Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/draft for standby admins

Creation

This is a counter-proposal to User:Horrible's Activity policy proposal, based largely on User:Infinite's suggestion on the Inactive Clean-up talk page. The proposal is to add an additional section to the existing Admin policy outlining expectations and responsibilities for standby admins, who would otherwise be viewed as simply inactive. It purposely does not include a direct activity requirement, as I personally do not believe one would be useful and don't currently see a firm consensus for one. Please note that I'm putting this proposal forth as a regular user and should not be presumed to speak for the admin team. Thank you, and happy discussing. - Tanetris (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say that although I'm in favour of this (and also i'm kinda in favour of horrible's proposal)... their would need to be some kind of mechanism for people who know they will not be contactable for a period of time, to make that clear. For example I went to china for a month last year, during that time much of the internet was behind an annoying firewall. I'm happy enough to put things on my talk page like "in china from date - date; I wont be contactable); as its not the same as going AWOL. I would also up the time limit to 3 days, as that accounts for people who may have weekend commitments, which takes them out of steady internet access for the weekend. -- Salome 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's play some what-ifs.

• What if an admin can't do weekends: Under this policy, as long as it never takes them 2 weeks to respond, they will not be directly demoted. The community may eventually decide (if by chance every time they get pinged happens to be a weekend and responses never happen before Monday) to start an RfR for them, but this can easily be prevented by the admin communicating that they're bad at weekends but good on weekdays. If the community decides to RfR them anyway, then we'll look at what consensus is at that time.
• What if an admin goes away for a month: By the letter of the policy, if someone ignores the posted notice that you're going to be away for a month and posts to your talk page anyway, sysop rights would be removed 2 weeks afterward, but then they'd be restored by a bcrat as soon as you take the notice down to indicate you're back. By the spirit of the policy, because a thing called discretion exists, we'll just give you some leeway and not bother to remove the rights unless it goes past the time you said you'd be back.
• What if an admin comes back the day after their rights were removed to say they were delayed by circumstances outside their control, but they're good now: The policy specifically allows bureaucrat discretion to simply return admin rights without fanfare or fuss.
• What if an admin who hasn't been active or reachable in over a decade comes back to say they want to be an admin again: The policy also specifically allows bureaucrat discretion to say the admin needs a new RFA to ensure that their time on the desert island hasn't changed them

That clear up some concerns? - Tanetris (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not that I didn't understand that Tane. It's more that this is assuming the same BC team presides with the same convetnions and understandings that they currently have... which may not be the case. Whereas it would be simple enough to add in a base proviso that if a sysop said in advance that they will be unable to access the wiki for X number of weeks and shouldn't be considered to be gone, but rather temporarily unavailable; so shouldnt be expected to respond in that time. It also has the added benefit of showing continued active engagement with the wiki from standby sysops, who are showing that they are still considering wiki needs, when plannign life events.

As for the 72 hours, rather than 48... I just think for things like weekends, seasonal holidays and the like, 72 hours is a reasonable time frame to give someone to respond, 48 hours can just be a tad short. Like i personally respond quite quickly to pings from my email, but some other's may struggle and nothign will explode in an extra 24 hours.

It's not that i dislike your policy tane, it's that it has a slight hint of GW2W flavour to it, as it's quite vague at points. It potentially puts sysops within BC discretion, when it shouldnt. I dont intend to be asking BC's to have adminship back, if I'm out of the country for a month and ive told people in advance, as I'm not inactive... im just unavailable for a specified amount of time, that I've gave prior notice of. If it was me I would put in an availability bit which is like "Standby Sysops agree to be available for at least 9/10 months out of the year" or something like that and something about advance notice of absence, but thats just me.

My additional reason for saying the above is that I would actually like more active sysops here and I just think having guidance that doesn't make the task onerous to people and doesnt potentially put people unreasonably into "BC discretion" terriotry, at least wouldnt generate an additional barrier to attracting new blood who may actually be attracted by the standby sysop roll rather than the fully fledged role.

I'm not sure if what I've said makes sense, I think it does... but if it doesn't please just shout me. -- Salome 00:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while there isn't a firm consensus for an activity policy, there's also not a firm consensus against one. My goal was to create a compromise policy that allows sysops enough leeway where they don't feel they have to be here 24/7. but also allow for the removal of admins who have made no attempts to participate.

