticus. You've moved on from your claim that inactive sysops aren't around, to a new argument about what a sysop that's not doing sysop-edits has done for us lately. I refer you to my discussion above on the equilibrium of the wiki. You may disagree, but without evidence either way, it's just a conflict of our respective opinions. And 1873, Anime? You're clearly not interested in a debate, when you can be funneh instead, eh? If you act like a clown, don't expect to be taken seriously. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   And Funt is good at skirting the issue because Funt obviously can't tell the difference between humor and exaggeration. So, I'll ask it again in a non-funneh form. If a sysop can't bother to edit the wiki administratively for 3 months, why should they be a sysop? And why should sysops who don't do administrative edits, or any edits for that matter remain on the sysop roster while new people, like gnome, get voted down because "there are already too many sysops"?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   This policy is not for inactive contributers that are also sysops. It's for sysops who may well be very active contributers who haven't had cause to use their specific sysop powers for a while. There's a clear difference, which this policy simply fails to address. (Oh, and you're wrong about gnome - he wasn't given sysop because of this decision.) --Funt Solo ^QT 10:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   See when you fail to answer my question, I assume you don't have an answer for it. If a sysop can't make an administrative edit, as in, remove unused images from the speedy deletions page, process a vandal report, protect a page, delete or undelete a page, or weigh in on a misconduct discussion for 3 whole months, then why do they NEED to be sysops. If they aren't going to do the job they applied for, then they don't need to be sysops. Period! And as far as Gnome, I think "i dont think we need more sysops. We have more than enough already, and promoting willy nilly is just a bad idea" says it all. I'm not discounting Grim's vote by any means, nor the people who said "As Grim", but when the roster is too full to vote in new sysops who may actually work instead of keeping old sysops who don't doesn't help the wiki.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 11:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   I answered one of your questions quite clearly. As to the other, I disagree that the sysop roster is too full, and anyway boxy never used that as his decision not to promote gnome, if you take him at his word. See, I'm all for compromise, on the subject of what kind of edits this policy uses as it's measure of "active". You're clearly not open to compromise. That's why this policy is failing. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, but you are answering the really unimportant Gnome question and thusly avoiding the main point I have brought up. You are the one who wanted to debate, and were calling Atticus a slippery eel because of his responses to your comments. Who coaches you on your answers? Karl Rove? Personally, I don't think you are here to debate, because rather than being part of the discussion before voting, you are making your stand now in hopes that your dust cloud will cause enough tension to get more people to vote against. Still, nobody can answer the question to the main reason I am voting for this policy: If a sysop can't make an administrative edit, one within 3 months, why do they need to be a sysop? Both Atticus and I have made this question pretty clear, and you have dodged both of them.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   I have answered your question - several ways now. Here's it again: This policy is not for inactive contributers that are also sysops. It's for sysops who may well be very active contributers who haven't had cause to use their specific sysop powers for a while. There's a clear difference, which this policy simply fails to address. I've answered it about three or four different ways now in the extended discussion (see my reply to Karek on Dux's vote, for example) - I'm not sure why you keep saying I haven't. (And I did take part in the pre-vote debate, as you can see above.) Really, nothing you're saying is in any way accurate, and everyone can see that if they read the page. Please, at least try to make sense. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you want to go ahead and think that answers my question, go ahead thinking that. Even then, your only real response that could possibly be linked to my question with how people will be less inclined to mess with sysops because they are sysops, really holds no water. If someone is going to mess with someone, they are going to mess with them period, sysop or no. Being a sysop doean't mean anything. Being a respected member of the community does not equal sysop. Vantar, a sysop/crat doesnt make him any less immune to editwars and the like then say Kamden/Axe27, a non sysop but more active member of the wiki. And yes, you were involved in the pre-vote discussion. My bad! Seems like another policy in search of a problem to me. If someone can throw up just one single example of where inactive sysops have caused harm to this wiki, that would present a reason for this policy. While a good question, it was answered several times, one of which being a security issue with no other discussion from you on that particular subject. Then we have your only other comment during the pre-vote discussion, There's also the potential that we'll all be enslaved by an alien race. Doesn't make it likely. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you were trying to be funneh there? Cuz while I didn't laugh, I sure would hate for you to accuse me of being funneh, when clearly you are the innovator of funneh.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hey, it's not my fault you don't like my answer to your question. It comes down to this: our opinions differ. We both think we're right. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Slippery? Wow, Funt. You respond to my point by positing a hypothetical sysop who actively edits yet makes no administrative edits, and when I have a logical response I'm the one changing the argument? I've gotta call shenanigans on that. But this whole thing is a non-issue anyway, in my opinion: Either you have an active normal user with unused sysop powers, in which case a demotion is entirely in order, or you have an inactive user/sysop, in which case a demotion is entirely in order. And incidentally, we're talking about demotion of a sysop who doesn't use sysop powers, not revocation of a sysop's right to make normal edits. