Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 2009

Requests for Reconfirmations Expiration

Do they expire? Auron's was removed by Brains12, when he added the one for Wynthyst. I realize the way the page reads, it shouldn't be there anymore because it has been more than seven days, but that seems to leave a very large grey area. Should there also be a "list of pending reconfirmations"? Freedom Bound 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. Same as you read, RfRs that don't get more feedback within a week are just buried again, but their timmer is still running. If i had to make a guess as to why, it would be because RfRs originate on puntual situations, and after a week or so the reason for the votes starts to get blurry, so new votes are expected to be for new reasons, not the same old ones. Also, making the RfR visible for a little time gives the involved sysop a reason to agree to the RfR himself (now, if after a week he didn't say anything, it's clear that he don't give rats about it XD).

About the list... i thought there was a category grouping them already?--Fighterdoken 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a category, but there's nothing in it... Category:Pending reconfirmations. I don't know how to make that a link without tagging the page with it, but if you copy/paste it into the nav box it'll take you there. Freedom Bound 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmations are not pending. Either when new requests come up, a bcrat decides that the reconfirmation starts, or the request fades away again, until someone else brings it up again, when a bcrat can decide again about it. The reconfirmation process is not some voting process where everybody should gather and vote. It's a list where people can add reasoned requests, and those that seem to be there for stupid reasons may be ignored btw.

The category is for RfAs that are started because of reconfirmations. poke | talk 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-Existent "most recent RfA"

How does one request reconfirmation on sysops that do not have RfAs? I'm thinking they were granted sysop status prior to the existence of the RfA policy. Specifically, I'm speaking of Xasxas256, Rainith, LordBiro, and Gares Redstorm, maybe their RfAs are just not linked in Category:Resolved RFAs. --Freedom Bound 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

They were grandfathered from GuildWiki when the wiki was set up, and went through reconfirmation some time after the policy was set up and wiki 'stabilised'. Their reconfirmations are listed at Category:Resolved reconfirmations. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, not again please...

We already had that before, so please don't... poke | talk 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Some of those users have literally made no edits in over a year. How does their sysophood benefit the wiki? The admin list is one click off the main page, it should be a reasonably accurate list of who's available to help. --Freedom Bound 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is. Those activity status of sysops is very clearly indicated with obvious color-coding. How does their demotion benefit the wiki? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And how does it benefit the wiki to have inactive sysops? Tbh, whether you demote them or let them stay as a sysop doesn't do shit and won't have any influence at all. Mini Me 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is kind of the point, why bother doing anything? Doing things takes effort, not doing things takes none. I am all for not doing things, especially when said things are at best, pointless. Misery 12:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that "inactive" as a category was intended for such a scenario, I can see being inactive for a couple of weeks for vacation, a month, even a few months for a tough semester, but over a year with no edits? If you look back in the archives, it was discussed (rejected) to have a 2-3 month window of inactivity, after which a sysop would be demoted. The reconfirmation process was noted as one of the alternatives. @Aiiane: Sysophood (paraphrased from the policy) is not a reward for good contributions, or a promotion over others, so it's not really a demotion, it's just removing the tools from someone that doesn't use them. Misery, feel free to not participate in the process. --Freedom Bound 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not an option for me, but I am going to have say it will require more than one person requesting reconfirmation for me to overturn past consensus from here and here. Feel free to continue discussing and attempt to reach a new consensus. Misery 12:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "effort" required to demote a user is so small it can not be considered a reason not to do this. Not that I think that was a serious argument, but you know, just in case... Mini Me 12:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I do that clicking that one button is not what it takes. Can you not see the walls of text building already? There is no benefit in demoting them, so why do it? Do you no longer trust them with sysop tools? Why? Misery 13:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

@Misery, the consensus reached in your links was that if sysops reached a certain level of inactivity, they could simply be brought up for reconfirmation (the other alternative being automatic termination after a set period of time). You now saying that inactivity is not a reason for reconfirmation directly contradicts that consensus. The "benefit" in demoting them is simply that they are no longer benefiting the wiki with their sysop tools, so why let them keep them? Looking at Xasxas256, he/she hasn't edited anything in over a year. What purpose does it serve to keep him/her on the admin list? No one can contact that user for assistance and truly expect a response. --Freedom Bound 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I wasn't very involved in the wiki when I first signed up so I do not know if I can trust them.

What I meant was, that if the community wants a reconfirmation and the number of opposing votes is larger (much larger) than the number of supporting votes, that click can not be a reason not to demote them. I realize that demoting them now is not a smart thing to do, I've seen what happens when someone promotes someone without the community agreeing (this was on GuildWiki). Mini Me 13:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Freedom, that scenario actually was in mind when Poke and I created that admin list - inactive meant inactive. Since we give our sysops infinite terms, in full knowledge that people might go inactive (because of real life and stuff like that), I see no reason or benefit to remove those inactive sysops now - in addition, there aren't any 'seats' that they're taking up, they aren't cluttering the admin list, it's not unclear whether those sysops are inactive, there is no 'duty' to edit or use sysop tools, and we even stand to benefit if those sysops decide to return. Demoting inactive sysops is like blocking users just because they aren't editing and that 'there's no benefit to having inactive users' ("it's just removing the tools from someone that doesn't use them").

If you do want inactive sysops to be demoted, answer this - what harm is there to having these inactive sysops? And as Aiiane said, how would demoting them benefit the wiki? -- Brains12 \ talk 13:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a simple answer: I do not think that these users would act in accordance with the policies of the wiki or community consensus on matters, because they have not been active participants in the wiki/community for, X period of time. This is a valid concern, and a key part of being a sysop. The reconfirmation process can take that into consideration, so I believe that a reconfirmation would be the most appropriate course of action. --Freedom Bound 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We like to think that people promoted to sysop are smart enough to know when it is appropriate to use sysop tools, and even were they to come back and try to enforce some outdated policy, they would be doing so in good faith and would be quickly corrected. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Freedom - your argument is not based in reality. When it is, come back and try again. As of yet, you've given 0 good reasons (or even okay reasons) for demoting them.

The sysops, when they were promoted, were trusted by the community to act in the best interests of the wiki. They don't forget how wikis work over their hiatus. Policies haven't changed. Sysop tools now are the same as sysop tools then - most of those users have been a sysop longer than you've contributed to this wiki. If you took a year long break and came back, would you forget how to sign? Would you forget that personal attacks are against policy? Would you forget that revert warring is against policy? No, you wouldn't - neither would they. Stop wasting everyone's time with absolutely bullshit arguments like "I do not think that these users would act in accordance with the policies of the wiki or community consensus."

There is no maximum number of sysops - having a bunch of inactive ones does not prevent us from getting new ones via the RfA process. The inactive ones are clearly marked on the admin list, so anyone looking for a sysop to help them will know not to ask those in red. Finally, as Misery pointed out, the wiki gains nothing by demoting inactive sysops. All of your arguments so far have been either incomplete or totally unfounded/wrong/silly. Come up with some new ones or stop trying. This argument is old. -Auron 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to all the sysops here, active or not, new or old, Sysophood is something the community grants to you, and can take from you. Is not a "for life" privilege that you are entitled to and that cannot be taken away unless you rape policies or ragequit over the wiki. The fact that you are "needed" (like Poke), "wanted" (like Wyn), "tolerated" (like Auron), or "were required once long ago" (like Gares) matters none. As long as you understand that and are willing to go through reconfirmations from time on time, you will trully earn your "for life" status. Try to stick your ass to your chair, and you are going out with chair and all...

There is nothing wrong with reconfirmating old sysops. Heck, i would do it yearly for every sysop if it depended on me. It's the community the one that has to decide if they want to keep an admin that does his job daily but snaps on a weekly basis, or one that comes once every 4 months (but comes after all), or one that last came one year ago (and last used sysop tools a year and half ago).

