Forum:Sysop trial periods

Something that recently came to my attention was Sysop activity times. While I can understand a user having to become inactive due to personal reasons, users that choose to stop editing because they don't want to any more can be an issue. For example, Capt. Miller recently made a blog proclaiming he was thniking of going inactive soon, as he sees no reason to continue editing; "Since I'm an admin, reached 10000 edits and crossed off nearly all of my targets, I feel I have fully finished wiki editing, and don't need to edit anymore. This is the same thing that happened to me in Call of Duty: Black Ops II. When I reached the elusive rank of Prestige Master, I barely touch the game anymore, and rarely play it.". Now frankly, admin rights should be given to users that are going to use the wiki to better it, not as some kind of achievement. Furthermore, Miller only received these user rights last month, so him leaving now has hardly made use of said rights, meaning while there's no issue with having multiple sysops, we do now have another inactive one that we may never see again. For this reason, I feel any user that gets given sysop rights should maintain an acceptable level of activeness for a set of time in order to keep said rights, a similar method is used in job placements to prevent people from simply joining for a few days and then leaving. Now this will bear in mind personal predicaments, as well if people are going on holiday and such, so we won' start revoking rights if a user is suddenly rushed into hospital, or has a holiday planned, or is currently doing tests or anything that is an acceptable reason to have lowered acticity. But for instances such as this, where a user is leaving purely because they don't feel there is nothing more to do, which with the release of AW coming up is pretty much the opposite right now, is just a detriment to the wiki, and makes giving out the user rights seemingly pointless if said user has no real desire to stick around and actually use them. 15:43, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Right now, I believe a 2-3 month trial period would be fair to give to new sysops.

Sounds fair to me. I feel that sysop rights should be given out to users who want to help out the wiki over a longer period of time, not users who just want to be recognized for their work. After looking through the inactive sysop list, all of them besides maybe one went inactive much later than they originally got the rights. If this becomes a trend of people getting the rights just because "they deserve them", this list will potentially be much larger. The 2-3 month proposal that Sam stated seems fair, as anybody who states that they will become inactive during this time probably shouldn't have made a RfA in the first place. 16:07, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Per Anti, and the nominator Sam. Although personal problems may plague the new admin, leaving for as Anti said, "not users who just want to be recognized for their work" is not acceptable. A 2-3 month trial period seems fair. 16:27, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal issues will be accounted for should a user let us know. If a user knows they are about to become inactive, then that may put off a nomination until they are free. But if something comes up after the nomination, then as long as they let us know, we can account for that. 16:34, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

What would after the after the trial period? Does the user keep the rights or can they choose to be demoted post-trial? 17:07, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * After the trial is up, it means they keep the rights with no issues. With luck this should mean that only the users that make it past those set months they'll stick around, since it seems unlikely a user will ask for user rights, stay for a few months then leave for no good reason. As with the case with Miller, once you've got the rights you need nothing more really, this simply allows us to have a bit more control over the rights, so not only does it show they're right for the rights by passing the RfA, but also shows their actual desire to have the rights by remaining active. 20:22, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also, while a lot of our users are protected by grandfather clauses, I feel Miller should have to follow this policy/guideline should it pass. Because, frankly, I do not feel comfortable adding a 1 month old admin to "Inactive". Since a sysop is expected to check the War Room, he should see this notice and it should not come as any shock to him. 20:27, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, um, I've thought about it, and am not leaving. The blog I made was that I felt I might consider it soon. Also, just to note, I didn't decide to stay after viewing this Forum. Capt. Miller  01:03, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I can revoke my above statement. But I still feel putting a guideline/policy like this in place can help prevent a similar occurrence happening. 01:04, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * i think this is a good idea but maybe instead it should be 1 month to 1 and a half month.  RisingSun2013 01:18, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 month seems a bit short for activity, and in fact one reason why I made this was because it had only been 1 month since Miller got the rights. That's why I feel 2-3 months is a lot more apt. 02:47, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * maybe 2 months then, but 3 seems like a little too much to me.  RisingSun2013 03:05, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Two-three months does seems like a perfect period of time. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 06:12, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