That said, I feel that what Tanetris has written here as a Standby addendum to the current policy is a good start. I am concerned about not limiting the quantity of standby sysops, and not setting a maximum duration. If all current sysops chose to go on standby at the same time, that would potentially leave the wiki open to unfettered vandalism for a period up to 2-3 days with no guarantee of action. Naturally this is a bit of an exaggeration, but with the limited number of sysops we currently have, I feel it's a valid concern. horrible | contribs 01:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Salome: While the bcrat team certainly may change, if ever there comes a point that the bcrat team cannot be trusted to use their discretion toward whatever is in the best interests of the wiki at the time, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong to a degree that no wording of policy can fix. Policy already gives bureaucrats room to use their discretion for the good of the community since 2012.

@Horrible: Regarding limiting the number... I'm honestly not sure how enforcable that is, at least in a way that's going to result in a positive. Let's say we're at our minimum non-standby admins and I need to go on standby because there's a situation going on in my life... If I try to, am I fired? Are all the standby admins who don't come off standby fired? Does this do anything to improve the situation for the wiki? - Tanetris (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As funny as such a cascading scenario would be, you're right that it probably wouldn't be helpful. Ideally, before the last person would put themselves on standby, they would "activate" other sysops currently on standby, and would notify a bureaucrat who would be able to pick up the sysop slack for the <2-3 days it takes for 1+ of the "standby" sysops to come back. horrible | contribs 06:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Tane with the utmost of respect, I think that kinda sidestepped my point. Fundamentally falling under BC discretion when one shouldnt, is undesirable. Yes BC's can use their discretion for the benefit of the wiki but that practice is limited and doesn't extend to the maintainance of sysop roles, unless fundamental issues with abuse have arisen, community concerns have been raised or their is some other fundamental flaw that needs intervention. My point is more that what one considers "the benefit of the wiki", is an open term. For example we've already had an admin believe it's in the wiki's interests to remove sysops due to activity... if people with similar stances became BC's whats to say what "benefit of the wiki" means in that instance.

I would also say that GW1W was prone to using comprehensive guidance and policies; so for example if their was an activity and availability policy being inacted (such as this), it would normally seem right to have a process where someone could fairly state that they'll be a finite period of time where they wont be available and that prior notice of this would be considered engagement with the wiki community, not abandonment of duties.

Of course it's your proposal Tane and I genuinely don't intend to badger you about it. I just thought it would be easier to adapt this one with a couple of caveats, rather than me have to make my own counter-proposal and muddy the waters. -- Salome 15:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Fundamentally falling under BC discretion when one shouldnt, is undesirable." Got a bit of a tautology here. Why shouldn't sysops fall under BC discretion? (and as I'm about to note they already do)

"(BC discretion) doesn't extend to the maintainance of sysop roles." Provably false. Policy specifically states (since 2012, as I linked above) that a Bureaucrat may remove sysop rights by discretion "if it serves the best interests of the community". The intent of this is that a bcrat can stop a hypothetical rampaging sysop, though someone only concerned with using the letter of policy while ignoring the spirit could use it to 'justify' demoting a sysop they don't personally like. Which is why someone who would ignore the intended spirit of policy should never be bcrat. Also all the way back in 2009, I personally granted 2 users temporary sysop rights by discretion for about 2 months and not only did it receive zero objection, but there was discussion to codify it into policy, only rejected because it wasn't expected to come up again.

All that being said, I think we're roughly agreed on the intent of how the policy should be applied, so if you (either of you, or anyone else reading) have better ideas for wording without making it incomprehensibly convoluted or unbearably long, the draft page is right there and this is a wiki. - Tanetris (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"...unless fundamental issues with abuse have arisen, community concerns have been raised or their is some other fundamental flaw that needs intervention" - after "roles" i did put a comma, not a full stop; so i did list the major caveats where BC discretion were normally applicable. I'm not sure what was false about my statement, but I might not be expressing myself in a way that makes sense, so thats fine.

also their is a difference between being put forward for active review by BC's due to user concern, behaviour etc..., instead of having an automated version of review where you fall under BC immediate consideration, despite taking the steps to inform the community of intended absences and the like.

As for editing your proposal, I suppose I was engaging with you to reach a common understanding and to be courteous to someone I respect greatly; but I would agree that I think the primary thrust were in agreement with and it's just minor fiddling with particular points and caveats that were debating now. I'll have a wee look and see what i can add to it and obviously if theirs anything you disagree with... i look forward to whatever you have to say. :) -- Salome 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing how this has been going on for three weeks now, let me give my two cents as well. Initially, I did not want to get involved much, since I am one of the targets of this whole discussion, but since no consensus has arrived yet, it is worthwile asking: "why not?"