It's not the other sysops or the bureaucrats who are to decide if a sysop stays or not. You can judge based on the community view on the issue, but you CAN NOT interpret your own opinion as being what the community wants or needs.--Fighterdoken 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It is the bureaucrats that decide whether a sysop stays or not, and whether or not someone even becomes one to begin with. — Jon Lupen 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really Jon. Its the bureaucrats that can take action on a users sysop status, but in the end its the users that decide it. If it were up to the bureaucrats like you say, then we would have no reasons for RfA's or RfR's; the bureaucrats would just do it. -- Wandering Traveler 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

From the appropriate policy:

RFAs that have been properly created can be resolved in any of these ways:

• Candidate withdrawal (for any or no reason) automatically fails the RFA.
• The RFA has been active for roughly one week. A bureaucrat would close it and determine the result. In general, the RFA is successful if it has at least 3 times as much support as those in opposition; but it is not a simple tally. The bureaucrat will exercise discretion when gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition.

Ultimately, therefore, it is the responsibility of the bureaucrats to determine whether an individual is promoted or demoted. However, they do so with the advice and consent (liberally defined) of the community. RfAs and RfRs exist primarily as tools for gauging that advice/support. With that said, bureaucrats on GWW have traditionally given a great deal of weight to RfAs and community opinion and have pretty closely followed the "3 times support" guideline. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Bureaucrat discretion is what determines the outcome of a RfA and whether or not to start a RfR. The wiki works similar to how we elect the President in the US. The people do not directly elect the president. The electoral college has the power and ability to ignore what the public thinks and vote however they want, which is what matters in the end. What matters in the end of a RfA is not how the votes turned out, it's whether or not the bureaucrats agree with them. The bureaucrats are responsable for user permissions, they have the power to do what ever they want. If they really wanted to, they could make anyone a sysop and demote anyone. If all three bureaucrats went rouge and ran the wiki however they wanted to, what could the community do? The sysops would be the only ones left that could actually do anything, and in the end, they were put in power by the bureaucrats. — Jon Lupen 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reconfirming old sysops if there is a grounds for reconfirmation. Inactivity is not valid grounds, for all the reasons posted here. It is silly and pointless to enact a every-so-often reconfirmation for the hell of it, and equally silly to enact a certain edit count per month or year to determine activity (otherwise, who's to say they're inactive or not? At what point are they so inactive that they should be reconfirmed because of it, compared to the more active, yet still inactive, sysops?)

It isn't an issue of them being unsuited for the job - if any of them came back and started banning vandals or douches, all of them could do as good a job as (if not better than) our active sysop team. If any of them came back and started deleting pages that are marked for deletion, they can do it as well as any of the active sysops. I have not seen a single reason why demoting them serves any purpose whatsoever - keeping the listusers list clean isn't a terribly solid reason. -Auron 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd take 5 sec to make them admins again if they came back, yes? --Cursed Angel 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why remove them in the first place then, CA? The whole process of removing the sysop rights actually is a long process. Gaining requests for reconfirmation and then the actual reconfirmation RfA takes time, and is far to much in contrast to what we actually would (not) gain by removing the rights.

"Is not a "for life" privilege that you are entitled to and that cannot be taken away unless you rape policies or ragequit over the wiki." - you should read the adminship policy again then. When you are promoted to sysophood, you are a sysop for life, unless a reconfirmation process results in an actual demotion. poke | talk 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, but you are the one that doesn't get it. It's not a for life, ever and ever, till the end of time but a for life, UNLESS.... The "unless" part is what we are talking about here, and i see lots of admins trying to deny the userbase their right to "unless" them.--Fighterdoken 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "unless" refers to a sysop actively doing something so majorly wrong that they have their rights removed because they are harming the wiki. Doing nothing does not warrant a loss of priveleges- why don't we just ban a large percentage of the users, then? What about the bcrats, who are supposed to just lurk? Your argument makes no sense. Furthermore, concensus has rejected these requests in the past, not some elitist cabal- do note the difference before making an accusation like that again please. – Emmett 19:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's silly, maybe, but as far as vote reasoing goes, i have seen worse. Besides, RfAs votes usually include criteria such as "activity", "wiki involvement", "contributions count", etc. I would really like to judge based only on character, and i actually find that people being irresponsible enough as to not present their own RfRs when they know they will not access the wiki to perform their duties for a long time is as good a reason as any. At least i find it a better reason that "we have enough sysops" or "we win/lose nothing by doing it".--Fighterdoken 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you're admitting that there's no reason to remove inactive sysops, and trying to justify by saying people have done stupider in the past? I'm confused. – Emmett 19:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm all for bureaucrats ignoring those RfR requests entirely until a single reason is given to actually start it. It's nice that people add their names to the RfR list, but there still hasn't been a single valid reason as to why the RfR's should start at all. Even from a completely neutral POV, nothing is gained by demoting them, and the RfR process is a lot of work for literally no benefit. That's simp.ly retarded. Policy says they're sysops for life unless they do something that warrants demotion - and none of those users have. End of story. -Auron 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have yet to see anyone in favor of demotions counter any attacking arguments, either. Removing a sysop's tools for inactivity is like removing a user's editing privileges for inactivity. The latter is obviously stupid, so why are you considering the former? Opinion is nice and all, but where is your logic? -Auron 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We're being given two options here. One of those options requires some effort, the other option requires no effort whatsoever. Both have an identical, neutral impact on the wiki. Purely from an economic POV, it makes a heckuva lot more sense to opt for the one that requires no effort. With that in mind, and considering that I have, thus far, not seen a single compelling argument in favor of these reconfirmations, I'm disinclined to support any proposal that would involve reconfirming sysops on the basis of inactivity. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I say let it go through since they contribute little to nothing to the wiki they should not have admin status. Accept the RfR and let the community decide. That is why the wiki is setup the way it is, to give the community a voice. I know Im not the only one but little to no contributions to the wiki is a valid point and perfectly good reason for an RfR. DrogoBoffin 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what he said? The cost/benefit is way higher for not having an RfR because, well, there is no effort there. --JonTheMon 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can read. But it was said by a Semi-Active sysop not a BCrat. Choosing to do nothing has more potential harm then going through with the RfR. DrogoBoffin 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then you didn't read what Brains and Auron wrote. poke | talk 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read it but I have had no part of the discussion until now. There are valid reasons above and I am not going to repeat them. DrogoBoffin 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The basic point is unless you get the adminship policy changed, your reason for reconfirmation is moot as they have not done anything wrong by being inactive. --Lemming 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to decide that inactivity is a reason to demote sysops, it should be done in this discussion; I'm not going to start three new RfAs based on one line of reasoning (i.e. inactivity) which will probably result in three copies of the same thing and discussion spread out over multiple talk pages. (This is not taking into account my own opinion in this matter.) -- Brains12 \ talk 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) I agree with Defiant and Auron. There is no point to remove inactive sysops - it does not do any harm to the wiki, it has no "potential harm", and no one has presented a single good argument about why removing those users would be a good idea (claiming that the community has the right to not keep sysops forever doesn't mean the community has the duty to not keep old sysops forever).

One thing that some users sometimes forget is that we are not a democracy. The number of users who support an opinion, be it a matter of content or even the RfAs, is less important than the quality of the arguments presented by said users. A RfA with a single vote for support and 30 for against could be successful in the extreme case of the single support being an irrefutable argument and the 30 opposes being misguided votes. Erasculio 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x(lost the count already)Care to explain how the RfR is a lot of work? How the RfA is a lot of work? If you view it from a "neutral" point of view, you will realize that you lose less time just going with the RfR than if you keep going with this circular discussion.

By the way, i have only seen two counter-arguments to the RfR:

1. The wiki wins nothing by demoting the sysops: The wiki wins nothing by keeping them as sysops either. Besides, having "inactive" admins gives the impression that we have more people available for janitorial tasks that what we really do (Hi feedback!). Also, if we ask users on their RfAs to prove that they need sysop tools to perform tasks, i don't see why we can't ask from admins to actually use such tools.
2. Inactivity is not a reason to demote a sysop: While i agree that "real life happends" and thus inactivity is a right entitled to any user regardless of his status, i expect users who run for or are already admins to be able to take a small portion of their monthly time to actually come to the wiki and work on what they volunteered to work. If the user knows he won't be able to, or just don't feel like coming, he should stand and put his "volunteer" status on hold until he is able to come again. And i seriously expect that admins who have time to change their userpages or talk non-wiki related stuff on their talk pages have also time to perform sysop tasks. If they don't, they don't deserve sysop tools more like, let's say, Raph.--Fighterdoken 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The main counter argument, which you forgot to reply to, is that we don't improve the wiki in any way by removing old sysops. We have more than enough people for janitorial tasks (which the Feedback space isn't a part of), and if we didn't, wiki day to day activity together with the "inactive" tags on the list of sysops would be enough to show people how many active sysops we have. Erasculio 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, i mentioned it. It's the first one.