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   As I said to the guy with the obnoxious sig, it all comes down to opinion. Yours is that a sysop not making sysop-edits has no positive effect on the equilibrium of the wiki. Mine is that they may, because the badge is enough. Neither of us can demonstrably prove our opinion is correct (or at least we haven't). I might be able to get behind a policy that demoted a sysop who'd been entirely inactive (any edits at all) from the wiki for six months. Still, because nobody has been able to demonstrate any actual need for such a policy, I'd still be reticent. (Part of me still knows where this policy came from, and can easily follow the trail back to a spat between BA and CG. So, I know this policy was not born of any sense of altruism for the state of this wiki.) --Funt Solo ^QT 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Bah, now you're just being a bitch. If a sysop isn't using their sysop powers they don't need the powers, if you want someone that can serve as a moral authority propose a policy that does that, we already have a policy that says that isn't the role of sysops, you're just being controversial for the sake of it. --Karek^maps?! 09:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   You've fallen back on name-calling because you have nothing sensible to say. Are all the voters against this policy simply being controversial for the sake of it? To dismiss those you disagree with in such a way is the easy path of the simple minded. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   I never said they were, I said you were. Speaking of name calling, look through your posts, you insult someone in just about every response on this page. The moral high ground really doesn't suit the dirtiest fighter.--Karek^maps?! 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Having a gentle jibe during a hot debate is pretty much standard practise. That's a bit different from simple name-calling; or was there some actual point behind calling me a "bitch"? Anyway, this is totally off-topic, which just cements my opinion that you have nothing to add to the discussion beyond a cul de sac of mud-slinging. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Essentially what funt is saying is that, its okay for a police officer to just drive around in his squad car. Any person can essentially go out driving, because that is not something that just a police officer can do. They don't need to be required to make a certain amount of arrests during a period of time, write tickets, ect. But because they have a badge, you should be extra scared of them when they are out driving their car, because they've earned that. They shouldn't be fired if they aren't out protecting and serving the public, you know, the job they were hired to do. If someone wants to go around and just drive their car, they shouldn't be police officers, and let someone else be a cop who actually wants to protect and serve.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Cops do have quotas. It's more like he's saying that when cops are in their normal car and in civilian clothes they police the streets with their presence. And Funt, don't dare read my post after I Playfully called you a bitch that would be the nonbitch thing to do.--Karek^maps?! 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   The only way that would work is if we all knew who was driving what car and what each person did. Otherwise, no one would consider anyone in a normal car and in plainclothes to be a cop. Traffic patterns is the best indication of that. No cops around? Speed. Cops around? Slow down to 5 miles below the speed limit. The same applies here. --Amanu Jaku 12:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   That might make sense, if the average user knew who the sysops were, they don't and most of the ones that do know that sysops have no real authority to make you do anything.--Karek^maps?! 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Funt, sysops aren't treated the way they are just because they're sysops. It's because they are experienced and because of the way they act. Taking their sysop powers doesn't change that. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   A quick survey tells me that only two of the currently active sysops have anything in their signature that would label them as sysops. It's not the badge that earns them the respect. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   But anyone that cares to look at the sysop list will see that there are 28 names there. If I'm a potential vandal/miscreant, then I can see there's 28 people that could slap me down. If I only see, say, 4 names, then I might think that vandalism would be easier to achieve. Again, it all comes down to opinion, not fact. In my opinion, the unknown quantity of sysops could help maintain the equilibrium of generally good behaviour on this wiki. As for the police metaphor being used elswhere - it's wholly spurious. The sysops are not a hired force - they're a voluntary force. There is no quota. There is no pay. It's a false comparison. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Anyone who's smart enough to even find the sysop list is smart enough to check when their last contribution was to see if they're active. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   This and this would be my reasoning why we need this policy. --Amanu Jaku 13:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, Midianian, that's true. However, this policy doesn't count non-sysop edits in it's demotion criteria. So, you can see, right there, your argument actually bolsters my theory. I'm not sure what Amanu is saying - that we should have more sysops? In which case, why demote potentially useful ones from the list? You guys are only cementing my worries about this policy's weak points. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   A quick glance through the logs shows that as of yet a 3 month no sysop only action period as never existed for an active sysop. The likely hood of a user needing sysop powers is one of the points frequently brought up in the promotion process so baring a drastic shift in opinion across the wiki, an active sysop will never have a 3-month no sysop edit period while still being an active user. As for you claim of this forcing sysops to act where no action is needed, I ask for you to show me a day where that has happen. Speedy Deletion alone has provided requests for almost every single day in recent history. You ask why demote potentially useful sysops from the list. Because their potential for usefulness is greatly outweighed by their inactiveness. - Vantar 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Without going too far into a rebuttal of your various points, I still see no harm in marking inactivity as total inactivity, and the period being 6 months instead of 3. Given that there's no existing demotion policy, it would serve well as a first step, that could (if it proves useful) be stepped up in the future using further policy initiatives. Nobody on the side of this policy seems willing to negotiate or compromise at all. If the reed won't bend in the wind etc. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Half a year is a bit absurd, especially considering the game has only been around three.--Karek^maps?! 16:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Like I said, unwilling to compromise or negotiate. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   4.3272 months? Er, how does 4 months sound?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Much Ado About Inactive Sysops

