|1) Forum:RFAs - Require RFA for new admins?|
|2) Forum:Retroactive RFAs - Require RFA for existing admins?|
|3) Forum:Inactive admins - Process for inactive admins|
How should we handle admins who have gone inactive?
There has been a significant amount of discussion about this on rsw at rsw:Forum:Grandfathering old sysops, but the opinions of the old school wiki community may differ from rsw.
Currently, osw policies do not officially specify any way of handling inactive admins. Despite this, admin tools have historically been removed from inactive admins and presumably given back upon request without discussion (Since we didn't enforce RFAs to begin with, there is really no inconsistency). However, given that we are likely to start enforcing RFAs this policy should also be explicitly stated.
For context, the current process on rsw was decided in 2015's rsw:Forum:Security of sysop accounts, and states that admins will have their tools removed after 1 year of inactivity, but after this can contact a bureaucrat to have the tools reinstated without further discussion.
If it is useful for the discussion I would be able to compile a list of when past admins went inactive, but they are more likely to be impacted by the result of Forum:Retroactive RFAs so I'm not sure that is necesary yet.
Support RSW policy - I am fine with inactive admins being removed from the list after some amount of inactivity, but do not believe they should be required to hold another RFA on return. This would allow users looking at RS:ADMIN to have a good sense of which admins can be contacted and who the active admins in current discussions will be. If the consensus is to shorten the time-frame of 1 year, I would be in support. However I would not support the requirement to redo an RFA.
There have been 7 rsw threads on this topic over the years, and the only consensus that was reached in any of them was explicitly only supported if RFAs were not required on return. I believe if a user has already passed an RFA then there is no reason to invalidate this over time. Having the tools is supposed to be a matter of technicality for those who are trusted to use them appropriately. Being given or withheld the tools is not what shows that a user has a higher status. Instead, their edit history and discussion within the community will show a level of strength in their arguments and trust in their decision making. The admin tools are then given as a consequence of this. Riblet15 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I won't go into details as it has been many times before, but I'd support having to do RfA's after a year's of inactivity.00:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - While I'm with Kelsey in redoing a RfA, Would a shorter version of it work as well?00:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - The current plan is to have a much more relaxed version of an RfA for those who are currently admin. I don't see why this would be different for those who went inactive. -- 00:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I support removing access after a year. I have mixed feelings on requiring an RfA to get the tools back. I don't think that going inactive for a year automatically means you can no longer be trusted to use the tools. We should encourage old users to get involved again, not create barriers to them returning to their old work. That said, I also don't like it when the admin tools are accompanied by lifetime status that is somehow separate from the access itself. I'll think more about this. Adragon111 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support RSW policy - I think removing admin rights after a year of inactivity but reinstating them on request is fine, we don't really need to make people RfA again. It should be total inactivity though rather than just not using your admin rights, since you can go a long time on here without actually needing to use them for anything. —Shaun Dreclintalk 02:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - It seems like a lot of people are of the opinion that "we don't need to make them do an RfA again." Isn't one of the motivations for this discussion that most the admins here didn't have to do an RfA in the first place? I think it would pretty reasonable to make an inactive former admin do an RfA (their first actual RfA) on return, especially if the policies have changed since they were an admin (as the policies seem to be changing in this series of discussions). As for grandfathering in currently active admins and admins who (in the future) will have to complete an actual RfA, that probably depends on how the other parts of this admin-ship discussion turn out. BigDiesel2m (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Retroactive RFAs discussion is more focused on if we should require each person to have done at least 1 RFA. The main question here is if someone has passed an RFA and goes inactive, should they have their rights removed? And if so, should they be required to do a second RFA to get them back should they return? Riblet15 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Question - If we are going the route of supporting RSW's policy, how would this exist alongside Forum:Retroactive RFAs? For example, us removing ShaunDreclin's admin for inactivity, and him returning a year later. Would he still have to run an RfA? -- SpineTalk 02:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the Retroactive RFAs thread decides everyone should be required to have passed 1 RFA, then he would have to run an RFA immediately to retain the tools, regardless of any (past or present) inactivity. I don't actually see any conflict in any of the outcomes. Riblet15 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Support removing tools after 8 months to year of inactivity but require those with tools removed to redo an RfA - The caveat being that I believe the current plan is to have a preload for a much more 'laxed RfA. -- 05:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Closure - Past admins whose rights were removed, i.e. 5) to 7) in the list of admins on Forum:Retroactive RFAs, will be required to be nominated through an RfA process. However, admins who have passed the upcoming RfA process as per Forum:Retroactive RFAs and become inactive in the future will not have to redo an RfA upon their return. -- SpineTalk 03:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)