Project:Requests for permissions/RfC/Removal of inactive sysops (2018)

Proposal to remove long-term inactive administrators

Previous discussion on the same topic: Project:Requests/RfC/Removal_of_inactive_sysops.
Current admin/'crat statistics: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stewardry/mediawikiwiki?sysop=1&bureaucrat=1

I was wondering if the views of the community would have changed since the last discussion took place on whether we should stablish a mechanism to remove long-term inactive administrators. The easiest solution for me would be to add this wiki to the list of projects where AAR is applied. I feel it is quite a conservative policy in which it requires 2 years of absolute inactivity plus one month warning to the community and the user before any kind of removal can take place. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a decent amount of people in the statistics list that apparently haven't edited the wiki in a few years, but are still active on IRC/Gerrit/Phabricator. We shouldn't desysop those people. Legoktm (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The good thing about m:AAR is that for every admin detected as inactive it requires both community and user notification. If the user replies that he wish to keep their rights, policy mandates that rights should be kept unless the community rules otherwise. That's why I think it's a kinda straightforward and conservative policy in that regard. Thanks for your input. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or another option would be to remove if the account is completely globally inactive, similar to testwiki. --Rs chen 7754 06:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoAurelio and Rschen7754: This is a very late reply and I should ask first before creating another RfC. Even if the community allows sysop to be granted indefinitely, should AAR still be applied on crats and IAs considering that both (in a way) can edit the site interface and it's quite dangerous to leave it hanging. Minorax (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Missed one. Minorax (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: m:AAR was recently amended to include interface-administrators to the list of groups we'll monitor for inactivity so if this RfC succeeds, that would be covered. Partially applying AAR is not an option for us on Meta (include one group and disregard others) as the policy mentions the groups covered, but this wiki could create a local rule for that if this RfC does not succeed. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]