It seems that some people couldn't be bothered to discuss this policy when it was in discussion, but instead decided to do so once it was up. That's fine. Let's discuss it. After all, I can always resubmit a new version after this vote or by withdrawing this proposed policy.

As of this post:

• BobHammero - Not seen in over a year, has a LessActive template on his page.

• Last edit: 30 October 2006
• Last administrative edit: 6 October 2006

• Boxy - current

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 10 December 2007

• Brizth - Not seen in over 8 months, has the following on his page: "I'm currently somewhat inactive."

• Last edit: 8 April 2007
• Last administrative edit: 8 April 2007

• Conndraka - current

• Last edit: 5 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 5 December 2007

• Daranz - current

• Last edit: 1 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 1 December 2007

• Darth Sensitive - current (yes, he's still good. September->October 1, October->November 2, November->December 3)

• Last edit: 7 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 28 September 2007

• Dux Ducis - current

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 2 December 2007

• Grim s - current has a LessActive template on his page.

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 9 December 2007

• Hagnat - current

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 9 December 2007

• Karlsbad - current

• Last edit: 9 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 3 December 2007

• Kevan - Immune
• LeakyBocks - Immune
• LibrarianBrent - has the following on his page: "LibrarianBrent currently lies in death-like sleep in the sunken city of R'lyeh somewhere in the Southeast Pacific Ocean. When the stars are right, R'lyeh will rise from the sea, never to sink again, and the Librarian will awaken and revel across the wiki, ravening for delight and for the banning of trolls. Until then, he lies dormant, not dead but dreaming..."