Regarding my voting, is not only due to inactivity. My vote is because some of those admins, even if active from time on time, DO NOT USE THEIR SYSOP TOOLS and prefer to instead perform common user tasks (not that it is a bad thing) or chat on talk pages (which is, imho a bad thing because it shows they HAVE time, but prefer to not use it on what they said they would). Are you telling me "not using the sysop tools" is not a valid reason either?--Fighterdoken 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps without inactive sysops there would be no need for temp sysops to work on something that the ones that are inactive should be helping with already. Also I dont see anything showing how inactive sysops help the wiki. Either way its zero gain - zero loss. DrogoBoffin 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's zero gain - zero loss, then why are we even bothering spending time discussing anything regarding it, instead of leaving well enough alone? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Because they are a zero benefit to the wiki DrogoBoffin 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is forced to use their sysop tools all the time. If they don't want to use a sysop tool today, they have no obligation to do so, and are perfectly free to do it tomorrow - we are not paying them, we cannot demand that they do their voluntary work every moment of their free time.

What hurts this wiki is this pointless discussion and the time we would spend on all the RfRs - we have limited human resources, and wasting those resources in all those activities would prevent people from using that time in things that would actually help the wiki (Hi feedback!). Erasculio 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps without inactive sysops there would be no need for temp sysops [...]" - there is absolutely not relation in that. By removing inactive sysops, we remove the number of all sysops, but in no way we would increase the number of active sysops. So please don't even try to use inactive sysops as a reason for "not enough active sysops", because that simply doesn't work. We can have as many sysops as we want, no matter how many are active, so if you think there are not enough, start an RfA instead!

"My vote is because some of those admins [...] DO NOT USE THEIR SYSOP TOOLS" - to repeat what was said above: So you want to block all wiki readers from editing, because they don't edit? That is ridiculous and one of the worst wannabe-arguments I ever heard. poke | talk 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have i said that? Please stop with the stupid comments, Poke. I have heard that fallacy over and over and i still can't get on my head how someone could reach such a conclusion unless he is trying to sway a discussion towards his side by the use of false statements.

For me, it's simple. We elect admins so they use the admin tools

1. They are not using the admin tools because they are absent? I don't like it, but i can accept it.
2. They are not using the admin tools, but they still come and frolic around? That is not what is supposed to happend, and i don't agree with it.

It's like volunteering for building houses for the homeless. If you just go there and sit around all day doing nothing, you are not a "house building volunteer", but a "sit on my ass" volunteer. Its not a matter of coming once per year, but of doing what you volunteered to do when you come (instead of just playing around).--Fighterdoken 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee that as long as those people sitting around on their asses aren't getting in the way, more houses get built if you just ignore them than if you waste your time making them leave. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You sure haven't volunteered for house building, have you? :)--Fighterdoken 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of "rah rah rah, let the community decide, don't oppress us!" in this discussion. I'd like to point out the community is deciding, right here and now. There are two people actively arguing for reconfirmations, Fighterdoken and Drogo Boffin that I have seen, and Loves to Sync is lending his support with no backup reasoning. Care to count the number of people currently opposed to reconfirmations? I know it's not a vote, we work on consensus here, but I haven't seen any convincing counters to the points of people who do not wish to hold reconfirmations for inactivity and there are a lot of them. I think I will go with what the community wants here. If that changes, my actions will change. Misery 22:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... RfRs don't really start based on concensus, just on what pleases you (as in bcrats), so this whole discussion is actually useless in that regard. I thought the discussion progressed to a "do we want to demote inactive sysops" point?--Fighterdoken 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here is that inactivity is not a sufficient reason to start a reconfirmation. Now you have bureaucrat discretion backed up by community consensus enforcing the spirit of a policy rather than it's wording. Ah, wikis at work, how beautiful. Misery 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That rules out one and a half vote, you still don't answer my "not using tools" argument.--Fighterdoken 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"That rules one and a half vote" is a sentence fragment and doesn't make sense. Would you care to clarify? Show me where it says an administrator must use their tools? Perhaps they are patrolling and see nothing worthy of being done at any one time, you would never know. There certainly isn't a rule "sysops must delete at least 1 page from the candidates for deletion every week". Would you like to propose such a policy? I doubt it will pass. Misery 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My vote was both for lack of participation on wiki related discussions and lack of use of admin tools even thought they were, indeed, "active".

In any case, i guess it's just a difference in interpretation. At least for me, not using the admin tools is the same as misusing them.--Fighterdoken 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So according to you, you're the worst president in US history?

I'm trying to get you to realize how badly you're thinking. Having inactive sysops has zero effect to anything here. It's not preferable, but removing them will not change anything. ~Shard 23:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I just like having things clean. Besides, if it had "zero effect" you wouldn't have so many people opposing to it; they would just "meh" it and would keep doing whatever they usually do.--Fighterdoken 23:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's mostly just people liking drama. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Consensus, policy, spirit, I'm beginning to think that the Signet of Spirits was based off of something other than Star Wars. Did you guys read the archives? Check here. Brief summary: Gaile was opposed to sysops for life, for a variety of reasons, mostly because she didn't want them to lose touch with the community, be kept around for "old-times sake" (sound familiar?). The alternative was term limits, those were rejected as being too rigid. The solution: just use the Request for reconfirmation part of the policy, to see if the user still had the community's support. Easy, right? Evidently not. This is not something that's that difficult, these users are not active, the policy was debated at the time and explicitly stated to deal with this exact issue. --Freedom Bound 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the conversation you linked to that states it is policy to remove inactive sysops - merely Gaile's opinion that sysops shouldn't be kept around, which is merely that, an opinion. Gaile is a regular wiki user like any other with regards to policy on this wiki. You'll also notice many other users stating their opinions in that conversation that keeping inactive sysops around is just fine and dandy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That page is enlightening in many aspects. I don't want to start quoting here, but actually... no Aiine, that is not what the users stating their opinions say. They are saying "inactivity doesn't equal demotion, but inactivity equals RfR is fine" (just do a search for the word "inactive" on the page).

Also, new bureaucrats may want to read Dirigible's words on that page, and how none seemed to actually contradict him :).--Fighterdoken 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just have two things to say here. Firstly, consensus is obviously against you, so don't feel hard-done-by if your RfR posts get ignored. Secondly, "not using the admin tools is the same as misusing them" is the stupidest thing I have heard in a very very very very very very long time. To quote a few people in response to that - "indeed, the people who don't shoot people are just as guilty as those who go round shooting people in the face." "we should take away sysop rights every night before they go to bed and when they go on vacation, otherwise, they get misused."

There's arguing. And then there's that. You really should stop while you're ahead. -Auron 00:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to Poke. Comparation to other situations by mere gramatical asociation diregarding context almost always equals to a fallacy.

Also, Auron, you took part on the discution of the Reconfirmation Process where it was stated that requesting a reconfirmation does mean that one will happend (no "buts", no "bcrat see"), and you acknowledged it. Must i understand your change of position on this page to mean that you no longer agree with the spirit of the policy as it was created and thus want to propose that the interpretation stated on this page be the new standard?--Fighterdoken 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reply to poke doesn't make it any less insane. Your logic is terrible. Applying the exact same logic to other scenarios makes it no more or less insane, but makes seeing how insane it is much easier. Here's your logic - not using something (a banhammer, for example) is the same as misusing something (biasedly banning people). Here's another scenario, using the exact same logic - not using something (a gun) is the same as using something (shooting people). You can try to play it off as it not making sense it other scenarios, but the truth is it didn't make any sense to begin with. The other scenario just makes that plainly clear.

I will spend the time to counter your logic in your reply to poke, since at least now I know what it is. "For me, it's simple. We elect admins so they use the admin tools." No, we elect admins so they can use the admin tools, at their discretion. A big part of being a sysop is knowing when not to use them.

• 1 They are not using the admin tools because they are absent? I don't like it, but i can accept it.