I think the answer is that the whole dicussion revolves more around feelings than facts and feelings are always harder to get consensus on. Let's first look at the cold hard facts: What is a problem with keeping and what is a problem with removing admins that have been inactive for years? The arguement for removal is that it lowers the number of accounts that may abuse the admin tools. The arguement against is that it lowers the number of accounts that may use the admin tools benefitially. However, given that these accounts have been inactive for years, either case is super unlikely.

So, why the discussion? I think that the real pro and contra arguement is about feelings: The pro-removal side feels that keeping inactive admins around is undeserved and makes the admin page look bad. On the other side, the contra-removal side feels that it is unfair to the people who made positive contributions to the wiki a long time ago and unnecessarily hurts the old admins feelings.

In the end, I think the outcome of this discussion is completely unimportant to actual sysoping of the wiki. With either removal or without, that will continue to run its normal path. The important part is to keep everybodies feelings in line. Drama can be drama, even if the underlying reason has a probability 0% of ever happening. Therefore, finding some consensus is important, not because this policy matters, but because it matters that editors still get along with each other afterwards. --Xeeron (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I figure I may as well put my two-cents in here, too. I recently took three weeks away from the wiki; two for personal reasons and one for a holiday. I let Tanetris and poke know that I'd be gone. I came back and the wiki's still ticking along. The admin load here minimal, and was picked up by others appropriately.

Changing 'semi-active' or 'inactive' to 'standby' I see as semantics. If it makes the list of admins look better, then sure, fine. It won't change the administration of this wiki. If someone reaches out to a 'semi-active' or 'standby' admin on their talk page, it'll be noticed by that admin, another admin, and/or another contributor. If it's an admin issue, it'll be brought to the noticeboard or handled on the spot. Changing the name of the admin's status won't change how the wiki function.

As for the procedures to test admin activity, I see them as worse than useless. They are hoops which exist only to be hoops. We just had a purge of admin. Why don't we come back in say, three-years' time? and see how we feel about the admin list then. The wiki's not changing, and I doubt the admin whom we have will degrade much in their abilities over that time, either. And if, on the extreme chance that one of the admin on the list decides to do something utterly stupid, we've still got other admin around who can address whatever's been broken. Greener (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

addendum

If the only time a sysop interacts with the wiki is when they're directly solicited to do so, then they clearly no longer give a fuck about the wiki. They should have the decency to resign - but barring that, they should be removed. This policy change as written is completely weak and will do literally nothing at all. I would be fine with going with this change assuming there is the following addition:

Sysops inactive (no edits, blocks) for more than 1 year will be demoted without an RFA.

If a Sysop were to abuse their powers in other ways (vandalism of protected pages, mass-bans, etc) I would expect them to be removed without an RFA. Dereliction is also an abuse, and should be handle-able as such, without an RFA. horrible | contribs 13:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In a word: Why?

What is the good that this would accomplish? Putting aside the lack of GWW:AGF in your premise, how does it do anything but benefit the wiki to have people who are ready, willing, and able to step in if the (relatively) more active admins aren't available? - Tanetris (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to echo Tane, what does this achieve? Like you can't really just assume people don't give a fuck about the wiki... for many GW1 wiki has just taken a smaller part of their focus, as GW1 entered maintainence; that's not a value statement, its a practicality. For example I have now took to checking here about once a week, just to check their is no admin stuff that needs done. In all honesty, their hasn't been; whats been raised has already been fixed by others (within a couple of hours) and that's with me actively checking. Having a group of people who are saying "look guys, we're happy to come back and help with stuff, if you need us!", is only a positive. If you want to start RFA's for a bunch of users, who are more active on this wiki currently... then youre more than welcome to attempt to do so.

Also the concept of dereliction is just a nonsense here, this isn't a job nor is it an obligation. It's users offering to help the wiki, when needed, with the use of admin powers they've proven they can be trusted with. You continue to try to push a picture of adminship, which frankly isnt agreed upon.

Horrible, you continually make refernce to how much you care about this wiki, which is great. We've taken out admins who have stated they want nothing to do with the wiki anymore and are now left with a smaller list, how have said that theyre happy to come back as needed. Surely the next step now, is to focus on getting new sysops from the current active user base? -- Salome 14:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As discussed elsewhere over the years in-depth, a sysop is both a janitor and a community leader. The tools provided to a sysop are very powerful, and can be used (read: have been used) in ways that shape the community. By not interacting with and participating in the community, any absent sysop will be using their powers in an uninformed and potentially damaging way. An on-call sysop has the potential to serve half of a role, at best.

