Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Billz

< Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Billz

change

Last edit 8 May 2008. Over 1 year ago. End date: 23:32, 11th June 2009

Putting Billz up for a desyopping through inactivity, per what was decided at the last "round" of desysopping. Is welcome to ask for it back if they return. Regards, Goblin 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result
Request for de-adminship successful. A request will be made at Meta shortly.
Note
Per previous community consensus, all de-sysoppings due to inactivity can be reversed on the administrator's request. Therefore, Billz will be able to get the flag back (in spite of comments below) unless a formal discussion about de-sysoppings is started. Chenzw  Talk  14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

change
  1. Support per "nomination" Goblin 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Too inactive to retain tools. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support but without the "Is welcome to ask for it back if they return" proviso. If a user is gone for over a year, I don't think we should just give the rights back. We change too much over that span, in my opinion, to just automatically grant the rights back. Either way (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine by me. I added it in as it seemed to be what was "agreed" with the last round, and some of them had been gone for a good two years. Regards, Goblin 00:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - with proviso that they can have it regranted upon request. fr33kman talk 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of this if they can just ask for it back? Majorly talk 00:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Granting the bit is about the community trusting the user; removing it for inactivity is about safety for the project, not about a loss of trust. We don't know if Billz has just stopped editing, lost his password, or what. Since there has not been a concern of loss of trust raised here, I believe that an admin who has had the bit removed should be able to receive it back without going through another RFA, in these circumstances. If there is evidence that the account has been compromised (no edits for over a year seems to indicate not) then I'm all for removing it and not regranting it without a new RFA. But since that's not the case, I think an admin who lost it solely for inactivity should be able to have it regranted based on the initial RFA and not have to go through another. It's just an opinion, Majorly, I'm not dogmatic about it. :) fr33kman talk 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. They have lost trust by not being here, active in the community. Majorly talk 09:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you may have a point. I just don't like the idea of "punishing" someone for inactivity; we're not paid to do this work after all. I don't have strong feelings either way on this one, I'll go with whatever the consensus is. fr33kman talk 17:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support without prejudice. Can have it back when they come back as they aren't losing it under controversial circumstances. -Djsasso (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too inactive to retain tools. As Djsasso said, can have it back on returning. Pmlinediter  Talk 07:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - An user who don't use/need this tools shouldn't have them. Barras (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Those who have the flag should be active. If someone asks an admin for help, they should reasonably expect a reply, but this account is clearly dormant. EhJJTALK 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Still trusted ; this User can have the tools back on returning. ONaNcle (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: I see no reason to keep his account as a syops. As said previously, if he does return he can get the bit back easily.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: Should be desysopped. If he returns, give him the mop back. Until then, no reason for him to keep it. Cheers, Razorflame 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, should get tools back if request is made in the next year. If not, RFA. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Remove the sysop bit, but I'd be fine granting rollback; there's no activity requirement for that, and Billz obviously can identify vandalism (when he's here, that is). The crux of my personal argument for deadminship on the grounds of inactivity is that policies and guidelines can change while someone is gone, and I'd rather he re-acclimate himself before getting his sysop bit back (versus rollback, which is used on obvious vandalism and as such doesn't have any policy or guideline changes over the course of time). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per long period of inactivity. — RyanCross (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

change

Comments

change

Who is this for? The user links at the top are for Freshstart, but this is listed as Billz. Either way (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's for Billz. I copied from the last deadmin request and forgot to change it. Thanks, Goblin 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this inactivity business. I find it unwelcoming in the most to the user if he/she were to decide to return. Billz seems to have left over some disagreement over deletion summaries, and the likelihood of him returning is diminished even moreso by removing his/her admin bit. Has anyone even tried to to contact them about this RFDA?? Maxim(talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't true at all. He was inactive since October 2007 when he edited a couple of times, then before that August, and fairly sporadic. He returned for 8 days in May 2008, and hasn't been seen since. In short, he has a history of disappearing for long periods. I don't believe anyone has contacted him though, but I think this RFDA isn't needed. They are better when a few are done at once. Majorly talk 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the difference exactly (between group deadminship or singular deadminship)? The only benefit I can draw from doing them in groups, is that we do it like "spring cleaning". One every now and then shouldn't hurt. Synergy 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect this is going to end up as a de-sysop, who's job is it to go list it at Meta? Any admin, an uninvolved admin or a 'crat? I would assume it would be a 'crat as per norm, but just double-checking and wanting to make it clear for everyone :). Regards, Goblin 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that any admin can do it, involved, uninvolved or crat. It's up to the steward to read the discussion and confirm consensus has been achieved. fr33kman talk 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of appropriateness, I'd say that a local bureaucrat should close the RfDA, then post the request on Meta for the stewards. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship/Billz&oldid=8899369"