Forum:Removal of user rights for inactivity

Hey all. I'm a co-bureaucrat at Bully wiki (http://bullygame.wikia.com).

The question is - is removing someone's admin and rollback rights for one month of inactivity due to "bureaucrat's discretion" ok?

Here's the details.

Currently, I'm involved in an issue with the other bureaucrat, User:Dan the Man 1983, on the wiki. Dan has a personal policy that I never agreed to wherein anyone who is inactive for one month has their user rights, be they administrator or rollbacker, removed. The other day, he desysopped User:TheKidInside and removed User:Local Guru Of Bullworth.'s rollback rights. Feeling very strongly that he was out of line and had no right to instate such a policy, I returned their rights. He removed them again, claiming "bureaucrat's discretion". My personal opinion is that this is completely out of line and a borderline abuse of power on Dan's part.

You can read the debate between myself and Dan at my user talk page on Bully Wiki here. For those who don't want to read it, Dan's position was that bureaucrat's discretion is all he requires and that inactivity for one month just plain is enough reason to desysop them. I countered that it isn't, that most wikis don't desysop for inactivity and those that do usually only desysop for one year, and that doing this just discourages editors from coming back. McJeff 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be the community´s decision. If the community is in favor of this policy, then it should stay. If the community wants it changed, it should be changed. -- 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Ose, it should be a community decision - but from experience, one month sounds like an extremely short time. People can go on holiday for that long, or just have a school/work project to complete. Besides, having inactive admins should cause very little damage. 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On fr.guildwars, one admin has been inactive for more than a year now (if i remember correctly).
 * I doubt he will ever return but why would we remove his rights ? He has never done anything bad... — TulipVorlax 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, having inactive administrators isn't going to harm the wiki. As long as there's one or more active administrators around, having a few inactive ones isn't going to cause the wiki to fall a part. Contrary to popular believe, administrators, sysops, and moderators shouldn't act or be treated as politicians. Moderators are here due to their ability and judgment; a moderator isn't the same as a leader. Just because a federal judge is unpopular doesn't mean that she or he is a bad judge. Really, like TulipVorlax said, only harmful administrators should be removed. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a variety of reasonable justifications a wiki community can use to remove inactive admins. If the community has completely changed from when the admin last was around, there may be a lack of trust. Admins who haven't been around for years also will have no knowledge of how the wiki currently runs, and may do accidental (but harmful) actions if they return. Also, considering local bureaucrats can take and remove admin rights without needing staff or helper action, it cannot be too difficult for bureaucrats to restore admin rights if the former admin returns and proves that he or she is still deserving of the rights. However, one month does seem a bit harsh; the justifications I have listed are for admins that haven't been seen for years. Wjxhuang,  the 888th Avatar  {Talk} 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)