Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-1272757-20131112003859/@comment-3416945-20131118030205

Bionicleboy3000 wrote:

Bullet, do you know where the old site discussion went concerning this? I'd like to get up to speed. I also have a question, though the answer may or may not be in the aforementioned discussion: What harm is there in cutting out the middleman?

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.