Why don't you like it? Because their tools are being misused by them not using them? Or... something? I've mostly stopped trying to figure out your logic there, since in this entire section, you've never been able to show any.

• They are not using the admin tools, but they still come and frolic around? That is not what is supposed to happend, and i don't agree with it.

What the fuck? You complain about people using your words in different scenarios, yet your given scenario for that is not in line with reality at all. When has a sysop ever come and frolicked around, inactive or not? And, for the sake of argument, if he was doing something completely out of line, he would then be dealt with by a reconfirmation, not by a premature reconfirmation based on insane and unfounded beliefs that he might come back and "frolic" even though there's no history of that happening ever, on any wiki, in 4+ years.

This is ridiculous. I've asked for a good argument and all I've gotten is insanity and generalized complaints about shit that doesn't ever happen, and will never happen. The reason this never goes anywhere, outside of the wiki not actually benefiting by jumping through hoops on RfRs that shouldn't have to start to begin with, is there's never evidence presented in support of your claims or argument. Yeah, inactive sysops are not using the tools. No, they're not misusing them. If you think they're the same, look in a fucking dictionary, stop wasting the wiki's time making people do it for you. There is absolutely no gain in demoting them, and there is possible loss. There is no loss in keeping them sysops, unless we start assuming that they'll come back and frolic or some shit, and potential gain. As I said, if a sysop comes back and "frolics" the wrong way, then he would be put up for recon. Until then, the wiki shouldn't bother wasting its time not actually doing anything benefitial.

• Must i understand your change of position on this page to mean that...

Take off-topic discussion somewhere else. My talk page would be fine. This section is long enough as it is. -Auron 01:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, "frolic" is not the right word. How about replacing it with "modify their userpages, discuss non-related wiki stuff on talk pages and perform non sysop exclusive tasks"?. My point still stands. They are active as users, not as sysops.

The "your change of position" part is entirely on topic. If you check the link that Freedom left here you will understand. There, it was discussed not only the implementation of the policy itself, but also what it was the intention behind the RfR process (which is NOT an auto-demotion as some of you seem to think) and how this process was to be performed. All of the discussion regarding RfRs that took place when the policy was being created is being put on the trash bin on this page right now.--Fighterdoken 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighterdoken, this still does not change the fact that they are trusted members of the community, and were given these tools by community consensus. Just because they're gone for a period of time means "oh my god, we can't trust them anymore?" Sysops can be active as users and not as sysops, there is no policy that states that sysops have to act like sysops 110% of the time. Sure, it'd be nice, but we're human. Not machines. -- Wandering Traveler 02:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, i sure don't trust someone that just leaves his "volunteership" dropped and doesn't have the decency to put a RfR himself. --Fighterdoken 03:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Spirit" of the Policy - Requests for Reconfirmation

I would like to put some quotes here originated on the discussion that took place on while creating and defining the elections policy.

1. "Really, if a sysop becomes inactive, it's not very hard at all to start up another RfA for them... MisterPepe talk 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"
2. "...the "request for reconfirmation" process is intended as a sort of inevitable check...Rezyk 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)" (note that for him things as "people who prefer periodic reviews" and "whatever" are valid reasons for RfRs)
3. "Even if there were 10 times as many opposers to reconfirmation starting, it would still happen (under this policy draft) because opposition is not counted in the trigger condition. --Rezyk 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)"
4. "I just really don't see inactivity as a concern under the current draft... Anyone who really cares about periodic reconfirmations is welcome to add their support to/start a new reconfirmation. MisterPepe talk 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)"
5. "By the way, requesting someone's reconfirmation does mean that they will be brought up for reconfirmation, it's just a matter of when. After one year has passed from the time the sysop got his admin bits, even one user supporting the reconfirmation is sufficient to start a new RFA (this was done in response to Gaile's worry about sysops being appointed for life, and I actually quite like it). --Dirigible 02:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"
6. "Rezyk asked me to read this. I'm still very, very opposed to any appointment "for life." I've made lengthier comments on this in other places, and I'll gladly link them when it's not 1:00 in the morning. ;) For now, I just want to beg for another consideration of the position that we ought not have a bunch of potentially inactive "Oh, I remember that guy" or "We don't want to recall her, she might get active again" or "They're not 'bad enough' to remove, so let them stay (out of respect for previous service or for other reasons" types of people. When you have major issues, or want to get forward movement, it's more easily and productively accomplished with a tighter, assuredly-active and committed group, imo. --Gaile 08:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"

Yes, they were just "users", but it was those "users" who implemented the policy and defined what it was supposed to be. I admit that having RfRs/RfAs for every inactive sysop may be more work than intended, but it's still something that was intended to happend when users raised doubts about it and, well... users are raising doubts now, unless you don't consider me a "user".

When the process of reconfirmation was created there was no mention to requering the requests to have a certain "merit", since it was thought that RfRs were a natural thing that just "had to happend to ensure a healthy wiki". I don't feel it's wise nor that it speaks well for the admin body if those same admins that may be affected by this process are putting obstacles to its execution.--Fighterdoken 03:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm against the RfRs just for the sake of having RfRs. All the comments quoted above are either out of context or represent the opinion of a couple users (such as Gaile's comment), while we have in the discussion above plenty of users sharing their own opinions. The "users who implemented the policy" have as much weight on this discussion as anyone else (given how they are not here right now, and they are not stating their opinions, it must be because their opinions are wrong, right? : P). Erasculio 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not my reason. =P --Rezyk 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The concerns raised in that discussion, two years ago, were based on possible future issues with inactivity, and that has not been a problem in any way. Sure, you don't need a reason to request an recon, as I think you showed pretty clearly, but that means that people will question the point of going through the motions if there is no need to do so. I guess this is the result of the death of the game, but the recent flurry of wikilawyering on irrelevant policy changes/clarifications about stuff that has worked and continues to work is kind of sad. --67.240.83.137 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What the IP said. We have already amassed a giant wall of text on something that will, at best, be of no real benefit to the wiki, no matter the outcome. -Auron 04:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO the current RFA policy clearly outlines four valid reasons for reconfirmation: support from enough users (regardless of the level of opposition), the sysop in question volunteering for reconfirmation, community consensus or an arbitration committee ruling. I think we'd be better off keeping inactive sysops who could theoretically help in an emergency, however If the community feels that it's too easy to start the reconfirmation process or has some other issue with the reconfirmation criteria, they can propose a policy revision. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"I think we'd be better off keeping inactive sysops who could theoretically help in an emergency" How do you propose you let one know they are needed and why wasnt this done for the new feedback section instead of promoting temp sysops? DrogoBoffin 05:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say anything about contacting them to help in an emergency, just if they happened to be online and browsing RC at the time, they would have the tools to help out. If we stripped their tools (for no reason), they would not have them in that kind of an emergency. That case, however, is rare, so that's why Gordon said "theoretically." -Auron 05:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of contacting them by posting on their talk pages or using Special:EmailUser (assuming their user settings make those methods of contact possible) in an emergency. I don't think the situation with the feedback section is an emergency, I was thinking of something like heavy, prolonged vandalism. I don't believe that keeping inactive sysops would be significantly better than getting rid of them, I just think that it would provide a minor advantage in certain hopefully rare situations. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

@Fighterdoken: One thing you said was "Inactivity is not a reason to terminate sysophood, but it is a reason to start an RfR", that's heavily paraphrased, but if I understand you right you want someone to start an RfR where the only complaint is inactivity, then ignore all the oppose votes related to inactivity? That is nonsensical in the extreme. Following that thinking (X not being a reason to remove sysop rights) it only makes sense not to start a reconfirmation until someone has a valid reason which would lead to at least one valid oppose, otherwise it's just bookwork. You also seem to have this idea that not being here has a higher burden of proof of worth than being here. You apparently didn't check the logs of these inactive sysops properly, have to checked the logs of our active sysops to see when they last used their tools? Did you check to see whether they have edited outside of the user space in a while? I am sorry, but I am not going to put people through a reconfirmation because one user like things "clean". Misery 06:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again Drogo, leave the Feedback namespace out of this discussion; especially if you have no idea what it is about. The temporary promotions have nothing to do with sysops or adminship related things. The namespace was locked so that normal users cannot edit it (so everything can be prepared before it goes live), however that also made it impossible for interested users to work on it. So instead of having a new dedicated user group (which would have added more work), we simply gave temporary sysop rights to the interested users. However if you would have followed the discussion, they are not allowed to use any of the related tools but only have the rights, so they are able to edit in that protected namespace. So this has nothing to do with adminship, and especially not with this discussion. And as I said before, inactive sysops doesn't prevent anyone from starting new RfAs; so they are no excuse for "not enough active sysops".