I feel okay with this. I remember some users getting sysop pretty early and becoming noticeably less active after. 12:16, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * That crossed my mind as well. I agree with 2-3 month trial periods. 19:05, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Legos. 2-3 months seems good. Higaboi21 (talk) 02:58, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

This seems like another unnecessary set of rules that will only aid in making this place a ghost town. You can't deem how long someone is supposed to stay active, shit happens in life. Seems very unnecessary. KλT 19:57, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how imposing a guideline to make people stay longer will make the wiki any less active. Job placements do the exact same thing, and last I went to a shop, it wasn't understaffed because no one wanted to stay on. And I mentioned many times above that most situations will be accounted for. But people choosing to leave with no reason given will be ones we are looking out for. 20:07, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * at the end of the day this is a volunteer position, not a paid job dude. we don't need to put time restraints on people, nobody would apply for adminship again. KλT 20:26, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * But apparently ensuring that people know they need to commit if they volunteer is bad. 20:48, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, what's the point in giving someone these rights that you have to earn and be trustworthy enough to get if you can just leave less than a month after receiving them and have no penalty. And you can still get fired from a volunteer position if you do a shit job at it. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 21:14, August 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody on here has the right to fire someone. That's not how the wiki works. KλT 05:33, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of volunteer work in general, since you said no one can get fired for volunteer work. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 08:10, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I volunteer for wikia, and i'm not obligated to put a set amount of time into anti-spam/vandalism tasks. Volunteering by nature is, well, volunteering. I don't work a set amount of hours, i put as much time into it as I'm willing to. I don't really see your point, the wiki isn't a business, its a collaborative encyclopedia. This idea is ludicrous. KλT 21:51, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Again: I was speaking of volunteer work in general, since you said no one can get fired for volunteer work. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 22:21, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think typical volunteer work in general(i.e volunteering at a pet shelter etc) relates to the wiki. And volunteers can be fired, usually only when they royally fuck up and like, go psycho and go on a rampage. KλT 22:31, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this as necessary at all. It simply seems like an overreaction to one case. We don't need to hound new admins every time one gets elected, and we don't need new admins feeling hounded. All that will lead too is people overworking themselves and trying to do more than they should, which can be just as detrimental as someone doing nothing at all. A rule like this would add no value to the wiki. All it does is turn the RFA system into a popular vote, with the admins acting as the electoral college. I say no. 04:33, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * ^ KλT 06:03, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * ...How? 08:05, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sam's proposal literally asks for a "Trial Period" which presents a huge number of issues.
 * 1. It effectively gives the admins, or whoever would judge the new admins activity levels, too much power. There is no outline of requirements for Sam's proposal, just "stay active". What does that mean? Keep editting? Just show up and lurk in chat so that the other admins know your still around? Participate in every war room? Without a clear definition of requirements, new admins can be pretty easily confused by what they have to do, and could lead to removals of potentially good admins just because they didn't realize just how "active" they had too be.
 * 2. It completely removes the point of RfA's. The community votes and decides as a whole who becomes an admin, no exceptions. It's part of the AEAE policy (which seems to get more and more ignored everyday) that everyone should have an equal say. Allowing users to vote, only to then say "Yeah, but we have the final say" is a gross mis-use of power which fractures the userbase between two sides.
 * 3. I just touched a little bit on it above, but it violates AEAE even further. There are a bunch of admins protected by Grandfather clauses, and they basically get to judge whether or not the new admins deserve to keep their rights?
 * 4. A "trial" period could easily lead to unproductive work. Uncesesarry editting of pages just so you keep showing up in the RC, writing "Per All" on War Room forums you haven't even read, making a bunch of shit blog comments just so everyone knows your active in the community. Maybe even hovering that mouse over the "Kick" or "Ban" options in chat so people know your paying attention and can take charge whenever you need too.
