Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-1272757-20131112003859/@comment-115265-20131118031455

Bullet Francisco wrote:

Hi. I apologize that you were not able to participate in the site discussion that enacted the inactivity demotion rule. You can find the archived discussion here.

I am going to provide a very honest and very straightforward answer to your question: there is no harm in removing the lapsing rights rule. That being said, however, there is reasoning behind it. Not only does it prevent any possible breach in security, but it removes them from Special:ListUser/sysop, removes any confusion from new users, reduces the amount of administrators, and it encourages inactive contributors with user rights to stop by a bit more frequently. The rule is not in place to serve as a punishment, and I admit that it can be made a bit more clear when I notify the inactive users of their pending demotion.

Despite there being no harm in removing the rule, I am going to stick by the argument "if it's not broken, don't fix it". The lapsing rights rule solves a number of problems that we have had with inactive administrators for years now, and I refuse to alter a user's userpage without their consent (Kagimizu's suggestion). To me, it just seems like Kagi was a bit upset upon seeing Sonicrox14's demotion, which I understand and respect. That discussion was concluded 2 months ago. Seems like a little early to be overturning it, when it appears to be working at present.

I think I understand your reasoning, here. Of course, I'll have to wait for Kagi's response to the question I asked him, but now I have a pretty good idea what everyone's talking about.