• Last edit: 13 October 2007
• Last administrative edit: 30 June 2007

• Max Grivas - current

• Last edit: 12 October 2007
• Last administrative edit: 12 October 2007

• Mobius187 - current

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 19 November 2007

• Morlock - Not seen in over two years, has the following on his page: "(NB re adminship: I am insanely busy with RL until the 30th Sept. While geekily enough UD in general and the wiki in particular represent one of my main destressing activities, I'm not going to be checking it all the time so please don't expect anything resembling promptness. And if it becomes a cause of stress rather than a balm for it, I shall just walk away until October." (Possibly an administrative account?)

• Last edit: 23 September 2005
• Last administrative edit: None

• Novelty - Not seen in a year.

• Last edit: 5 December 2006
• Last administrative edit: 5 December 2006

• Nubis - current

• Last edit: 24 November 2007
• Last administrative edit: 19 November 2007

• SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel - Not seen in 8 months.

• Last edit: 10 April 2007
• Last administrative edit: 10 March 2007

• Spiro - Not seen in over a year and a half.

• Last edit: 28 April 2006
• Last administrative edit: 28 April 2006

• Swiers - current

• Last edit: 8 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 1 December 2007

• Thari - current

• Last edit: 7 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 7 December 2007

• The General - current

• Last edit: 9 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 9 December 2007

• Urbandead - Immune
• Vantar - current

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 10 December 2007

• Vista - current

• Last edit: 20 November 2007
• Last administrative edit: 14 November 2007

• Zaruthustra - current, has a wiki coma template on his page.

• Last edit: 7 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 2 December 2007

• Zombie slay3r - current

• Last edit: 10 December 2007
• Last administrative edit: 7 December 2007

That means that this policy would directly affect six sysops (maybe five depending on the status of Morlock), with LibrarianBrent being the only sysop that falls in with having a general edit more recently than (almost 2 months ago) an administrative edit (over 5 months ago). That falls into Funt's argument, but he is the only one.

As such, I propose the following:

1. Change the start criteria - The timer for inactive sysops starts after the policy passes. This gives people time to come back and make their required edits.
2. Change the timeline - Give sysops four months between administrative edits.
3. Better explain administrative edits - I feel I should clean up some of the examples of a administrative edit to spell out the inclusion of weighing in with their opinions on misconduct and vandalism cases.

The biggest problem I have with changing it from an administrative edit to a general edit is that we'd be sending the wrong message.

We'd be effectively saying:

"Boxy, Grim, Vantar, Swiers, and Hagnat (see? I remembered you), despite all that you do for the wiki, we're going to keep LibrarianBrent as a sysop. Sure, you do more volume, but he asked to use Hagnat's template on another wiki. That's about the same as what you do on here, so he shouldn't be demoted to a general user. Think of the things he did last year. Those were important then."

Now, I am very loathe to change the time frame from three to four months, because while we do have a good number of non-inactive sysops, we have a very low amount of active sysops. It would be my hope that the sysops spread out the burden so that we don't burn out our active sysops. After all, Grim was so eager to come back on the wiki after his ban that he continued monitoring the recent changes pages, even while he was banned (thus raising him a level in my eyes). That is a level of commitment to the wiki that we would want to foster instead of curtail. True, Grim banned a vandal while he was banned, but if we had a number of active sysops, he probably wouldn't have felt that he had to watch the wiki like that.

The large list of sysops is a double-edged sword. It gives the false impression to users that we have a full staff of active sysops, when we don't. Anyone who is on the wiki for any length of time can see that, so it doesn't really do much to curtail vandals. If someone is determined to vandalize, they will do it if we have 30 syops or 300. It's a flawed argument.