A prime example of this is how User:Falconeye was permanently banned for relatively minor (if repeated) actions, despite no recent conversations surrounding the changes. While I absolutely do not see eye to eye with a lot of our more opinionated editors, a difference of opinion on how to best improve the wiki seems like a very idiotic reason to ban someone. These changes are something that should have been discussed and resolved on talk pages as a content discussion, not backroom admin channels as a moderation discussion.horrible | contribs 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Salome, RE: "For example I have now took to checking here about once a week, just to check their is no admin stuff that needs done."

There's plenty of stuff that still has to be done, my contribution history is a testament to that. As far as admin specific stuff, have an example: take a look at Category:Candidates_for_deletion and weigh in, or make a decision if you feel the conversation(s) have ended conclusively. There's still plenty to do, and your inability to find things to do speaks more about you than me.

and RE: " If you want to start RFA's for a bunch of users, who are more active on this wiki currently... then youre more than welcome to attempt to do so."

Won't be doing anything like this until the current batch of RFAs is complete, as I've stated elsewhere. horrible | contribs 15:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaking user based administrative actions, for things that require admin intervention; your edits prove that admin powers ARE NOT needed to do them. Adminship is not and nor should it be used as a way to press edits onto users, out of a feeling of compulsory edit-activity. As it's not a great way to motivate new editors to become admins in the future and frankly its not how Adminships were ever set up; if people wish to make that a compulsory aspect, thats fine... but we've been having this conversation for months now and you've not managed to gain a consensus or provide a compelling enough reason. Also as ive stated repeatedly, the fact you want adminship to work a certain way, doesn't make that a reality, despite your attempts to shoe horn concepts of "dereliction" into the debate. Adminship is a tool set, not a leadership position; the fact it has been used as such, is something I've never encouraged but is somewhat inevitable due to the nature of communities. What obligation exists however, is that of working in the best intersts of the wiki WHEN AVAILABLE.

As for your personal oppinions about Falconeye's ban, again... he was warned and persisted, as was his habit. He had been warned in the past, thus why his ban incrementally increased over time. If you don't agree with that admin's actions, thats fine. However what you're arguing for here seems to be admins who play favourites, because a user is more active and allow them extra leeway because of this. The wiki has rules, Falconeye broke them repeatedly. A good admin approaches each event with objectivity and the available information to them on the wiki. That way the long term user and repeat contributor and the new contributor with a couple of edits to their nname, or the periodic contributor, all hves the same license to edit and be treated with courtesy and respect as one another.

Playing favourites, isnt a good look and it's something I've never done and nor do I intend to engage with that kind of behaviour; any admin that did... I would put forward a reconfirmation request for them, as i believe it renders one unfit.

Finally Horrible, as a fellow wiki user: I'm happy to debate with you... but if you keep putting snide ad'hominems into your posts, it makes it harder to engage with your points. So as one user to another, im asking you to maybe resist the urge for snide underhanded personal commentary. -- Salome 16:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see how Falconeye's ban even enters into the conversation, considering the decision was made by and ban performed by Alex, who prior to his recent resignation was the single most active admin on GW1W. - Tanetris (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I was using it as an example of how sysop tools can shape the community. Rather than a discussion on the changes falconeye was making taking place, administrative action occurred. The only prior discussions I'm aware of were ~7 years earlier. horrible | contribs 16:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"...we've been having this conversation for months now and you've not managed to gain a consensus or provide a compelling enough reason... you want adminship to work a certain way, doesn't make that a reality"

I want people who choose to be admins to actually do the things they're choosing to do. If you have no intention of doing the task, why keep the role? I pointed out one example of an admin task that's been left undone, there are others.

"As for your personal oppinions about Falconeye's ban, again... he was warned and persisted, as was his habit. He had been warned in the past...The wiki has rules, Falconeye broke them repeatedly. "

Please point out which of these rules read to (and merit) the permaban, as they were not cited. And given how he wasn't even spoken to for years on end, it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that his recent behavior was deemed acceptable.

"A good admin approaches each event with objectivity and the available information to them on the wiki. That way the long term user and repeat contributor and the new contributor with a couple of edits to their nname, or the periodic contributor, all hves the same license to edit and be treated with courtesy and respect as one another."