"How about replacing it with "modify their userpages, discuss non-related wiki stuff on talk pages and perform non sysop exclusive tasks"?" - A lot people actually do this, including sysops. There is a difference between "I don't want to be on the wiki any longer, and I'll never come back" and "I'm not really needed any more, so I can become inactive." (which probably applies to all the ones, you are requesting a reconfirmation of). I am sure that if you try to contact any of them via email, they will show up in a short time. poke | talk 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget, sysops have the option to request demotion if they feel they will no longer be useful with sysop tools. Tagging themselves inactive isn't the same as "bye guys, I don't care what you do with my sysop flag." -Auron 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I point out that the admin policy has undergone quite a big change since Fighterdoken's quotes. Also, recent consensus does trump older consensus, and it seems this consensus is "inactivity isn't a valid reason for demotion/rfr". -- Brains12 \ talk 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A point that's been brought up here again and again is that sysops don't have to be active. So, let's look at how much support in RfA's has been linked to activity. These are in no particular order, and I've chosen them based on whether or not I recognized the name and/or they've contributed to this particular discussion:

Poke

• Candidate statement directly references activity (frequently refreshing recent changes).
  • Finishing line in candidate statement "If I become a sysop, I will continue helping on things whenever my help is needed."
  • 5/11 supporters directly reference activity, others reference ability, as shown through activity
    • Direct quotes:
      • I have noticed this user on the wiki - he has great technical knowledge of how the wiki works, has a great understanding of the policies here, is helpful and is often around - everything I would want in a Sysop. Erasculio
      • Always there to help, knowledgeable about how the wiki works, runs and also the policies. And he's fast too ;) - anja

Aiiane

• Candidate statement does not directly reference activity.
• 2/12 supporters directly reference activity, others are very vague as to reasons for support, but do reference activity in the form of participating and/or creating worthwhile discussions.
  • Direct quotes:
    • Aiiane has been incredibly active and helpful since the inception of this wiki. —Tanaric
    • Aiiane has been very trustworthy and active, especially during policy discussions. I feel Aiiane would be a good addition to the admin crew. - anja

Brains12

• Candidate statement does not directly reference activity.
  • 2/14 supporters directly reference activity, others are vague, but use "good contributor" or the like as reasoning.
    • Direct quotes:
      • Very active, shown intelligence, giving brains sysop tools can only benefit the wiki from my viewpoint. Lord of all tyria
      • Has shown that he is level-headed when dealing with vandals, new users, and touchy situations with other users. Knows his way around the wiki and is active enough. I believe that he will put sysop tools to good use. -- ab.er.rant

Lemming64

• Candidate statement directly references activity.
  • No direct reference to activity, but allusions "always around", etc.
    • No direct quotes.

Salome

• Candidate statement directly references activity.
  • 1 supporter directly references activity, allusions can be found in both support and neutral.
    • Direct quote:
      • Active, wise and in control. — Why

Just for the other side, let's look at an interesting failed RfA:

Hawk Skeer

• • All opposers reference activity, with an interesting quote from Defiant Elements (snipped because it's very long):
    • I've always ascribed to the notion that an Admin should be someone willing to go above and beyond the call of duty: they should have something more than a basic level of activity and dedication to offer. And, when measured up to that standard, Hawk doesn't seem to qualify. That said, I'd like to pose Hawk a question: given that there are ... a whole host of users who are ... more active than you, what do you think distinguishes you from the pack such that you should be promoted? Defiant Elements

So, even from this small sample, I think everyone can see that while it may not be spelled out in the policy, activity is definitely considered a cornerstone of what it takes to be a sysop. --Freedom Bound 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, of course you generally don't want to promote someone as a sysop when he shows no activity, because that gives - in the same way as demoting inactive ones - no positive effect. poke | talk 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, and all a reconfirmation is a show that the community still supports the sysop. The community supports sysops that are active, a reconfirmation will show if the community supports an inactive one. Saying that reconfirmations based solely on inactivity are invalid is saying that sysops don't need to be active (contrary to the above), meaning you're denying the community the ability to show that. --Freedom Bound 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the activity poke refers to is used to get an idea of what kind of user, and thus what kind of sysop, a person would make. There's no need for coninued activity from a sysop, and indeed "always there to help" doesn't neccassarliy require a given level of activity, as most sysops will have an email sent to them when their talk page is edited (such as DE does over on PvX, where he hasn't edited in God knows how long). ~ PheNaxKian 14:08, 14 July 2009

(Reset indent) Since the other two bcrats (and everyone else under the sun, including Rainith) has chimed in at this point, I'll share my current thinking. My understanding is that consensus (with a few detractors) has been and continues to be that inactivity alone is not a reason to remove sysop tools. As long as that continues to be the case, reconfirmations based on that criterion alone are a plain and simple waste of the community's time. I've seen in particular a few statements of "Let the community decide," to which I can only ask "How many times does the community have to declare it has decided before it sticks?"

All of that said, requests for reconfirmation are the basis by which the community gets to monitor the admin base for abuses of power, and I am simply not comfortable with ignoring it completely, even when the requests seem more like abuses themselves. So, here's what I'm going to do: Later today I'll contact the noted sysops and ask them to put themselves up for reconfirmation. By policy they'll have two weeks from that time to be reconfirmed before losing sysop. If they haven't responded after a week, I'll put the reconfirmations up myself, as I suspect all three will be more than able to pass whether they're actually here for it or not. And I'm going to have the vain hope that the people who added reconfirmation requests for them will realize what a silly exercise this whole thing is and strike those requests, rendering the whole thing moot before it even gets started.

To everyone else I say: you know how to change policy. - Tanetris 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For the records, I think that's a massive waste of time. Erasculio 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Modifying The Policy With Respect To Reconfirmations

It seems fairly self-evident that current consensus is leaning heavily in favor of excluding inactivity as grounds for reconfirmation. Furthermore, in light of discussion pertaining to Auron's RFR, it also seems as though there are some lingering questions with regard to the specific nature of the authority of the bureaucrats with respect to RFRs and with regard to whether RFRs should be more akin to bureaucrat elections in which users essentially affix their signature to a petition or if there should be an expectation that users who support the RFR are to provide substantive evidence (esp. evidence of abuse of powers). With those considerations in mind, I propose that we modify the section that pertains to reconfirmation, specifically the section that deals with "enough user support" to read something more along these lines:

While a user is a sysop, anyone may add their support for the reconfirmation process to the "Request for reconfirmation" section of that sysop's latest successful RFA. This generally has no immediate effect and does not trigger the reconfirmation process until there is enough accumulated support for reconfirmation. The threshold of support necessary to bring about a reconfirmation is determined qualitatively by the bureaucrats. While simple vote tally may enter into this qualitative assessment, the bureaucrats are entrusted with discretion in determining when a reconfirmation is warranted. As such, users are strongly encouraged to provide explanations alongside their support for reconfirmation, but are reminded to avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary. In general, the longer the period of time that has elapsed since the sysop’s last RFA, the lower the level of support required should be. Whenever this threshold is reached, a bureaucrat will give notice to the sysop that they must be successfully reconfirmed within two weeks or lose their sysop status.