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think we should be supporting the people who continue to do work for the wiki and not continue to keep people who aren't going to do a thing. Why keep them in a position that clearly they either aren't able to do or don't want to do? For the illusion of security? Why not demote the idle sysops and then promote some good, active users so we can actually have the security? That way we can actually keep the active sysops from burning out and spread out the work into manageable chunks. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the place to do so, but would it be a bad idea to require sysops to declare when they are most active (like on the sysop roster page) so that maybe we can fill gaps in time schedules. The only person who I know where they are from is Grim, and I would be more inclined to vote for someone who is active during times when there is a huge gap in activity times from other sysops.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe Morlock was before the purge, and he has some administrative edits. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just backing up Akules part on vandals and sysop numbers. Wikipedia has about 1,424 sysops + bots that revert on the minute. Does that stop anyone from vandalizing? Nope.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Then the best thing for us to do is to accept that vandalism will happen no matter what we do and work on getting more active sysops. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, shouldn't this discussion be on a separate policy page, and not one that's currently under voting, especially given that it's about a different policy? (I know it looks the same, and to all intents and purposes is the same, because it simply changes 3 months to 4 months. But still, it's a different policy, right?) --Funt Solo ^QT 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although, while we're here, I've noticed something interesting about the facts you provide. 28 sysops. 3 are God accounts. 18 are active sysops. 7 seem inactive. Of those, three made their last edit on the same date as they made their last sysop edit, three made their last edit within three (or four) months of their last sysop edit, and the last one is weird because they never made a sysop edit. What I gather, from that information, is that you may as well measure inactivity of a sysop on normal edits, because when they leave, they really do leave. Of course, this is all quite beside the point, because nobody has yet provided any evidence of these inactive sysops doing harm to the wiki. Lots of hearsay, but no evidence. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't showing the potential for harm enough? Especially on the general wiki security point. - Vantar 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, going by the vote (as it is as I write) it's enough for slightly less than 50% of the voters. That's why I suggested switching it to be more than three months (actually, I said six, but it was just a number) and also switching it to be any edit, not just a sysop edit. Why did I suggest that? Mainly, to get Akule and his cohort of persistent "but we're right" whiners (see extended vote discussion above) to shut the fuck up (by providing them with, frankly, a winnable policy). And, if you look at the detail of existant sysops, those differences would get rid of the inactive sysops just as efficiently as the policy now under vote. (You can tell I'm not doing this for my own benefit, because I disagree that the degree of potential harm is acute enough that any such policy is needed, and will probably therefore vote against on the next one.) If Akule goes forward with a plan to submit the exact same suggestion, with the only real change (beyond a horrible increase in the amount of words, or the amount of so-called discussion) being to go from 3 to 4 months, then wouldn't he be guilty of simply re-submitting pretty much the same policy just after it had already failed. And wouldn't that be both stupid and a waste of everyone's time? Hrmn. You know, if that was on the suggestions page, it would get Duped or Spammed to oblivion on the grounds I mention. So, anyway, it's fairly clear where I stand on this issue so I think it's best I shut the hell up and let the madness continue. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some extended discussion here. Anywho, there is no good reason to not want this type of policy to pass, especially if certain adjustments outlined could be added to a future. Why not remove the potential for harm, how ever small it may be. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, why add red tape (i.e. needless editing work) if it isn't required? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not very hard to demote someone. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's even less difficult to do nothing. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

yay, I'm a cohort! But from now on, I would prefer heterosexual life partner--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Being in a cohort is cool - you get a sword, armour, and you get to shout "testudo" when the arrows fly. Testudo! --Funt Solo ^QT 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. That must mean that I leveled and took Leadership as my feat. Time to appeal Cyberbob and get my status changed to rebel leader. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Boxy pretty much advised about the same for the time frame. However, I am not going to be adding that huge paragraph above to the policy. It'd be a waste of space for the policy. The reason to have it on the talk page is to show people what exactly we are talking about. I'm more for leaning against withdrawing the policy instead of letting it finish since it seems the majority of people who are against it are looking for a longer time frame. I disagree with it, however, we all know that it's the will of the other users who determines the policies. I'm still very loathe to change it to a general edit, because the inactive sysop is not really doing their job and wouldn't be doing anything different if they were just a regular user. I note that 73, who is not a sysop, often makes comments on Misconduct and vandalism cases, who's opinion which people generally listen to. I don't see how it would be much more of a difference if the inactive sysop was a general user and doing the same thing, because if they aren't doing their job, then why do they even want it? Just for the status? Well, what does everyone think? Change it to a general edit? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good time to point out a FACT!

