The inactivity section now needs rewriting, now that we have cancelled confirmations from now on. How will we go about removing inactive admins? How does Commons do it, for example? Majorly talk 00:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some sort of simple hard rule seems fine. No edits or actions in the past 12 months? --MZMcBride 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Majorly talk 15:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to look at sysop actions only. As well, I'd prefer to set it to a low number rather than "none" - saying "none" lets people take one or a few token actions to avoid getting removed when really they should be since they're not active. Something more like enwikibooks' method would be preferable to me. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
10 logged actions every 6 months seems too specific to gauge inactivity. I think one can be an active Meta user and good admin without running across more than one obvious admin action a month. 5 or 10 a year might be more appropriate, and would still catch the truly inactive. And active editors who simply haven't been using their admin tools should get a message reminding them of where to look for tasks that need doing, rather than a challenge they must respond to or stop being admins.
I also note that current admins weren't left talkpage messages - does that mean they were emailed directly? It seems an appropriate thing to discuss on-wiki. And waiting for more than a week might also be appropriate - since it requires a specific response from one person, who might be on vacation for the week in question.
- 10 logged actions OR 100 edits in the past year. If the latter, remind them to be more active, and ask them to sign their continued interest on the confirmation page [a significantly different message from 'if you don't want us to remove your flag, sign here'].
- Leave a talk-page message, wait 2 weeks to close out the process.
- Why don't we just set it to three years? If the person has no edits or logged actions in three years, then you can remove them posthaste. Otherwise, leave them the hell alone. Reasonable? --MZMcBride 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We could, perhaps, forget about x edits/actions, and remove if they have been completely inactive after a year. Then again, that does not remove those who are inactive but make an edit every now and again (e.g. to their userpage), which would not really constitute real activity but would excempt them from auto-removal. Majorly talk 14:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)