 * 5. Say everything worked out perfectly, what would this accomplish? Tell people they have to work their asses off for two months and then relax, like pretty much every other admin does? Yeah, a lot of us stay active, edit, chat and stuff but we don't religiously do it all day long. We do it when we feel we need too or want too. Why do we have to force new admins to prove their worth by working their asses off when we don't even do so? Just seems ridiculous.
 * 6. This is a huge overreaction to one case, and should have been handled with that one admin since he seems to have used Adminship as a goal rather than a tool, and now it's leading to an unecesarry policy which I am blown away is getting as much support as it is. 15:32, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "don't quit the wiki the same month you received your adminship" would result in someone overworking themselves. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 08:10, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything about minimum activity levels though. It just says "don't quit as soon as you get it." 15:38, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * So then what does this post accomplish? At all? "Don't quit the wiki", so don't make a blog saying your leaving? That's it? That's what this whole forum is about? Makes this forum even more pointless and even more of a problem that should be looked at case-by-base. 15:59, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel obliged to agree with Damac. I don't see the point to this. How often will this actually happen/has this actually happened? Capt. Miller may have only had the rights for a month, but he's put them to good use. He's one of the best editors on the wiki (it's why he got the adminship in the first place). Doing this will only put off other great editors who want to become admins and use the tools at their exposal for the better of the wiki. If you have to force potential admins to be active, then you might as well just not have them voted for. 16:19, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * A few times actually. I do agree with Damac's reasoning, however, I don't think it is right to simply give the rights to a user if they choose to leave or whatever right after they acquire the rights. Even through the RFA. 16:24, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we look at it on a case by case basis. We don't need a policy that hounds new admins and gives old ones too much power. 18:24, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to many of the things you said. Firstly, I don't think it would give other admins too much power. I doubt he current admins are going to descend on the new admins like hawks if they don't edit every 5 minutes. And if activity does drop, and its something that multiple users feel, they can just ask the user if there's anything causing that. Remain active isn't majorly hard, we have lots of uers, such as Legos and Risingsun that maintain quite a strong presence, even without joining chat. Secondly, it in no way removes the point of an RfA. The RfA is in palce to ensure the user is fit for the role, basically like the interview. If it removed the point of the RfA then we could just make any old user admin and go "Right, if you stay here a month you can keep those". The RfA is still highly important, the trial period will just be in place to ensure when we've gone though the work of an RfA that user doesn't suddenly vanish off somewhere. Fourthly, you can see my above comment about Legos and Risingsun, other good examples for a sysop point of view are MLG and CoaZ, since neither of them are active chat users, but still maintain a very strong active presence, it's a bit weaker for MLG since he is currently on a semi-active role, but certainly CoaZ remains active without unnecessary edits, so we're well aware that both normal users and sysop users can maintain a presence without resorting to edit boosting. Fifthly, we're not telling them to work then relax, we're telling them "Right, we think you've got what it takes to have these rights, now keep hold of them for a while so we know you are good with them". Otherwise, it's basically like passing a driving test but not getting a car, it makes the point of the test pointless. Maybe it seems ridiculous to make users stay for a while, but in my view it seems ridiculous to give users rights like this, then watch them ride off into the sunset because that's all the hard work done since they passed their RfA. Lastly, I understand this looks like an over reaction, but when I brought up the forum to a friend in Skype, they pointed out how the whole thing felt off, and mentioned how he thought another user had done the same thing before, because of that reaction, I believed a forum to counter the issue occurring again would be the best bet. Also by passing it in a forum so there's a consensus stops an argument later when should a similar occurrence happen, but unlike now the user doesn't come back, and then we talk about removing those user rights. If the system was in place then it would be resolved simply, but if we dealt with the issue at the time there would likely be a huge debate over taking user rights off people, which would likely cycle out of control and gain nothing. So amybe this could be seen as an over reaction, but at least its far more temperate and n-topic than if I had simply suggested removing a user's user rights all together and not bother with a guideline polciy. 08:55, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Your first point literally adresses my main concern. Why does their have to be a policy? Why do their have to be requirements? Why can't we just get a few admins together and try to contact the user in question and talk to him? Lack of communication has caused a sea of issues in the past for the wiki and making a policy which basically says "Hey, I haven't heard from this user in awhile, let me talk to the other admins and see if we can get his rights removed" only increases those issues.