If it's 6 months since an admin edit, the policy would demote:

• BobHammero
• Brizth
• Morlock
• Novelty
• SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel
• Spiro

If it's 6 months since any edit, the policy would demote:

• BobHammero
• Brizth
• Morlock
• Novelty
• SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel
• Spiro

So, you see, right there...I don't need to spell it out, right? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's.... the same? (Did I get it right?) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arise, Sir Gnome, Helpful of Wikidom! --Funt Solo ^QT 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arises, but still barely reaches Funt's knees. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We must go on a quest for the fabled Stilts of Height +3. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I have enough strength for that?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I still say it's strange, instead of demoting people for not doing the job you're just demoting them for being absent. Both make sense but the first makes far more.--Karek^maps?! 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If they're absent they aren't doing their job. If someone was asking for a promotion but said they wouldn't be making administrative edits, do you think they'd be promoted?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that changing this policy to be general edits is basically providing the ok for sysops to not do the job as long as they spam some pages somewhere(regardless of what it is).--Karek^maps?! 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that what you're saying doesn't make sense, Karek, it's just that it isn't passing the vote. Or, look at this way: if you compromise your ideals slightly to get a proposal passed, you've got a starting point, which can later be refined with further policy adjustments, further down the line, if it's required. I've said all this before, of course. But, you keep bringing up the same points, I'll keep responding with the same replies. What was it again - if the reed won't bend in the wind... --Funt Solo ^QT 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One other key point: there is only one sysop on the list who could be described as making normal edits but not sysop edits: LibrarianBrent. So, the problem isn't that there's multiple non-sysoping sysops. The problem is that there are multiple inactive sysops who are completely inactive. So, fix the problem that really exists, not the problem that you only imagine exists. (And, finally, even Brent hasn't made an edit since October, so will probably - if he follows the pattern set by, oh, everyone else - go over the 6 months without an edit. So, again, problem solved. I don't know why, but now I really am trying to help. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Funt, the better than thou act won't get you any support from me. You're wrong about not being able to move on points but I for one am not going to just go with everything you say, especially when what you say is a)I should compromise my ideals and b)that you've said this before. The policy encourages sysops to be sysops, if you change that you change the policy completely and remove it's purpose, if that were changed I, for one, would vote against it because it is suddenly a pointless policy that only exists to punish users for having to do something else instead of because they aren't doing the job they were chosen for. The problem is that there is nothing to keep a sysop doing there job, nothing at all to encourage it, no reason to at all, however there's plenty of reason to take the position and then not administer the wiki at all.

Your big points from the start of this has been that it's not a problem, that this policy would encourage sysops to abuse their powers(in which case they would lose them anyway), and that sysops police the wiki with their presence. You're only response to the fact that only one of those makes sense is to claim no one is willing to negotiate because they won't suddenly change the policy to agree with statements you don't see the need to defend no matter how little sense they actually make; Sysops abusing their powers is handled by misconduct and in the case where they are doing it to prevent demotion it seems blatantly obvious that it is the Sysop team's duty as wiki administrators to request their demotion and that it is the 'crat's duty as overseers of the Sysops, and administrators of the wiki, to demote them. Sysops pushed for and passed a policy specifically barring them from policing the wiki with their presence which is a function of a moderator, your only response to that was to say that the policy wasn't true, well, if the sysops are using their position to moderate or settle disputes while avoiding the proper channels then they are in violation of that policy, furthermore you don't need sysop powers or status to perform those type of functions, just look how many times I've been accused of being a sysop because I did just that. And finally, the fact that Sysops can get promoted in a week, and keep their powers for an unlimited amount of time with one edit every 90 days is absurd(Akule has a good point about that which is why I dropped the 5-6 months thing) but, a longer period of time on that is fine, just raises the bar, if 90 days is a long time so is 180 days, even though half a year seems long enough that no one would ever be demoted even in a case of gross neglect of their duties. As such it is a problem that a sysop doesn't have to administer anything, ever, to be an administrator if they aren't doing the job they don't need the privileges, the fact that the policy allows any administrative edit is in and of itself a compromise, considering a user who takes the role and ignores the community is by far a worse sysop than one who takes the role and never uses their powers, at least they aren't taking the role only to serve their own goals and avoid the processes made for a reason.(what I mean by this is Sysops who say, only delete pages they have uploaded or only take the position because they upload lots of files and make lots of A/SD requests, I'd rather an inactive sysop over one who helps only themselves.)