Because reconfirmations are primarily intended to act as referendums on the ongoing competency of a sysop, evidence that a sysop has abused or otherwise misused his authority or his sysop tools is explicitly included as grounds for reconfirmation. Likewise, inactivity is explicitly excluded as sole grounds for reconfirmation.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Considering the discussion above, I'd be alright with simply adding the line "inactivity is explicitly excluded as sole grounds for reconfirmation" to the existing policy if people are disinterested in discussing or outright opposed to the other aspects of the modification, but I do think some attempt should be made to clarify the policy one way or the other. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think clarification would be good, but you're introducing more confusion to the discussion with this: "that he is a detriment to the wiki in his role as sysop". I'd remove that, as we'd just be back to arguing that if someone's an ass they should be removed as a sysop. I'd reword that as: "...evidence that a sysop has abused or misused the exclusive tools granted to sysops...". --Freedom Bound 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Re-worded a bit. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it :) poke | talk 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty darn good to me. -- Wandering Traveler 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity needs to be added. Otherwise once your a sysop unless you piss somebody off or misuse the tools your a sysop for life. That or terms need to be added for sysops 1-2 years then an auto reconfirmation to avoid inactive sysops. DrogoBoffin 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create a counter-proposal which explicitly includes inactivity or which imposes an auto-reconfirmation. This is my proposal; it reflects my views, including the view that sysops for life is not a Bad Thing. On a side note, have you ever considered, oh, I dunno, contacting inactive sysops and request that they either voluntarily undergo reconfirmation or resign their position? *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that inactivity shouldnt be "explicitly excluded as sole grounds for reconfirmation." Inactivity is tolerable to a certain extent. DrogoBoffin 17:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And I think it should be excluded... thus the draft. Look, obviously we disagree, but consensus clearly favors exclusion, and you're not gonna convinced me (or anyone else for that matter) by just repeating that it shouldn't be excluded over and over again. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I liked one year ago when concensus was about "compromise" and not about "the majority agrees with me", but well, things change.

In regards of judging the RfR, i am not entirely happy with leaving it at bcrat discretion the way it is explained on your proposal. Leaving to bcrats to decide if a RfR is going to happend or not seems a bit redundant when they are also going to judge the RfA if the RfR pass. I could think of two options to consider:

1. The RfR process is requested by users (as per your mechanics) to the Arbcomm. The arbcomm is then the one who decides wether the sysop stays or goes without aditional userbase intervention. (This would make effectively RfRs an "Arbcomm request")
2. The RfR process is requested by users through a fixed mechanic. We could remove the "1 year, decreasing votes" mechanic currently in existance and only leave the "must have as many requests for reconfirmation as positive votes his RfA had" making it effectively more difficult to start running one (and impossible to 1-man them). If the simple tally allows for the RfR to begin, then the new RfA could just go as intended. A "valid time" for RfR votes could be added too if you are uncomfortable with votes just staying there.

I think any of those two options could help alleviate some of the work involved... and fix a few other problems inherent to the whole RfR process.--Fighterdoken 18:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucrats do the arbcomm, so either way it's up to the bureaucrats in option 1. >.> – Emmett 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of hard to compromise when you have one faction which is ardently opposed to term limits/reconfirmations on the basis of inactivity and the other is ardently in favor of them. Compromise is only possible when there's a middle ground, and, at the moment, I'm not seeing one. With regard to your proposals, I'll have to get back to you once I've had a bit more time to review them, but, at first glance, I wouldn't mind option 1 overmuch. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of option 2, as single people should be able to start a rfr if they have a valid reason. Granted, if it's something like blatant sysop tool abuse, more than one person should be posting about it, but in theory, a single person should be able to post evidence and get something started. Eventually. -Auron 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

@Fighterdoken, et al: What about something along these lines?

While a user is a sysop, anyone may add their support for the reconfirmation process to the "Request for reconfirmation" section of that sysop's latest successful RFA. This generally has no immediate effect and does not trigger the reconfirmation process until there is enough accumulated support for reconfirmation. The threshold of support necessary to bring about a reconfirmation is determined qualitatively by the bureaucrats. While simple vote tally may enter into this qualitative assessment, the bureaucrats are entrusted with discretion in determining when a reconfirmation is warranted. As such, users are strongly encouraged to provide explanations alongside their support for reconfirmation, but are reminded to avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary. In general, the longer the period of time that has elapsed since the sysop’s last RFA, the lower the level of support required should be. Whenever a bureaucrat deems this threshold to have been met, that bureaucrat will create an arbitration request for the sysop in question. It is then the responsibility of all non-abstaining members of the arbitration committee to make a decision with regard to the sysop in question.

Because reconfirmations are primarily intended to act as referendums on the ongoing competency of a sysop, evidence that a sysop has abused or otherwise misused his authority or his sysop tools is explicitly included as grounds for reconfirmation. Likewise, inactivity is explicitly excluded as sole grounds for reconfirmation.

*Defiant Elements* +talk 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it, it removes any pretense that currently exists that anyone other than bureaucrats decide anything. --Freedom Bound 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reworded the part about ArbComm so as not to limit their options. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. poke | talk 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you want to expand it to change the rest of the policy, too, particularly the "sysophood is not a reward for contributions" part? Might as well, given the reasoning on the current RfA's. I can understand if you want to stick to just one section at a time, though. --Freedom Bound 23:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That proposal seems like a proper change, since it leaves the RfA out of the process by going straight to who makes the decision in the end.

In regards of the reward part, maybe also pointing that "...nor are contributions a requeriment for adminship"?.--Fighterdoken 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? That would be a lie, simply because it's impossible to judge someone's suitability for the position without at least some contributions. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@Auron, I believe the middle ground is letting the community decide when they feel someone has been inactive for too long or needs a renewed mandate on a case by case basis. @Defiant Elements, IMO we shouldn't force bureaucrats to protect inactive sysops from reconfirmation, instead, I think we should let them to use their own judgement to decide whether to allow a reconfirmation based solely on inactivity on a case by case basis, based on various factors such as the degree of support for that reconfirmation, the length of the absence and the circumstances on the departure. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There seems to be some confusion as to what I was referring to. I meant this part: Note that sysophood is not a reward for good contributing nor a promotion to have more authority than other users. In general, a successful RFA represents a user being trusted with access to technical features to aid in maintenance. I think that should be removed, since the reasoning for Lord Biro's RfA support in particular is based pretty much completely on the fact that he was a great contributor in the past, and how it would be a shame to "demote" him. The second line is also very at odds with the supporters, given that these RfA candidates are showing no signs of using their "access to technical features to aid in maintenance". Might as well remove both of those lines, as they mean nothing and have no effect on the current "consensus". Of course, bureaucrats could ignore all of those supporters, given their "discretion", but I doubt we'll see that type of unbiased solution, given that they've all provided that exact type of reasoning in their own support. --Freedom Bound 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You know I think what you are missing is that I consider the criteria for gaining sysop rights to begin with and retaining them to be different. Inertia is a powerful force. Misery 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop. Then change that part of the policy as part of this process as well. --Freedom Bound 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That means that when a reconfirmation is accepted, it becomes an RfA. --JonTheMon 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does not (necessarily) mean, as Misery is interpreting, that there is a different RfA process for current sysops versus new sysops. --Freedom Bound 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorta yes and sorta no. The gist is that, if there isn't enough evidence either way, the status quo is maintained. So, if a user is trying to gain sysop rights, a "tie" would result in them not gaining sysop abilities. Whereas a sysop having a "tie" woudl retain the rights, imo. --JonTheMon 13:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We have access to new information that doesn't exist before someone becomes a sysop. Misery 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@Gordon: The primary impetus for this modification is to acknowledge that current consensus (as indicated by the discussion in the above section and the reconfirmations of Biro and Rainith) seems to be that there simply does not exist a case in which inactivity alone is a valid basis for reconfirmation. Even if, say, a sysop has been inactive for two years and has no intention of ever returning for any length of time, it's still a waste of time to go through a reconfirmation to remove them because, regardless of the outcome of the reconfirmation, the community stands to gain nothing. And honestly, if the sysop in question really has no intention of ever returning, odds are pretty good that they probably wouldn't terribly mind assenting to a request (conveyed via email) that they resign, thus saving time which would otherwise have been wasted on an RFR and discussion thereof. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO the supporting statements in their reconfirmations are only evidence that the community wants to continue entrusting LordBiro and Rainith with their sysop status, not evidence that they feel the same way about every current and future inactive sysop. However I agree that the comments on this page are strong evidence that the community opposes reconfirmations based solely on inactivity. Anyway, due to the strong support for this proposal and its' minimal impact, I've decided to concede. If the community wants to remove an inactive sysop later on, they'd just need to change the policy to allow it again. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Or use the awesome power of discretion and not being tools. Misery 12:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this sort of backfoor stuff pretty disgusting. If you want to change GWW:ADMIN, just open and honestly make a proposal. Backsword 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

DE does not want to change GWW:ADMIN. DE wants to change the policy which governs reconfirmations. Which is this policy here (and I quote GWW:ADMIN: "The sysop selection (and reconfirmation) process is governed by the policy for requests for adminship"). Which he's proposing a change for here, and appropriately linked from the GWW:POLICY section for proposed changes exactly as policy change are supposed to be. - Tanetris 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, do we want to change the reconfirmation text to the last version by DE? --JonTheMon 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Wandering Traveler

Is still labeled as a pending RFA. I gave it a once over, but don't see why, even though it's tagged as resolved. — Jon Lupen 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed --pling  22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

People hiding categories in the middle of other text... — Jon Lupen 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Redundant RFAs

Are these somekinda trend nowdays? :P - J.P.Talk 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They get on my nerves, that's for sure. — Why 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, guys! – Emmett 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean you :( - J.P.Talk 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Was about to ask if i was missing something XD. By the way, i would have thought the RfA for nox would have been closed by a bcrat after being made visible, given that the account was created pretty much just for that.--Fighterdoken 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Not your RfA, Emmet. 1 2 3. :P — Why 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, guys!