There's no such thing as pure objectivity. It's far more realistic to be cognizant of your own biases, to account for and weigh them accordingly when making decisions. I've seen far too many times here and on gw2w where an administrator was too close to an issue to see clearly. Not to mention how they seem to view reversing decisions as a personal failing. horrible | contribs 17:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also: "Adminship is a tool set, not a leadership position; the fact it has been used as such, is something I've never encouraged but is somewhat inevitable due to the nature of communities" conflicts directly with "the fact you want adminship to work a certain way, doesn't make that a reality". Cheers. horrible | contribs 17:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"I've seen far too many times here and on gw2w where an administrator was too close to an issue to see clearly" And you feel that making sure we don't have proven-but-less-day-to-day-involved admins to call on would improve this situation? - Tanetris (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This very thread shows that I would not consider the sysops in question to be "proven." The only ones who could be already chose to decline their RFAs. The inability to realize your own biases and the inability to empathize with points you disagree with are bad in general, and should not be acceptable in an administrative position. Everyone has bias. If your bias leads you to make a decision on its own, you need to leave that decision to someone else. horrible | contribs 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"This very thread shows that I would not consider the sysops in question to be "proven.""

No, that is not one of the arguments you have put forward, and if it was, it would be an argument to be made on the specific admins' RfRs, where instead you wrote on all 5 currently open RfRs: "this user has been a fine sysop in the past". The only act you have managed to point to that you personally disagree with was one by an admin who at the time met even the strictest activity and involvement requirements one could ask for, while casting unfounded nebulous aspersions on the remaining admins' motives and mistakes they MIGHT make in the future, which could be undone by the rest of the admin team and tools removed if necessary.

Honestly, the main takeaway I'm getting from this thread is that you don't like, or at least are frustrated with, the current adminship as a whole, and most of the admins are inactive, therefore boot for inactivity. Which is a non sequitur and not helpful to anyone.

"Everyone has bias". This is broadly true, but also runs directly counter to your proposal. The more you concentrate the admin power into fewer and fewer hands, the more you are subject to the biases of those few individuals without being able to call in an uninvolved admin. Which doesn't mean we should have as many admins as possible regardless of competence, but you're talking about removing willing, able, competent admins based on an arbitrary measure of whether they're making enough noise. - Tanetris (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"The only act you have managed to point to" as an example of how sysop powers are able to control the community. It's a valid example of that regardless of who did it.

The only inactive sysops I would trust with being sysops are the ones with enough self-awareness to realize that a sysop in absentia isn't a sysop - and that they're likely not needed as a result. A sysop who does not use their sysop powers (both mechanical and social) not only does not need them, but has shown that they should not have them. As mentioned by others - if there's a need for more sysops, RFA is a straight forward and relatively quick process. At least, it is when the admin team isn't stalling them over a policy change.

"The more you concentrate the admin power into fewer and fewer hands" this is bullshit here and you know it - these sysops already don't matter. Have you ever solicited the sysops with RFAs up for advice after their last edit here? I'd be genuinely surprised if that happened once, let alone frequently. Auron is the only one who's even shown up occasionally.

I'm trying to compromise on this, which is the entire point of this standby bullshit - the sheer number of RFAs that went entirely unchallenged (including a bcrat, in case you forgot) shows that something like this isn't meaningless. horrible | contribs 22:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Without wanting to put words in anyone's mouth, it seems that what horrible is saying is that whilst it's all very well to have distant sysops available to be consulted when necessary, in practice they are not being consulted, leading to individual admins implementing unilateral decisions. Falconeye's ban is a decent example of this. Whilst I personally agree with the ban, it seems clear that the process was not carried out correctly, and the absence of active admins is to blame for this. In theory, Alex could have called in those "standby" sysops to add their judgements, but that did not happen. Mist Y (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Which would be a valid point, except that by far Alex's activity was massively beyond that of what could be expected for any sysop on this wiki currently. Horrible's ongoing gripe is that admins aren't active enough; now he's using a flawed example of a judgment made by the most active sysop we had by far, performing an action well within his remit to perform. Honestly if this whole debacle has been one long drawn out protest, against a ban on falconeye and the drama that created, I will be very dissapointed. Also as for the other points that horrible has raised, I actually just disagree with them; i think they are flawed and logically inconsistant. I've pointed this out to him, but he disagrees. Thats fine. Sometimes people just don't agree. Until his arguments deal with the fundamental crux of the questions being posed to him, which they have not done so thus far, I will continue to disagree with him, as per the questions raised here, that he's failed to engage with. -- Salome 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Oh for fuck's sake. I have no love for falconeye, and I've clashed with him on numerous topics before. This whole thing has nothing to do with him. I simply used his ban of an example of what I consider to be a sysop going about things wrongly. Stop latching onto that one statement and actually look at the rest of the shit I've said, please. horrible | contribs 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

actually, you know what? nevermind. fuck it. horrible | contribs 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I like watching passionate users and Horrible is certainly one of them (not to discredit any other users). Some of their points are valid ones, in the sense that his initiative has lead to the removal of several fully inactive or resigned admins. The community clearly reached a consensus on the unchallenged cases. Though now the problem seems to escalate around the final outcome of a/any standby policy not actually changing the impression of the inactive-esque sysop team, nor the practise of a lack of active sysops. Horrible seems to be a strong advocate for avoiding singular sysop interventions/discretion as a result of this inactivity, an example for this being the Falconeye ban (not to be confused with the reason for initiating the reconfirmation process).

