Wikipedia talk:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015

Why this is ridiculous
To start, I respect what beeblebrox is trying to do, I just don't think this is the way to do it.

all we are going to see are admins who will now self block/unblock (to log an action) or even easier, do 10 edits to a page in their own userspace and then speedy delete it.

this in no way guarantees that any particular admin is aware of current policy and process (if that is indeed the intended goal). - jc37 11:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was the point of the gaming clause, but it looks like that is going down in flames. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with a gaming clause, it wouldn't guarantee that any particular admin is aware of current policy and process. I could clear out CAT:EX or WP:UAA in less than five minutes, and rack up 30+ admin actions in doing so, but doing so would demonstrate nothing about my knowledge of current custom-and-practice in any remotely contentious area. To my mind, the disadvantage of a gaming clause—that it creates a star chamber which can effectively desysop any admin who falls foul of a majority of its members just by declaring their actions to be "gaming"—overwhelmingly outweighs any advantage. Bear in mind that many of the most important admin actions, such as talking down people on the verge of flaring up, declining bad-faith or badly-informed deletion nominations, and issuing "if you continue…" threats which have the desired effect, will never show up as "admin actions" in any kind of log. I support the idea of minimum activity thresholds (even though, given my reluctance to block, protect or delete except as a last resort, I'd have failed to meet the proposed threshold in most years), but don't see how anything which would require the establishment of a permanent Wikipedia Inquisition to decide which admins are worthy to keep the title is ever going to be workable. &#8209; Iridescent 17:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing time?
looks like this hit a time limit and is getting delisted else where. I !voted, but it seems pretty obvious that a consensus did not emerge to change the overall activity requirements; and that a consensus emerged against adding the "gaming clause". — xaosflux  Talk 04:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)