 * 2. It does, in fact, remove the point of an RfA. An RfA is a system used to allow the community to come together and determine whether or not they feel a user is ready to handle administrative tools. It is not a system to give a user a two month trial and then force him to be active, lest he lose those tools. Things come up in life, Jobs, Family, Personal issues, School, and sometimes things aren't timed perfectly. Just because a persons activity drops after an RfA doesn't mean they should have their rights, that were granted to them by the community at large, taken away.
 * 3. You skipped a thirdly :P
 * 4. But what is the point of having to show that they'll stick around? Would you honestly remove a great admins rights if he was awesome for a month than inexpicably disappeared. Kylet brought up how, yes, Miller has only had his rights for a short time but he has put them to great use in that short amount of time. So if we had a great admin, doing great work, but stopped showing up due to some exterior issue, do you actually find it fair to remove his rights?
 * 5. This just goes back to your above point, why is time a factor? Why do we need to demand their time for a volunteer position? It just seems ludicrous to dictate their behavior in such a way.
 * 6. You keep not answering my question. WHY DO WE NEED A SYSTEM? Why is it so mind blowing that Admins could act like rational people and deal with each incident on a case by case basis. What was stopping someone saying, "Hey guys, I'm not really comfortable with Miller leaving a month after he got his rights, do you think we could talk to him?". I partially understand your point of wanting some kind of policy to back yourself up, but there's a big difference between proposing a rational solution to a problem, and shouting "GUYS X ADMIN HASN'T EDITED RECENTLY, I THINK WE NEED TO REMOVE HIS RIGHTS." You don't need a policy, the system has worked for years and years since the wiki's founding. You just need to approach the situation rationally and actually communicate with the various parties in question.
 * 7. And finally, for me, what is the big deal with letting inactive-new admins keep their rights? If they're gone, they're gone. They aren't hurting anybody. And they could easily comeback and continue to edit just as some admins have done in the past. I don't know, this all seems like a poor and useless solution to a non-problem. 16:52, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of Damac's last statement, I'd actually like to ask a question as well. What about users who are sysops and have been for a long time but haven't been active for whatever amount of time? Should their rights be taken because of their dormancy? 18:11, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, 3 months seems a bit excessive to me. I would support this if it was a max of 2 months, but I'm going to have to agree on with Damac. Also, I apologise to Sam for my reasoning for thinking of becoming inactive. I never had Adminship as a goal, but as the sort of person I am, I sometimes internally think of it as a goal, not a set of important tools. I was just a bit worried I might forget about the wiki. Capt. Miller  07:30, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 months does seem like a good median. 08:55, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * ^ 15:07, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a 0 month requirement. KλT 18:40, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you at least try and take this seriously? We get it, you're against the proposal. That does not mean you have to come in and shit on every single attempt to compromise that people make. 18:43, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * please point out where I'm shitting over every attempt someone makes at compromising, cause from this angle it seems like i just left this comment, and then the above thread where i left my opinion. I think you're being a tad bit disingenuous. KλT 18:57, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Is leaving an unnecessary sarcastic comment still something you had to do? Granted, you didn't shit on every single attempt but you did shit on this one which is not nice. 23:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it was necessary or not is entirely subjective to the person whom has read my comment. Sorry you disagree. KλT 06:07, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I now feel bad for making a blog which didn't really clearly state why I thought I might leave, now a forums been made and everyones pissed of at everyone. Some of the stuff said isn't civil. Anyway, to add to my idea, I think it should be a max of 2 months, and it can't be extended, no matter if the user is trustworthy or not. Capt. Miller  11:46, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * nah, this forum isn't the reason everyone's angry for no reason, seems a few people are pulling other issues onto this forum. And its not your fault at all, stuff snowballs. KλT 18:59, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the whole idea of what determines activeness is being completely blown out of portion here. The forum was made because of a user wanting to leave the wiki, not drop in activity. From looking at previous admins and their activity after they got the rights, nothing in the past was similar to the situation in the OP. The idea of removing admin rights for not being active enough is both judgmental and unfair, although this isn't what was proposed. The phrase "an appropriate level of activeness" was used in Sam's proposal, which seems perfectly fair for what it is. If we were to have a hard line for admin activeness, then I would strongly oppose this. This is different though, as basically any activity (even chat?) shows that you are still active and deserving of the rights. 