Based on Xeeron's previous words, the concept of being a sysop but not actively editing or frequently patrolling the recent changes should mean they are simply a talk page message or email away from jumping into action. That's also where the term "standby" came from (as per my suggestion); instead of labeling sysops as inactive, they would simply be on standby when there are no frequently visible signs of life. They're present on call, to read and act on community discourse and sysop discretion.

However, an important point of moderators of any community for Horrible seems to be visible involvement with said community and I can understand the sentiment. The best way to take necessary actions for a community is to be present the entire time (this was a strong argument for and during my GW2W RFA). The other side of this point is that the GWW community is not very large that and the pacing of discussions and potential need for discretion is slow enough to keep up even if a sysop only checks in once or twice a week.

And that appears to be the crux of this process; where to draw the line between sysop tools and community moderators. I personally feel these are two separate type of users and community moderators do not absolutely require sysop tools, nor do sysops absolutely require moderation skills. Tanetris's policy proposal seems to focus primarily on the tools and how users who are sysops should be expected to use them regardless of visible activity, with a maximum absence time. I think this proposal makes sense and is in line with Horrible's intention (though likely not focused enough on community involvement as it stands).

I think the baseline is the same for every party involved. Those with maintenance tools on the wiki should be expected to be active when prompted unless provided a statement as to why it is currently impossible for them to do so (such as a holiday or personal life issues); sysop discretion should never be possible without review from other sysops (or bureaucrats); if there are still obvious sysop tasks to execute, they should be executed in a timely manner; and most importantly sysops should should be in touch at least somewhat with the wiki community. I feel like we can easily combine both active proposals into one that generally meets everyone's main arguments, rather than let users be divided in nuances and semantics. The question then is, will we? - Infinite - talk 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason I am so critical of the 'example' of the Falconeye ban is that it is a red herring whose only relationship to the situation at hand is that Horrible disagrees with it. It doesn't prove anything. Regarding the claim that sysop actions have the power to shape the direction of the community... That is a self-evident, almost definitional fact that is built into the entire admin selection process and standards of admin conduct, with no bearing on this discussion of standby admins unless one has evidence to suggest standby admins are more likely than non-standby admins to use the power poorly. The anecdote offered, to the degree it is evidence of anything given that it's a single isolated incident and given that we disagree that the outcome was incorrect, would in fact suggest the opposite. Moreover it utterly ignores that besides Alex, several other admins, including a bcrat (Hi, that's me. I forget if Poke has said anything specifically about it) have directly weighed in in support of it. In fact Alex mentioned it directly to myself, Poke, and Greener at the time of the ban to be sure we were aware. If it were a singular sysop using their tools inappropriately as Horrible wishes to paint it, we've had the means and opportunity to reverse the decision since it was made. There was no failure of process or breakdown of the system, just a result that Horrible personally happens to disagree with.

Horrible also asked for an example of me poking an inactive admin for help. Honestly most examples would be Greener coming to nudge me about something and get my opinion. However, on Thursday you might've noticed that there was a minor vandal issue on RecentChanges. I caught it and banned the IP, but on the chance some sort of proxying might get involved, and because I was in-and-out with RL, I poked on discord for any other GWW admins who could keep an eye on things. Within ~25 minutes, I got a response from Aiiane that she'd keep an eye out as she could, and a bit later Salome mentioned he was watching things too. Aiiane had no edits or log entries on that day, and Salome's for that day were unrelated and prior to the incident, but both unquestionably did sysop work that day. This is what I mean that an "arbitrary measure of whether they're making enough noise" is no way to judge an admin's involvement and certainly no way to judge their caring as Horrible has alluded to several times.

Simply, if there is a doubt whether an admin is still around, we can just ask them. As we did with the 19 admins who were removed from the list. As the policy proposal already suggests for this exact purpose: "If an admin hasn't been heard from in awhile, even if no direct requests have been made of them, the community may attempt to contact them to establish that they remain contactable." Anything beyond that is just unnecessary hoops for the admins with no tangible benefit for the wiki. - Tanetris (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I love how when I stop pushing a conversation, it just dies. Jolly good work, everyone, pat yourselves on a back.

