User blog comment:Zane T 69/Wiki Improvements/@comment-778071-20160626023744/@comment-778071-20160703023900

@Zane: Thank you, I accept your apology. I understand that you weren't actively trying to insult me, but cast aspersions on my characteryou did. If you continue to be active on the Wiki, you will have to be sensible about the claims you are making. Even if the other party is wrong, you cannot allow your thinking to be sloppy or your reasoning to slip into personal attacks.

Again, back to our discussion, your thinking is muddled. Is it a job or is it an volunteer position? You stated that "In [your] mind, [inactive admins] are elected officials who play golf instead of working at the office." You then describe them as Presidents/Vice Presidents. This is an incorrect mindset to have, and no admin (whether active/inactive sees himself/herself that way.) Do you understand that we are volunteers just like you - just that we've been equipped with a few janitorial tools to maintain the Wiki? I must point you to Supernatural Wiki:All editors are equal: "Wikis are not based on any form of hierarchy. Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the wiki community who are recognised for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments." If at any point your thinking lapses into describing the work admins do here as a "job", stop yourself and think through it again. You are applying incorrect concepts here.

You quoted my earlier statement, but you seem to have missed out the statement that came before it, which is that: "To be clear, "why we sysop users" and "why we keep users sysopped" are very different things." The key flaw in your argument is that keeping inactive admins sysopped does no harm to the Wiki. Once you understand this premise, your argument falls apart. We keep someone sysopped because at one point, the community trusted the user's judgment and entrusted him with a few extra janitorial tools. He may have stopped editing but if he does come back and is ready to pick up the mop and bucket to do some cleaning, then that's all fine and dandy. There is no prioritisation of the needs/wants of the few over the many and your argument here is incoherent.

In an organisation, why do you replace people? It's because 1. the current person in a role isn't carrying out effectively & 2. if the current person doesn't vacate the role, then no one can carry out his duties. A Wiki is not the same. There is no limit on the number of admins we can have, and having many admins around is not a reason to prevent trusted users for taking on these additional admin duties. Back to the janitor analogy (which is in fact a very apt description for the unglamorous nature of our work here), if you have a building, it's better to have more mops and buckets handed out to maintain the place. The more admins we have, the merrier. On a side note, this is slightly different for bureaucrats, but that's a topic for another time.

Hence, your argument fails to show any benefit to desysopping inactive administrators. Here's what happens if you desysop inactive administrators:
 * We already do elect new admins regardless of the current administrator pool. Desysopping inactive admins does nothing to improve the current situation. The phrase 'Stepping aside' only makes sense if only one person can fill the role at any one time, but as mentioned there is no limit to the number of admins we can have.
 * It prevents previously-active admins from returning from inactivity to contribute with the tools entrusted to them
 * We go against the ethos of what it means to volunteer and to contribute to a Wiki.

Again, I think you misunderstand if you think this is a debate of leadership styles. The Wiki has no leader, we make decisions by community consensus. As a bureaucrat, I am trusted by the community to identify the consensus in a discussion fairly and impartially, a consensus that best reflects the community's wishes. But at no point do I (or any other sysop) lead the Wiki.

I reiterate that I am not completely opposed to desysopping inactive admins. The drawbacks mentioned above are mitigated if we: Make no mistake, this is an argument. An argument is no bad thing if both parties know how to remain civil and address each other's points reasonably, and it can allow for stronger resolutions to be achieved.
 * Allow returning admins to request their tools from an active bureaucrat assuming they left in good standing
 * Make it clear that the desysopping is due to security concerns / the user has been gone too long to be in touch with the community. If the latter is invoked, then the previous point is nullified.

As for supporting your RfA, I typically do not add my comments to an RfA to better maintain impartiality when I eventually close it. I'll be honest in that I have strong reservations about sysopping you because as far as I can tell, you have not made very many edits and you don't have a good grasp of Wiki policies. From how you've handled this discussion, I too have my doubts about how mature your thinking and judgement is. I am glad you are so enthused to contribute to the Wiki and have a strong commitment to seeing it thrive, but I am also worried about your wrongheaded ideas about "betraying the community" and whatnot.

I can accept your point that it would be great if we had more active admins. But you go too far in saying that they have betrayed the community. They are not doing any harm by being inactive. The only loss to the Wiki is the loss of contributions that would be made if they were still around - but this is true of all users. Dozens of users have come and gone. Have they therefore betrayed the Wiki? No, they have not. You have come in with many personal ideas about what an ideal administrator should be like and whatnot, but they go against the ethos of the Wiki and the ideals it was set up with. I hope you'll give it more thought and understand why the standard you stubbornly insist upon is impractical and unreasonable. Cheers.