Long story short I guess I'm saying, don't tell me to compromise my ideals, ideals aren't meant to be compromised and in this case what you want isn't compromise but out and out slaying of the policies purpose, the policy isn't passing because of you're vote, a vote in which you fear monger and state worst case scenarios in which the sysops suddenly all stop doing their jobs and a sysop who abuses their powers suddenly becomes a wiki tyrant god who answers to no one, aside from that the other votes are either wanting it extended in time to 5-6 months or because they have a fundamental dislike of sysops being demoted for inactivity. Your compromises won't help get the policy passed in a new version, all though they might keep you from claiming the sysops will vandalize the wiki in an attempt to keep their powers that they are going out of their way to not use. The policy is currently tied in voting, there's another week for it to be voted on, and the ones making it a tie are the votes which people who avoided this policy when it was under discussion accuse Akule of ignoring the policy discussion, ones from people like you who, it seems, purposely went out of their way not to discuss the policy when it was under discussion so you could bring up a new issue when it was under voting(note the one comment you went out of your way to make while it was under discussion). At least Ryiis attempted to propose changes then, you just bided your time so you could spring accusations negligence on the policy creator. Maybe now that I gave you a nice long block of text you'll say something new beyond that no one is willing to negotiate because they won't conform to your will, negotiation is a two way street but part of it is knowing what can be negotiated and what can't, the purpose of the policy is something that can't.--Karek^maps?! 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? And this policy is not failing because of my vote - that's a ridiculous notion. I'm sure many of the voters would be insulted if it was suggested that they were following me. It's failing because it's too strict, and (this is just my own personal theory) because of where it came from: Akule might be the nicest person on the planet (I don't know), but the long-running spat with Grim has every chance of making people nervous of motives. As for all the personal shit you just threw at me about my supposedly nefarious motives, I have nothing to gain - testudo! --Funt Solo ^QT 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Akule posting it is a minus, but it doesn't help that you went out of your way to not comment on the policy discussion and saved it for when it was under voting, that shows all the signs of you plotting to screw the policy instead of actually helping to fix the problems you had with it, you couldn't care less about the policy and that just proved the point of it.--Karek^maps?! 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you just trolling me on purpose now? I did not go out of my way - you just think I did. And guess what - you're wrong. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Funt, is there a reason you commented on the talk page twice, once saying it was a policy in search of a problem, and once saying that alien invasion was likely but then voted based on concerns of this causing problems? If you have a problem with the policy you should have mentioned it in discussion, instead you didn't even though you were reading the discussion and commenting on it. Please, explain that little discrepancy.--Karek^maps?! 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, dickhead - get ready to wake up and face reality. I didn't carry on with the pre-vote discussion because I noticed that none of it was leading to any changes. Then, I had better things to do with my life and never got back to it till the vote started - at which point, having had more time to think about it, I placed my vote, with thoughts that had occured to me in the interim. I felt like explaining that, just to show you how utterly fucking wrong you are. You should know, though, I didn't owe you that explanation, and that no voter owes you any explanation of why or how they vote. It's your kind of paranoid interogatory nature that makes some people just vote plain against, so they don't have to put up with your bullshit afterwards. We've been over most of this ground already - you're adding absolutely fuck all to the discussion of the policy by accusing me of trying deliberately to undermine it when, again, I've got NOTHING TO GAIN. I now fully expect you to carry on accusing me of the same shit you already have, because you're a fucking moron. I hope you die, soon: the world will be a lighter, happier place. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow Funt, you really need to learn some self control. I already realized you aren't clever enough for that, the ideals thing cemented that in my mind. I don't think voters owe an explanation to how they vote, I think that if you're gonna be an ass throughout the whole page and basically act like no one else can be right if they don't conform to your views you own an explanation, otherwise you should learn when to shut it. In the case of this you are insinuating that nothing was listened to and no changes were made to the policy when, in fact, pretty much all but one change that was requested was made. The fact that you participated in the discussion in a way that added nothing then afterward voted as if Akule should have magically known your concerns makes my point just as valid as if you had planned to do it from the start. Then end result is still you lording over people for not sharing your ideas about everything. I applaud your rational and calm approach when someone doesn't agree with you. --Karek^maps?! 