On every other point but "activity" (except civility, which should be self-evident), you provide guidance on why you feel the standard is important. Can you expand on why you require a minimum level of activity? I am looking here at the final paragraph of Wikipedia:AAAD#Editcountitis as the counterargument.

Lastly, so as not to start something of a mb:ForestFire, I wanted to make sure you caught my response to Icestorm815, who brought up the same "hand-holding" objection as did you. Jouster  (whisper) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, better to respond to this late than never, right? :D

Activity is important because, well, I don't want people coming here with a burst of activity, getting adminship, then dropping away. I want to see that candidates have staying power; the ability to continuously work on a project for an extended period of time suggests (to me) that they're less likely to up and quit when the "new toy feeling" wears off. If we had activity requirements for administrators (similar to Commons or Meta), where inactive admins are de-sysopped for excessive inactivity, I would perhaps change my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question, then, is exactly what negative outcomes are derived solely from inactivity. For example, even saying something like, "The admin might not be able to take into account any changes in community consensus that have come about since (s)he was last active," doesn't suffice, because that presumes that in addition to being inactive for a period of time, the admin question is lazy and lackadaisical in researching any recent changes in guidelines that have come about since (s)he was last active. Lazy and lackadaisical are therefore valid reasons to oppose adminship, whereas mere lack of activity continues to fall short as a requirement. Jouster  (whisper) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]