19:21, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * That was mostly my assumption; that it was a "make sure users aren't going to disappear straight after a successful RfA", not a "new admins must make X edits per day/week or get desysoped". 19:38, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 19:44, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * So then what is the point of having a entirely useless policy that stemmed out of a single situation and who's entire guideline is "stay active" when that's what 99.9% of admins have ever done and the admin in question didn't even end up doing, when it can just be handled on a case by fucking case basis? 19:59, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Because if we did this on a case basis every answer would be the same. Because there's so much riding on the RfA once it passes no one would want to remove those rights unless something major happened. If Miller hadn't chose to come back and this was instead a forum stating we should remove his user rights for not remaining active how many people would have supported that? Then after that if it happened again, the same thing would happen again and again eventually to a stage where no one would think the issue worth contributing on. This guideline will still ensure we take users on a case to case basis, we won't give them a black and white view on what is and isn't active, but if they choose to leave the wiki because "why not" then we'll have something in place to stop that. But judging by what you said earlier, we won't be doing this if the user has a proper reason to lowered activity such as school, hospital appointment, friends over or whatever. 20:05, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would it have to be a forum? Why can't it be a formal discussion on skype, or chat, or even IRC? It doesn't have to be a forum and it doesn't have to be between you and one more, unnamed source before you make a decision. I just find this idea completely ridiculous and I don't understand the fear of simple discussion. Not every situation needs a policy, especially when it's one as based in common sense and as full of different variables as this one. 20:09, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had contacted you in Skype before making this forum asking "Should we remove this users rights because he's inactive" what would you have said? 20:12, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggestion one on one conversations, i'm suggesting round table group discussions. 20:21, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what we're achieving now by holding this discussion? 20:42, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well since instead of discussing the actual matter at hand we're discussing an absolutist pointless requirement-policy, no we aren't. You made this forum in response to Capt Millers blog. Why aren't we dealing with Miller, then discussing a forum? However useless it may be? And now Miller isn't even leaving, and regrets making his blog, so what is the point of this forum anymore? 14:48, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of this forum remains the same. Making it so all future sysops have the remain active after their RfA so they show intent to use their new found user rights. I did bring up earlier if the forum that as Miller was going inactive we should apply this new policy to him, but since he then came back and maintained a level of activeness I took that comment back. But I believed it was easier for us in the long run to have a guideline policy in place instead of making dysysop forums or talking to specific people over the matter of if we should dysysop people. If people are aware of a 2 month guideline, and a user goes inactive after 1 for no good reason, then when it's discussed people are going to understand the issue more. If this forum had instead been a desysop forum, which I prefer saving for more serious matters, no one would have supported it, nor would they have in a Skype conversation because no one would believe taking away rights for inactivity, even if they only got those user rights 1 month prior after asking that forum to be rushed though. 21:29, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Raven's and Anti, most of the opposition now make it seem like the proposal is pressuring new admins into forceful editing instead of its original intention to have them stay somehow active instead of "yay I got admin kthxbye" happening, to show admin tools are tools instead of a status or a personal milestone. If I'm to use the "volunteering for a real job" metaphor, if you go on a trial period they also don't just put you into straight 12hr/d labor work and lay you off if you don't work hard enough, or you have food poisoning and thus can't work for a day. Also, users being highly active then dropping it after getting admin has happened before, Sp3c and Icepacks off the top of my head, it's not the case of "AMG THIS USER SAID HE'LL GO INACTIVE MUST CREATE FORUM". 23:51, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought Spec went semiactive after gaining adminship, not fully inactive? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 00:58, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not inactive but going semi-active right after gaining adminship is still a sign of treating it like a milestone. Not to mention other things he did with it. 05:03, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are generalizing things a bit by saying, "A sign of going semi-active after gaining adminship is still a sign of tr eating it like a milestone". I don't think that's very true. You guys have to consider real life issues, personal issues, school, friends, etc. I went inactive for a month after i got bcrat, only because i was driving across the country for a month and a half. By this forums logic, I would've been decratted. I just don't think things are as black and white as this forum is painting them to be. KλT 19:22, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I've said this so many times now I'm certain you're not reading the forum at all. If a user has a very good reason for going inactive, such as school or any other kind of activity that will take up their time in real life it will be considered. This is for users that choose to leave with no proper reason. 21:14, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, in responmse to your comment about how black and white this is I even addressed that earlier when I said "This guideline will still ensure we take users on a case to case basis, we won't give them a black and white view on what is and isn't active". 00:56, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * My above comment was more directed at mlg's comment, not the entire forum. KλT 06:04, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I very well know personal reasons are an exception as so touched on in the proposal, I also included that bit in the metaphor. Also the two users who I mentioned didn't stop editing just because of personal reasons. 08:40, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

*wakes from inactivity, rubs eyes* I have to agree with Damac. This is completely unnecessary. If admins becoming inactive shortly after getting flags is really that much of a problem (which I have come to understand that it is not), then perhaps we should consider giving them to better users in the first place. It's not even a detriment when admins become inactive because other users will step up to fill the role. It's part of how the wiki changes and adapts to the inflow/outflow of users. Joe Copp 12:37, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * The main issue with "giving them to better users" is there's quite a verge between users that deserve the rights and users that will retain the rights. Miller for example, showed to be greatly deserving of the rights and when he made the blog saying he was thinking of going inactive it took me greatly by surprise, as I believed he would stay, which thankfully he has. While it's true that another user may appear to fill the boots of an admin that jumps boat quickly, that still means we've taken the 1-2 week RfA vote just for a user that doesn't want to hang around and we have to repeat the cycle again for their replacement. Meaning we would have spent the same amount of time voting on an admin as the time spent the first admin used their user rights, which doesn't seem right in the long run. If users go inactive for personal reasons, then fair enough. But I just don't see why we should hand out the user rights to users that are going to go "Cheers for the rights, see ya". 14:27, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we, and most times the users themselves, don't know when or if they're going to become inactive. I could see there being a need for this action if sysops becoming inactive was a real problem, but since it only seems to have garnered attention once (Capt. Miller), I don't think any action is necessary. Inactive sysops aren't a detriment to the wiki, and if they become active again, then they can resume helping out in a more advanced way (see: Joe Copp). Joe Copp  14:47, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think a user will be able to not foresee leaving after getting the user rights with no reason in hand. If it was a personal issue that came up, then fair enough. But if a user gets the rights, then suddenly decides at that point they don't want to edit any more then what's the point? Also, looking at the users MLG gave earlier, the users that go inactive for reasons that aren't personal, don't come back. 14:51, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how that means we need to implement an arbitrary ruleset that would only filter a minority of sysops and would accomplish little seeing as admins becoming inactive isn't really a detriment. Joe Copp  18:35, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Should we start a vote on this? The discussions are just running around in circles at this point. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 21:51, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. Joe Copp  14:18, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

Voting
So lets move this forum into voting. Option 1 is that we have the trail periods for new admins, lasting only 1-2 months maximum (as I mentioned before). Option 2 is for 1-3 months. Option 3 is that we don't have trail periods, and I have more clear reasoning when announcing something related to decreased activity.

