Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De-adminship of several inactive users who were never especially active (20/18/0)

[edit]

After compiling Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival, I noted that there are several stale accounts with admin status. I list here those accounts that had been idle for a year or more, and that would not meet the minimum requirements for adminship if nominated today:

  1. User:LC. About 1000 edits between 8/01 - 10/02.
  2. User:Peter Winnberg. Fewer than 500 edits between 11/01 - 8/02 and a handful more through 1/03.
  3. User:Mirwin. Fewer than 500 contributions 2/02-11/02 with about a dozen since then.
  4. User:Khendon. About 700 contributions between 9/02 - 4/03 and another 50 or so through 12/03.
  5. User:Sugarfish. Fewer than 1000 contributions between 7/03 - 11/03

I suggest that the accounts above be changed to ordinary user accounts. In the event any of these users return and wish to continue to serve as admins, I believe their requests should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

uc

Vote Here

Support de-adminship

  1. uc 17:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support all requests unless any of the listed users expresses opposition to being de-admined. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Netoholic @ 21:53, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) -- Provisionally. A message to this effect should be left on their talk pages for at least two weeks before removing access.
  4. Adminship should not be for life Shane King 23:40, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. There's no reason adminship must last forever. Angela. 00:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Emsworth 00:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Aha, the ideals of my proposed (and dismissed) policy come back for all to see... this is exactly the sort of action I think we need around here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:08, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  9. I don't see the lack of established policy as any kind of a problem here. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support, comment below.--Bishonen 02:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. ugen64 20:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Whether we're following precedent or establishing it, support. --Michael Snow 06:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. I'll support this bunch, but I want to see policy instances for the latter bunch. Andre (talk) 17:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Noisy | Talk 22:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. I posted a link to this vote on the de-nominated user talk pages Wolfman 01:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. Adminship should only be retained by active users. Jayjg 03:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support in these cases. Several of these users should not have been given adminship under the standards we have for adminship, and that following their adminship they have not risen above those standards testifies to the inappropriateness of their adminship. Note, however, that I oppose de-adminship of admins who do meet standards, even if they haven't edited recently. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  18. David Cannon 10:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC). Strongly support. Sysophood should not be a sinecure or some kind of meaningless title of nobility. Users who have clearly been doing nothing for a long time should be assumed to have quit. BTW, I don't mean anything personal by this, but should the rule also apply to admins who have declared themselves to have quit the project? Secretlondon, for example, has a note on her user page, "I don't edit here any more. 22:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)." but is still listed as both an administrator and a bureaucrat (albeit as an inactive one). I think that not only she, but all admins in the same category, should be asked whether their withdrawal from the project is merely temporary. If so, they should be allowed to stay; otherwise, their admin/bureaucrat access should be cancelled. Just my two cents' worth.
  19. SWAdair | Talk 09:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support all except User:Khendon, who just edited, and User:Sugarfish, who had a few edits in the last year. Incidentally, why the hell was notice not posted on their talk pages? We inform sysop nominations, after all. One year seems like a resonable standard. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose de-adminship