1. It's not a red herring, it's a pattern of administrator behavior. the problem I'm bringing up is pretty much identical to Konig's ban: "I do see how a lack of earlier action [...] would seem like tacit allowance on my part. [...] Greener (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)" - administrator action being taken unilaterally without intermediate steps, and without any community involvement whatsoever. Do not confuse this specific ban with the main issue. I do not like Konig.
2. "...most examples would be Greener coming to nudge me about something and get my opinion..." So you don't have any examples of any standby admin (those who have active RFAs, and those who have already resigned/been removed). Quelle surprise.

You say unnecessary hoops, I say the ability to actually get things done. As it stands, your proposed change would not have done anything to remove the sysops & bcrat who left without a trace - I would still have had to take the same initiative I did. Mine does, which shows mine is likely going to be more useful. horrible | contribs 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"I stop pushing a conversation, it just dies." Yes, that is a thing that happens when you are the only one objecting. My options were to either push things through unilaterally, or let it sit a bit.

"Konig's ban" A ban that was also discussed extensively among the admin team, and was performed by one of the most active admins at the time. Again does nothing to prove any remotely related point for the same reasons.

"don't have any examples" Except the two examples I gave you? I am an example insofar as it was during a time when you attempted to write me off as inactive and I certainly would've been considered standby, but even if you really want to ignore that and count only the admins who have currently open reconfirmations, I said Aii, who is one.

"useful" Well that's making a pretty bold assertion about the usefulness of removing inactive admins from the admin list rising anywhere much above 'Sure why not I guess'. But putting that aside. Your initiative was a disaster in terms of process, actually technically breaking the rules of how reconfirmations works. With this proposal, if you believe admins have disappeared forever for whatever reason, all you would have to do is ping their talk pages and everything would be handled smoothly from there, nice and easy. Like I already said. - Tanetris (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my god, fuck you. horrible | contribs 18:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

lol agreed --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.243.45.53 (talk).

Let me expand on this, in order.

1. I started the initiative 4 months ago, but there have been plenty of people participating since then. This specific page, and my policy proposal, are a direct result of a suggestion by several people who are neither you or me.
2. Discussed where? in private? literally what I've been complaining about. Read again.
3. Re-read my original question. Neither of your "examples" are solicitations for input from inactive sysops. So therefore, not examples. (Also, the second one takes place after my "disaster", which also makes it worthless in any context.)
4. The most active any sysop has been in years has been a result of my "disaster". And even people who are pretending to be semi-active haven't done shit. As I've mentioned earlier, if any sysop actually cared to do sysop tasks, there are plenty that need to be done.

Henceforth, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself. horrible | contribs 19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not that it matters ...

I've given up on the governance of this place. I think it's intrinsically FUBAR. And the worst thing is that it was done on purpose a decade ago as a result of too little participation during elections. I understand that the latter is a problem, I just think the "solution" is mind-bogglingly idiotic. The standby admins issue is just the tip of the iceberg and the real problems lie deeper. 1) I don't really know how to redeem it since that would require involvment of a nearly dead community and 2) even if we come up with a nifty idea I don't really think it would be implemented. FUBAR, burried, done. IOW: I ain't participating since it wouldn't lead anywhere. Steve1 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to remind that, as said at the top of the talk page, this policy proposal is solely an attempt to codify Infinite's suggestion that had wide support (including from Horrible) into policy. If you (the general you: Horrible, Steve1, anyone) want more comprehensive admin reform... That is far beyond the scope of this proposal, and I don't see how the addendum Horrible is proposing to be added in this section accomplishes it either. I don't see how the addendum Horrible is proposing in this section accomplishes anything good for the wiki, in fact. Which is why I asked why in my first response to this section, and I have yet to get a cogent answer that actually supports not bothering to notify suspected-inactive admins on their talk pages before removing rights.

If you (the general you, Horrible, Steve1, anyone) want more comprehensive admin reform, you are free to make a comprehensive new admin policy proposal to be more in line with your goals and expectations. Or make actual merit-based rather than activity-based calls for reconfirmation on any admin you feel is responsible for making poor adminly decisions (myself included). Or nominate some new qualified admins. These are all options that are always available to you any time you wish to exercise them. - Tanetris (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I was ambiguous. My response was to horrible's "I love how when I stop pushing a conversation, it just dies. Jolly good work, everyone, pat yourselves on a back." I think/fear it's pointless. Steve1 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

With little interest in new admins I'm not sure putting chains on the few remaining ones makes sense since they can just decide to resign. They do this with their time by choice. If anyone thinks they can do better, step up. Justice (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Replying to this draft specifically