Also, closing the RfA would be acknowledging that it exists. Vili 点 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheer up Vili, your name isn't on the list. Also, that Noxify account, shouldn't that be permabanned for impersonating NoXiFy? At least, I thought we had a rule concerning impersonations somewhere, right? — Why 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Noxify's shouldn't even be archived.-- anguard 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category tag

Perhaps it is wise to actually place the category tags for RfAs on top of the page, or above the support, oppose and neutral sections, somewhere, so we don't have to make corrections like [1] all the time? — Why 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Call for nominations

By my count we're roughly 4-8 sysops short of a "full team." That is, we could easily staff up to increase date/time coverage and to reduce the strain on individual sysops. I'm not quite familiar enough with the community these days to offer up my own nominations, but I think it'd be wise to have a nice spread of 10+ RFAs running over the next couple weeks so we get a broad sample of potential new candidates.

If anybody else agrees, please feel free to nominate sysops using the usual process.

—Tanaric 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you but I have been told by more than one sysop that there are enough sysops already. Drogo Boffin 01:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was told the same thing. -- riyen ♥ 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There are never enough sysops. Whoever told you that lives on a pre "remove sysophood based on inactivity"-discussion era.

Even so, people is less inclined to elect admins now based solely on a "janitorial task" point of view, which is why they are starting to use that argument again. Discretional sysops are still welcomed as far as i know.--Fighterdoken 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there can easily be too many sysops- for example, when it reaches the point where you're ignored if not an admin or when there are so many sysops they start interfering with each other's actions then the sysop team needs to be decreased. – Emmett 02:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That kinda happends already, but we still got some big gaps on our RC stalking.--Fighterdoken 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like nominating someone by all means go ahead. Me, I'm not at all interested in the position. If you want me (which I doubt) I'd need a lot of convincing. I'll think of some nominations to make though. — Why 05:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping anyone from nominating someone. When a nomination comes, we'll deal with it. -- Wandering Traveler 05:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical, if correct, issue. We'd need hundreds more for that to happen with any regularity. Backsword 13:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're on to speak. The only reason you haven't had a RfA is becuase you've been unwilling. Backsword 13:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Aric, I'll bite and play the Devil's advocate (sort of). Can you cite specific examples where having additional admins for odd dates/timeslots would have actually helped any recent troubles? Removing e-mail addresses 18 minutes earlier doesn't count, by the way. Moreover, other than Wyn who is universally agreed to do the work of like five people, I am having difficulty finding any evidence that any individual sysops are feeling overburdened, or at least in such a way that it interferes with their job. Perhaps you are confusing general burn-out with overwhelmedness? It is a small wiki about an old game, after all, and I'd think it is natural and safe that over time less admins are needed to amount to a "full team". This isn't Wikipedia; we don't constantly need 13-17 or whatever active sysops to keep shit under control. For that matter, I will say that other than certain recurring problems that have never been dealt with effectively (spam on dev's talkpages, discussing on AN, "controversial users", etc), the wiki runs just fine as it stands now. None of those things seriously detract from the core of the wiki, which is documenting the game and making such information easily accessible to players in a more or less friendly environment.

Finally, you say you'd like to see "10+" RfAs over the next couple of weeks. Are we meant to take this at face value? Because to me that seems like it would be an incredible waste of discussion and thereby time. Even going on a very liberal idea of admin criteria (and ignoring the "don't need more admins" train of thought), I have a hard time coming up with 3-4 real candidates, let alone 10+. It would be silly to start a bunch of premature, joke, or otherwise doomed RfAs just to fill the candidate pool... RfAs aren't like elections (yet), a nomination is supposed to be taken seriously and should have some chance of passing. At the risk of overstating my importance, I would say I am pretty familiar with the community these days...so if even I cannot find more than a handful of half-valid candidates, I must come to the conclusion that seeking out the imaginary is simply folly, and your call is nuts. ;) Vili 点 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

10+ is a bit much tbh. 3-4 still even is though. The suggestion I think is that we need a refresh of sysops. As well the sysops are fine with there work load yes, but the wiki could be effiecent with 2-3 more people. --Dominator Matrix 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Moreover, other than Wyn who is universally agreed to do the work of like five people, I am having difficulty finding any evidence that any individual sysops are feeling overburdened, or at least in such a way that it interferes with their job."

Well then, since Wyn isn't here right now, we're five short by your count. That fits within my 4-8 range. Even when she comes back, there should be enough sysops around that taking on the work of five people shouldn't be necessary.

There have to be ten trustworthy people on the wiki who are capable of doing routine maintenance work that sysops do. Discretionary sysops are a big plus (and, by my reckoning, at least two of the five+ ought to be those sorts of people to really get the job done), but entirely optional to this process. We have had before and probably still have now some sysops who just don't involve themselves in user disputes, NPA issues, and drama. That's okay.

re: Date/time coverage, that's not the major issue I was trying to address. Probably shouldn't have mentioned it since by far the "decrease sysop strain" bit was more important. If there are RfA-able users that live in Asia, though, that'd be a nice addition to our current coverage matrix.

re: burn out vs. overwhelmedness -- no, I don't confuse the issue. Unless you staff up before all the burned-out ones disappear, you'll end up with a dead community. While I agree this game is certainly EOL'd and doesn't need a large staff, conversely GW2 is starting to ramp up and you're very soon going to have a vast migration to deal with. Better to maintain cohesion, and a set of active admins that are vetted and can be smoothly RfA'd on GW2W, than to have to pull it out at the last second.

re: 10+, I mentioned the number because I expected significant "we have enough sysops already" mentality. Shifted slightly, this mentality extends to "we only need X more", where X is likely 1 or 2 for most people. With such expectations in mind, having a larger candidate pool gives us several advantages:

1. If we were to get a trickle of sysop nominations in series instead (like it usually works), would-be-successful candidate #3 or #4 is likely to get a ton of "Oppose: too many sysops". The pool method mitigates this, as there is no longer inherent ordering.
2. Relatedly, it allows those people who are determined to attempt to limit the number of sysops to limit it to the best X candidates as opposed to merely the first X candidates.
3. Calling for a candidate pool that is slightly larger than the expected number of successfully-RfA-able users means people will be more likely to nominate users that are on the line between "probably a good sysop candidate" and "definitely a good sysop candidate."

Obviously, I'm not suggesting people nominate joke candidates, or anything similar -- the numbers I gave are what I thought the community could support upon casual inspection and on my personal ideal world.

On a final note, another good reason for more sysops is that sysops tend to provide oversight on other sysops. This team-based approach, IMHO, works better than a collection of sysops working individually, which is how things currently appear to me. Again, out of touch etc., and if you guys tell me I'm wrong I'll accept that, but until my intuition with this stuff proves me wrong I'm gonna generally go with it (as always).

—Tanaric 09:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tanaric, it's good to have you back, but I believe we have a quantity big enough of sysops given how they have began stepping over each other. We need better sysops, actually, as the only reason why Wynthyst is seen as doing more than a single person is how so many other sysops actually avoid doing anything hard. Erasculio 21:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the way Gordon went about it was wise, but I don't disagree with his intent. Discussion among sysops about disagreements improves the quality of adjudication as a whole.