Option 1:

 * 1) As long as admins have no control on the amount of time, I'm in for this. Capt. Miller  08:02, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that the time that was being discussed was 2-3 months, not 1-2. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:59, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * it was.  RisingSun2013 21:36, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * So why are we voting on 1-2? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 21:38, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * I added another option since both 1-2/1-3 months we're discussed above. KλT 22:19, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * i have no clue.  RisingSun2013 21:43, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) 2 months is preferential. There's no way we'd ever get round to talking about similar issues in the future if there's no policy or guideline in place, and we'd simply beat around the bush and nothing would be done. 23:30, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * I still can't believe the user who made us remove unused Emotes and deleted the Michael Myers character page wants a policy as useless and space-taking as this one. 00:48, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * obviously the real sam has been replaced by an alien.  RisingSun2013 00:50, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * I still can't believe that nearly everyone I used to think was my friend twists everything into an insult against myself. I care about the wiki and its users, but clearly neither care about me at the end of the day. I'm sorry if that seems off-topic, but I've had 3 users outright insult me over the past few weeks, and no one seems to care whether or not I'm happy about that simply because they've managed to throw out the insult and make themselves happy. 11:29, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * i was kidding when i said you were replaced by an alien. just because i made that joke doesnt mean i dont care about you at all.  RisingSun2013 12:37, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sam, if your feeling like this, take a break or something. NO one hates you, its just this forum that they annoyed at, people do care. Please, stay, most (If not all) need you. Capt. Miller  12:46, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of that wasn't aimed at what you said RisingSun. I know you were joking. Also, I'm already semi-active due to a guest being round, but that didn't stop Diegox from making me wake up to a tirade of insults. The general atmosphere I am feeling is very gloomy right now. 12:49, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuck this, fine. It's all about you. The only reason anyone disagreed with this and got annoyed as shit with this forum was all about you. This whole situation is all about you, it all revolves around you, and every single person voting against you hates you.
 * Oh wait, no. No that's not happening. We're annoyed and voting against this policy because it's useless and overly controlling over a non existent problem. I pointed at those past examples of you wanting useless things removed because it directly conflicts with what your arguing for here. I'm horribly sorry that Diego said those terrible things to you, but that is not an excuse to try and make this forum look like some kind of attack against you personally. There are other people arguing, with other reasons, and on both sides. This forum has literally NOTHING to do with you except that you made it. So stop trying to play a sympathy card like everyone is attacking you when thats just not the case. 17:56, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring more to recent events more to this forum itself. And I made it about me because it was you that had to make a comment that was directed at myself. I never said anything about others treating me badly on this forum itself, but if was you that left a response to my vote as an insult against me and not the vote itself. But again, by voicing how I feel it's far easier for you to just yell at me as opposed to saying sorry, because it's far better if I get out down and someone else feels better. 18:06, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * You want me to say I'm sorry for bringing up to arguments we've had in the past who's basis directly conflicts this forum? Not gonna happen. 18:42, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * I still found the wording of it upsetting. Even if you want to make the point, you could have still done so in a way that doesn't directly insult me. 19:25, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm still standing behind my point that the rule wouldn't cause any harm if implemented. It may seem slightly unnecessary, but it is completely possible a similar situation could happen again that could be referenced to this. 00:41, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that it should be placed because it will make it easier to see who wants to actually help the wiki with admin rights. 18:50, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

Option 3:

 * 1) Absolutely Useless policy that we have no need for, as well as per all my reasoning above. Just another pointless change to the way the wiki runs. 16:57, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Completely unnecessary policy that will only provide a detriment to the wiki in the future. Per Damac and Myself's reasoning above. KλT 19:39, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Damac's points. I don't see any reason to have this. Per Damac. 22:24, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Per above. It might be more detrimental to the wiki than beneficial. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 12:31, September 11, 2014 (UTC)