The above has gotten a bit off track with open discussion and further exploration of the bigger picture, so I wanted to create a new topic specifically to voice my opinion on this draft. I personally feel it closely defines "standby" similarly to how I had suggested it in the first place, with the only difference being that admins toggle a standby status depending on availability. When I suggested the "standby" label, I intended it to read as a permanent replacement of the current "inactive" status (active/semi-active/standby, as a result). Regardless, this draft defines "standby" as being on-call when prompted via talk page message and/or email. I feel this is a good method for redefining admin roles that function without the need to patrol all day, every day. In fact, me and some other users have supported the notion that admins should be expected to operate as written in this draft at all times to begin with. I, myself, would even go so far as to suggest we drop "semi-active" altogether and take on a binary system of admin presence; active and standby. Perhaps simply "present" and standby. But I digress. I support this draft's interpretation of standby sysops and bureaucrats. Simple and to the point. I also have no further questions regarding it. - Infinite - talk 21:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a few talking points.

• "However, an admin who regularly takes several days or longer to respond may be subject to a call for Reconfirmation at the community's discretion."

I feel the wording in this needs to be changed to have an exact time period to take out some of the discretionary aspect.

• Perhaps the Admin Noticeboard should have standby admins listed as "Standby" instead of "Inactive".
• Standby admins should only be asked to step in if the active admins need help or are inactive after a set period of time 48 hours for example.
• If there is going to be an RFA for an inactive admin then some wording for "inactivity" needs to be added to legitimate reasons for removal. Drogo Boffin 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There's already an exact time period with the 2 week limit, this clause is just to recognize that there are some situations where you can technically be within the 'letter of the law' but not the spirit. The reconfirmation process itself (nomination, voting, and final bcrat decision) has enough sanity-checks that it shouldn't be a problem.

Regarding changing sysop statuses from 'inactive' to 'standby' on the admin list: Yes, that's the intention. It isn't specifically written into the policy because it'll just be a one-time swapover. - Tanetris (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is good to go. Drogo Boffin 22:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Response requirement

Before we implement this policy change, I would like to talk about one small part that I think might be too tight the way it is currently formulated: “a standby admin should typically be responsive the same or next day”. While I understand the sentiment to have standby admins response quickly to day-to-day matters, I feel that one or two days is a bit too tight if you consider weekends or just the effect of living in different timezones. I understand that this is not a hard requirement any does not immediately cause any consequence, especially because of the following two week phase. However, I think that we could avoid some possible lawyering if we relax this a little bit. Maybe just use “should typically be responsive within a few days” or would this be too relaxed? poke | talk 23:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a few days is more than reasonable. Drogo Boffin 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a few days is long enough. What about sysops who decide to take a sabbatical? We may want to set the response time frame to something more reasonable, say 1-2 years. horrible | contribs 00:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A sabbatical would very likely be known in advance so it doesn’t exactly fall under that part. The extended period of unavailability is covered in the following paragraph. poke | talk 06:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm. I bet horrible is using sarcasm. Steve1 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following terms already present honestly seem sufficient for covering all the bases:

• Typically be responsive the same or next day
• 2 week period before rights removal
• Regularly takes several days or longer to respond may be subject to a call for Reconfirmation

Any admin repeatedly invoking the 2 week period will be noticed as flaky enough for a RfR to be successful. Changing "same or next day" to "a few days" won't effectively change anything on paper, but does set the expectation that all contacts to a standby admin are low urgency or importance (which is to be avoided imo). I think this is fine as-is. Toraen - talk 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement to call for an RFR. Adding this as "a reason" to call for an RFR does nothing. As shown by this clean-up effort, the community is already more than able to deal with admins who have completely left the wiki. The only thing this policy does is codify that which we've already done and coddle inactive sysops by making them feel better about being on "stand-by" rather than explicitly-fucked-off-status. horrible | contribs 03:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrapping up?

So, User:Horrible, can I take "I guess it's fine" as you being on-board at this point? Anyone else with lingering issues or is this good to go and we can get some things settled accordingly? - Tanetris (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This proposal looks reasonable and seems like where consensus is landing for how to move forward. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to that aspect, but take it however the fuck you want. horrible | contribs 03:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Drogo Boffin 05:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My only objection was that I saw the hoops as pointless, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a point. I'm in. Greener (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree the hoops do seem pointless to me, but if other people find comfort in it, I have no objections. --Rainith (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a better compromise will come around. --Xeeron (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Aye hoops seem pointless, but as Xeeron said... i think its the best compromise we have. -- Salome 23:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Since there wasn’t any new revelation to this for a while now, I (finally) went ahead an implemented this change to the policy. poke | talk 13:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)