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got angry because you called me a liar. I'm human. Nice apology, by the way. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ideals aren't meant to be compromised - just curious, but do you actually know what an "ideal" is? You know, if the human race didn't compromise on ideals, we'd never have reached the moon. I don't mean to be insulting, but am I arguing with, I don't know - are you, like, a low achiever? Seriously? --Funt Solo ^QT 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A better question would be do you? Ideals aren't compromised, that is why people were able to get to the moon instead of giving up, everything is about reaching the ideal, that's what motivates people and purpose. The means I can compromise, the ideals I can not. --Karek^maps?! 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just splitting linguistic hairs, and talking utter shite. One hundred percent safety would be the ideal. That can't be reached. And yet they took off. They compromised the ideal. If you can't understand that single, incredibly simple concept, then you're either fucking stupid, or trolling me. Going back to the policy - we're going around in circles. My points have been made. There's nothing left to add - although I reserve the right to defend myself if you post more shite about me. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no I'm not, Ideals are never compromised unless you suck at life, you can't compromise an idea of perfection to claim differently is just naivety. As for the points being made, you have yet to respond to any of them, anywhere on the damn page, so no, your points most assuredly have not been made, the fact that you keep wriggling out of doing so isn't making a point unless it's that you can't think of a way to defend your points.--Karek^maps?! 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[Do] [not] [feed] [the] [troll]. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Those links absolutely, totally, show that you have a complete grasp of the conversation here. Maybe it's time for you to leave for a while, come back, and actually read what people say, try to maybe understand it. Might serve you better than wishing for people's deaths.--Karek^maps?! 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You sad little man. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes a whole lot of sense, Karek. While I understand Funt's argument of 'vote for the policy you can get and tweak it to be what you want later', I probably won't vote for the next policy if it doesn't include the administrative edit requirement. Sysops should do their job, and if they can't, perhaps they should step down until they can. --Amanu Jaku 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That kind of antagonistic rhetoric, where you treat the sysops as an enemy, is not going to get a policy vote passed. I love this idea that rather than compromise, you'd vote against a policy you're arguing in favour of. Have you heard of "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? --Funt Solo ^QT 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it treating the sysops like the enemy by making them actually do their job? Editing the wiki is not their job, maintaining it via doing various things, like watching for vandals, deleting useless material, ect is their job. The job they APPLIED for.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the high-handed, petulant and arrogant "Sysops should do their job, and if they can't, perhaps they should step down". It's treating them like an enemy because it's accusing them, as a group, of being lazy bastards. Of course, the truth, as you can see from Akule's statistics above (thanks for those), is that the mythical Lazy-Op doesn't really exist. The Missing-Op does. Listen to yourself, Anime, ranting on and on, over and over again about how sysops should be maintaining the wiki - they are! Shit, when Grud was handing out brains, I guess you and Karke were pretty far back in the queue. He said "come forth" and you came fifth. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. Sic 'im Rex! Ummm, anyway... where is this going, apart from the escalation of insults. Can we just leave it for a while... let things calm down... and then bring it up again when we've had time to consider everyone's POV dispasionately? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:23 13 December 2007 (BST)

Glad to, boxy. You're right - it's ever decreasing circles at the moment. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well?

Is there going to be any more discussion on this? Otherwise it should be protected. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's done. Unless Funt and Karek decide to have another go at each other.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. If Akule or someone else doesn't want to try this type of policy again then I will. Unless people are going to vote dupe? Heh. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)