  1. anthony 警告 17:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. silsor 21:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Chris 73 Talk 00:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) I think this should be a separate vote for each of them. Also, could you provide us with a link to the policy? -- Chris 73 Talk 00:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
    As noted in comments, there really is no policy on this since in the project's youth this wasn't a problem. If you wish to vote differently on some candidates, you may indicate that above in the candidate list. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Since several people have brought this up, I suggest that you indicate your vote in the candidate list if you wish to vote for some but not others. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Still Oppose deadminship for all, because i dislike the style of the mass de-adminship. If i (and others) would write between the above lines, the whole thing would become a awful mess and it would be very hard to sort out who voted for what. I may support or oppose deadminship for the candidates only if there is an individual vote for each one. Same goes for the second list below. I would like to point out that I am NOT opposed to de-adminship due to inactivity in general, even though the reasons (potential stolen passwords) don't make sense for me either. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Please list them separately. Until you do, I'll vote against the en gros de-adminification. -- Schnee 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    You may indicate your votes in the candidate list if you do not wish to vote for them en gros, as you put it. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Agree with Schneelocke. --Lst27 (talk) 00:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Don't like wholesale de-adminship either. Dori | Talk 02:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Dori, also some sysops who left sometimes do return (I.E. Zoe)--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 03:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. There's no policy for deadminship other than by request or bad behaviour. Inactivity is neither of those. - Nunh-huh 07:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - if I were an admin and were in a coma for some time, I wouldn't want to wake up and find this. Granted, that'd be an unusual case. But besides, what good is this going to do? Do unto others... - RedWordSmith 18:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Sarge Baldy 02:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Very strong oppose, see comments Kim Bruning 20:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Rmhermen 23:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) We should make a policy first then I would probably support.
  14. This is a solution without a problem. Convince me that these accounts are somehow harmful (and I don't consider the password-theft bit compelling) and then I might support. Isomorphic 15:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. What good would that do? Rules and policies change all the time. I don't see why we should apply today's version of this/that/any standard/policy/rule those who have served Wikipedia in the past and have not demonstrated any lack of compliance with the rules (and more importantly, the spirit) of this project. Prolonged inactivity is also not a good reason. Several of the best Wikipedians have taken extensive Wikivacations and I can't see why an admin should not be allowed to. Kosebamse 15:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. Strongly oppose. Look, people sometimes wander off for a while because they need a break, or because of stress in their lives, or whatever. And it can be a long break, too - I was gone for the best part of a year. People were made admins (which is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right?) because they demonstrated judgement, and they aren't going to lose that just because they are gone for a while. From personal experience, yes, you have to be careful when re-appearing, because policy on some things will have changed subtly in the interim. If there is a security issue with inactive accounts, by all means lets find some way to deal with it. However, if it involves turning off the admin bit on the account after some period of inactivity, there ought to be some simple mechanistic way (e.g. contacting a bureacrat and asking) to get it turned back on. Noel (talk) 02:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. I'd like to note that I'm no longer inactive. On a more general note, I don't understand the purpose of this. The only reason I've read, "security", doesn't make any sense - an active user is just as likely to have their password guessed, I'd have thought. I'm strongly opposed until somebody explains the benefit. --Khendon 17:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. We have no agreed policy for this, and I do not see simple inactivity as a cause for de-adminning. De-admin "for cause" by all means, but if a person was thought sensible enough to be made an admin in the first place (whether they meet the current criteria or not) simple inactivity is not justification for their removal. -- Arwel 01:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  19. Strongly Oppose. As on of those listed, I can vouch that there may be many very good reasons why an individual may have been on a 'virtual vacation'. Now that I am in a position to be active once more I would have been most upset to have ben de-adminified. sugarfish 08:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is a user with a dozen edits since 4/03, including 7 from 10 to 15 Sept 2004, "inactive"?
    • I'm not sure who you mean. Mirwin had 7 edits in September 2003, not September 2004, if that's who you're referring to. uc
  • Shouldn't there be a separate vote on each one, rather than a slate? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I suppose so, if there are people who would vote differently for different users. But, I thought that most people would either support or oppose for all, since it's really an administrative matter rather than something related to each contributor, so I listed them as a group. uc 21:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Housekeeping isn't a bad thing, but do we have any kind of settled policy? For example, what constitutes consensus to de-admin? I think it would be better if we just had a firm up or down policy: i.e., no contributions for one year, or user formally left Wikipedia (i.e., "I'm leaving") and still gone after six months, just de-admin w/o vote. I don't know if those are the right time periods, but you get the idea. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Efforts to address this as a matter of policy have been divisive, in part due to a lack of examples. I think these cases in particular are clear-cut and hope we can reach a consensus on them. The best policymaking at Wikipedia has arisen from series of small decisions on specific cases made by consensus. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In any case, the de-nominator should sign his/her de-nominations. As for now I can only guess that the first support vote also nominated -- Chris 73 Talk 04:29, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. uc 14:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Can we propose deadminning of active admins this way? I have a few in mind. anthony 警告 15:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You can propose anything you want. For de-admining people you don't like, your're supposed to list them at WP:RFC, and if you list them here instead the listings are likely to be moved there. There is a form for you to fill out, I believe. uc 15:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe this should be moved to RFC as well, considering there's no policy for it and considering that when someone proposed a policy for it it failed. anthony 警告 17:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am a little surprised that policy is created on the hoof like this - surely it would have been a good idea to start a discussion in Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship and/or Village Pump. I vaguely remember an inconclusive discussion about the "inactivity" of some admins recently: was there any consultation about this "de-admin" procedure? (Please point me at it if there was: I don't remember any.) For example, to avoid frivolous or malicious sniping at active admins (see above; the presence of the RfC, etc, procedures are surely enough already), I would suggest that this procedure is only used for admins who:
    1. have been inactive for at least 12 months;
    2. have not responded to a preliminary warning on their user talk page for at least 1 month; and
    3. do not request reinstatement within 3 months of being deadmined.
These are just examples of the sorts of policies and safeguards that I would expect to see. If such safeguards can be developed, I think we could dispense with the "de-admin" vote, but the policies they need to be developed in a proper, unhurried discussion, not alongside a vote like this.
I believe the RfC procedure can lead to "de-admin"ing as a disciplinary measure, and some admins have volntarily surrendered their admin status: are there any other ways to "de-admin" someone? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with uc that we're more likely to get good policy from discussing specific cases and building consensus than from discussing in a void. It's important to get many people involved, and I think more of us feel comfortable contributing to an empirical format like this vote, and more of us have the time to do it. Take me, I'm probably not a singular example: I'm glad to vote here and write a modest comment, but I just don't have enough time to attempt philosophy in an abstract policy discussion. Not really the lungs for the rarified air of it, either. --Bishonen 02:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Policy" on Wikipedia isn't some sort of legal code, it's just a set of traditions and practices. We should not avoid things just because there "isn't any policy" on it. Isomorphic 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No: I accept entirely that we can create policy as we go along, mainly because policy is generally created to address a particular issue when that issue first occurs rather than deciding in abstract and in advance how things ought to be: however, I don't see why we can't discuss things before we start to do them - I suppose you would say that this is the discussion: well, fine; but it is nicer to discuss policy without a metaphorical gun pointing at your or someone else's head. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adminship is when you've convinced folks you can be trusted with the broom and mop. These folks might not be around much anymore, but um, why wouldn't they be allowed to employ broom and mop whenever they are? :-/ Kim Bruning 20:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this is a measure to stop password guessing, I suggest we set it up so that anyone who has not been on wikipedia for a couple of months automatically looses the admin flag in software, as a technical measure to prevent such cracking. If/when he/she/it comes back they can re-request at any time from a bureaucrat. I'd certainly support such a measure, since it wouldn't be a big deal. That's not what's being voted on here at the moment, so my vote remains oppose. Kim Bruning 17:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I like this last suggestion much better. Can it be done? Do we need to vote on it? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. Automatic 'inactive' status (based on last login, not last edit), with immediate reinstatement on request... useful, NABD. +sj+ 18:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Inactive1&oldid=1085558128"