In any case, I'd argue that we agree. Assuming the current sysops don't radically change their behavior to meet your standards, the only solution to the problem you perceive is more sysops to perform the duties the older ones no longer fulfill. Whether or not the older sysops should be removed because of their aversion to "doing anything hard" is irrelevant, as far as the call for more sysops are concerned.

—Tanaric 21:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

→ wiki-janitor related comments moved to section below

Wiki Janitor Clause

OK. Is a clause like "Give the tools to certain users, with the clause that they are only allowed to delete pages, or block vandal bots.". Good deal with we need more sysops, or to restrictive? --Dominator Matrix 03:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not too restrictive imo, but rollback would be nice too.-- Shew 03:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Many sysops see no need for a rollback. Since we never have a 100 edit vandal. --Dominator Matrix 03:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand what it is then. Is it not just a simplified version of reverting edits involving clicking "rollback" rather than editing an old version of an article?-- Shew 03:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Tbh, users can mimic rollback too. The only difference is that Rollback has a pretty auto-explanation and takes 5 seconds less to do. --RIDDLE 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert goes back 1 or more edits at once. Rollback is a 1 button undo all user edits. --Dominator Matrix 03:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah...never mind.-- Shew 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

wiki-janitor discussion

← moved from above section

I wouldnt mind seeing another form of sysop being added. With limited use of sysop tools maybe, or the ability to only block purely vandalism and to do inane stuff like deleting pages. Drogo Boffin 02:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that is not possible. – Emmett 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a bit rude- Hey we're giving you powers to do "inane" jobs for us because we don't deem you good enough to be just a regular sysop...Kind of like an personal assistant? ~Celestia 02:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not rude at all. Im sure there are ppl willing to do the inane stuff without the ability to block. Even tho its not possible it would help lessen the load on current sysops. Drogo Boffin 02:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

All the above sound like a good ideas, however I am not sure if it would all work. -- Lacky 02:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is only sysops, and bures, we would have to create another user type for that to work. Many people are against the whole why add another, but at the same time are fine with the election. So yes we could use more if we get over the whole drama. --Dominator Matrix 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While it may not be technically possible to give that semi-sysop status, sysop powers have been granted with the permission to use the tools denied. Back when the feedback space was in development, a small group of non-sysops were given the powers so they could edit and fine-tune the space while it was protected. The same could be done in this case. Give the tools to certain users, with the clause that they are only allowed to delete pages, or block vandal bots. Under this clause, using the tools to do something outside their permission would result in immediate and permanent revocation of their sysop status.--Pyron Sy 02:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That caulse could very much work. Since we need more users to watch over the RC while allowing sysops to deal with the larger issues. --Dominator Matrix 02:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

/like

It'd be useful for the GW2 wiki!-- Shew 03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What Pyron has said sounds thought out and a good idea, however it would take a lot of work and effort to do, wouldn't it? -- Lacky 03:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really just some stuff to be written, proposed users, and such. --Dominator Matrix 03:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A draft proposal wouldn't take that long to write up, and you could you the same format as a standard RfA for nominations to janitor. The hardest part would be deciding what exactly the janitors would be allowed to do, and for a full sysop to oversee the janitors to make sure they weren't overstepping their bounds. But this would relieve some of the pressure of the sysops by taking the heavy lifting out of their hands.--Pyron Sy 03:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Some may be more interested in editing the wiki than dealing with disputes among people and deciding when bans are needed, etc. They should be able to do one side without feeling or being expected to do the other. Manifold 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not prepared to give the sysop tools with a couple of policy-dictated restrictions to people who I don't trust using the sysop tools, thank you. You either get the full deal or don't get to be a sysop at all, in my opinion. Setting up the feedback namespace was a one-time occurance I didn't agree with very much either, but I let that one slip for the betterment of the wiki. — Why 04:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You do have got a good point. However, I'm sure you can agree that there are some people who can handle the responsibility of the sysop tools for janitorial purposes, and could trust not to go beyond the restrictions, but may lack the levelheadedness to deal with the all too frequent trolling.--Pyron Sy 04:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they could do it on a trial basis? -- Lacky 05:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A trial could work to see if it would work in essense. But that was pretty much the feedback namespace thing. --Dominator Matrix 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think this entire discussion is extremely pointless. Tbh some additional high-quality sysops capable of dealing with discretionary matters as well as routine maintenance would solve both this problem and the one Tanaric is talking about, so I don't really see where this discussion could really go. – Emmett 05:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'd strongly recommend against this direction.

Firstly, we've tried codifying this sort of role into policy before and nobody could ever agree on what restrictions, on what pages, with what oversight, etc. Policy discussions spun out of control and in the end everybody just walked away from the discussion with nothing accomplished. Based on the handful of responses already, I suspect it will go in the same direction again.

Secondly, and far more importantly, I believe such a wiki janitor role is completely unnecessary to accomplish the goal. If a sysop is successfully RfA'd, but they suck at or are not interested in the inter-user stuff, they can just choose not to involve themselves. They're not ArbComm, and they don't have any responsibilities or obligations. Relatedly, if a new sysop sucks at the inter-user stuff but chooses to engage in it anyway, causing a big mess, the community can simply ask him to stay out of it, or in repeat cases, RfC or ask a bureaucrat to step in and give an injunction.

—Tanaric 09:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the rollback issue.. most (if not all) sysops use the rollback tool on a day-to-day basis. It's like undoing, except it's a one-click undo which reverts to the most recent revision made by a different user on that article. It doesn't undo every edit made by a user across multiple articles. -- pling 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I still dislike the "wiki janitor" sub-sysop role. Our understanding of a sysop has in the last 2 years developed in the exact opposit direction: Sysops that use their reasoning and are granted some amount of discretion. Trying to add "sysops-light" will lead to all kinds of trouble. So I am with Why above: Only make those people admins that you trust to be admins - trust fully, not just trust-light. --Xeeron 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

^ -Auron 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

iawtc. We should not even think about chaning the administration structure now, even if it possible to restrict everything (even technically). When we promote sysops, we should promote sysops, not something in between. poke | talk 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be acceptable for a sysop candidate to post on their RfA as part of their candidate statement that they voluntarily limit their scope to completely avoiding user disputes. Since this is the area in which most drama/RfR/ArbComm requests occur, this should be sufficient to get an on-the-fence candidate who would be generally helpful otherwise onto the team. A sysop violating their own limits and making a mess can be dealt with by a bureaucrat without need for ArbComm or RfR.

We currently have the opposite -- during the last two-three years of my sysophood I didn't do any of the wiki work (deletions, etc) that other sysops did, and I made this choice very clear. Sysops have always been able to pick and choose their scope.

—Tanaric 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any downside to encouraging people to outline their scope in their candidate statement. If this wiki ends up with too few sysops doing yeoman's work, then it would be helpful to encourage folks to step in (and hope that they grow into the larger role). Folks that have shown evidence of poor judgment dealing with others are unlikely to get my support regardless; contributors that admit that they need to be cautious about dispute resolution are more likely to get my vote.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I skipped the nomination/acceptance step for TEF. I skim-read too much sometimes. --Emkyooess 02:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens. He didn't seem likely to decline in his talk space, so I say let's go forward unless he declines or fails to accept within 7 days. —Tanaric 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Um guys, "RFAs should not be started for someone else, unless there is a clear acceptance in the "Pending nominations" section below. If it is an RFA for yourself, you should be logged in before starting."

I just removed his link and placed things back into pending until 'accepted' or 'declined' as per the policy, but I hope he'll accept and if he does, just look in history and add back in that link. If not, a delete note can be added to his nomination page instead. -- riyen ♥ 04:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Policy doesn't say you have to muck things up further when things go awry. Since 9 of us are clearly okay with this and you're the only one who's not, please gain consensus behind your actions before pushing this further. —Tanaric 04:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious you didnt learn anything from your recent block. Drogo Boffin 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen contacted me off-wiki and further explained that the same thing was done six days ago with another RfA, so I've reverted my revert. Thanks Ariyen! —Tanaric 04:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcomed. It was out of GF, didn't mean any 'harm'. After all, just prefer to be helpful. -- riyen ♥ 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)