Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Barliner
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to remove adminship at the moment –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Contents
Barliner
changeEnd date: 00:56 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of the administrator tools due to inactivity for a whole year.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
change#: Inactive administrator. User can re-claim if he returns I suppose. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As nom, and per above--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are an inactive admin (for more than 1 year), you shouldn't need the tools (because you're not here :p) --Bsadowski1 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom.-- † CR90 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No need of tools for inactive admins. Pmlineditor ∞ 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Per Maximillion Pegasus. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 04:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportPersonally I prefer 6 months over a year for desysop, no use for tools therefore no reason to have them He does have edits within the past year so doesn't qualify for the automatic removal but that doesn't mean the vote can't happen Jamesofur (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No use, no tools. I hope this will not fail like this one. --Barras (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hasn't edited in a while. No need for the tools. Yotcmdr =talk= 10:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without predjudice in editor getting them back when they return. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Claimgoal 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
change- Oppose per policy. He has edited in the last year and is not considered inactive per our policy. Either way (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 edit in a year and a half seems quite inactive to me. and the policy you cite (applies to most of them) is a guideline! You don't have to always follow them perfectly. Yotcmdr =talk= 13:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of having approved this policy if we're just going to ignore it in the first instance of it coming into play? Either way (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point in leaving him the sysop bit? We have too many admins, we may as well reduce the number by removing the inactive one's mops. Yotcmdr =talk= 13:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he's not inactive per our definition of inactive. Either way (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well do you think one edit in 18 months is active? I doubt it. Anyway, I'll just let you follow the policy; but he is definitely not active. The wording of the policy should be changed to 30 edits in the last year or so. Yotcmdr =talk= 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the policy states clearly Inactive administrators can have their user rights removed without needing a request for deadminship after six months of total inactivity. Yotcmdr =talk= 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "page in a nutshell" section says that...but that's inconsistent with the actual policy. The "page in a nutshell" is supposed to be a summary of the policy, but this one seems to be off. Either way (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more likely the page is wrong and what was contained in the nutshell (which you removed) was correct. I'll check the discussions. Yotcmdr =talk= 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "page in a nutshell" section says that...but that's inconsistent with the actual policy. The "page in a nutshell" is supposed to be a summary of the policy, but this one seems to be off. Either way (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the policy states clearly Inactive administrators can have their user rights removed without needing a request for deadminship after six months of total inactivity. Yotcmdr =talk= 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well do you think one edit in 18 months is active? I doubt it. Anyway, I'll just let you follow the policy; but he is definitely not active. The wording of the policy should be changed to 30 edits in the last year or so. Yotcmdr =talk= 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he's not inactive per our definition of inactive. Either way (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point in leaving him the sysop bit? We have too many admins, we may as well reduce the number by removing the inactive one's mops. Yotcmdr =talk= 13:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of having approved this policy if we're just going to ignore it in the first instance of it coming into play? Either way (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 edit in a year and a half seems quite inactive to me. and the policy you cite (applies to most of them) is a guideline! You don't have to always follow them perfectly. Yotcmdr =talk= 13:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Either way, not inactive per policy. It's quite clear. Majorly talk 14:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy states clearly that the candidate is not inactive yet. Let's stick with the policy or we will have trouble in the future. Chenzw Talk 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. Let's wait until December when he is on year inactive, even if I think he is still inactive and could be removed. --Barras (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly I don't see the difference 30 days will make. If he does return, he will still not be up to speed with how things are currently done on seWP, new policies and stuff.-- † CR90 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care about the 30 days, I still think that we can remove the bit, because I think he will not return. But now, as we have a policy, we should follow it. --Barras (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly I don't see the difference 30 days will make. If he does return, he will still not be up to speed with how things are currently done on seWP, new policies and stuff.-- † CR90 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the new policy. Razorflame 03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lets stick to what the policy says now. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as I believe they should need to run again for admin if considered long term inactive (enough to desysop), not getting the bit back automatically. And he hasn't been away long enough to make that firm decision for me. Kennedy (talk • changes). 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy is policy, people... — RyanCross (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy didn't come into effect until after this deRfa. So technically it doesn't apply to this deRfa. Just like we don't count votes from accounts created after the request was created. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
changeBeing pedantic, it hasn't been a year yet. —MC8 (b · t) 01:20, Sunday November 8 2009 (UTC)
- He's been inactive for a year plus. His last edit was less than a year ago. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, his last logged action was over a year ago.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The oppose section has a very good point. My only concern is that this request was filled before that policy became policy. It was still a proposed policy at that time. Also, if we decided to close this rfa per that policy, I will probably just end up posting this again after the 22nd of December, (So next month).--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though there's nothing in the policy that stops you from requesting de-adminship and as consensus is to remove the bit at the moment, I'd just let it run. Yotcmdr =talk= 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy involved has had key details changed 5 times by 4 people. Can someone who is uninvolved look at it? Chenzw Talk 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't really say "key details", just the "This page in a nutshell" part, which the most recent revision looks correct, as that's what the actual policy states, 1 year. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy involved has had key details changed 5 times by 4 people. Can someone who is uninvolved look at it? Chenzw Talk 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though there's nothing in the policy that stops you from requesting de-adminship and as consensus is to remove the bit at the moment, I'd just let it run. Yotcmdr =talk= 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To those discussing the policy: As far as I'm concerned, the policy does not prohibit removals prior to the one year mark, but prohibits retaining the tools for over one year of being inactive. Though I do follow rules strictly on Wikipedia, I can't see how this request violates the policy nor do I see how we can't remove the rights before the inactivity deadline. Since it's policy, then after one year, they should be removed by a bureaucrat without the need for a discussion. With that said, the community reserves the right to remove administrators for inactivity even if one year hasn't passed yet. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to agree with Mythdon, if you don't think he should have his tools removed until the year is up that is fine, I personally think he is more then inactive enough to have it removed without waiting that time period so I voted for removal. The way I understand the policy is that it states the requirements needed for automatic removal, it in no way limits are ability to ask for removal through the usual means (this) Jamesofur (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I would also like to point out once again that the policy we are using wasn't in effect when I opened this discussion... I'm not sure if that has any merit or not, but I will say it anyway.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.