Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Huji 2

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


Not demoted - No consensus to remove the admin access. -Barras (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huji change

Huji (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
RfdA of Huji
Previous RfdAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 13:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi everyone,

I am here to propose a de-adminship for Huji due to inactivity, which I will explain below. Whilst we do have an automatic removal policy (indeed, his previous RfdA two years ago [Take note of that number] was closed early for that reason), Huji does not meet any of the criteria for an automatic de-adminship, however in my opinion no longer has the knowledge, inclination or need to still warrant holding onto the administrator tools.

In terms of edits, Huji has performed a grand total of five since the previous RfdA, and before then he had edited only sporadically since June 2008, having only 13 edits in that time.

Of the five edits that have been performed since the start of 2009, just one has been a content change (removing whitespace) whilst the remainder have been project or userspace. Indeed, this userspace edit was simply to tell someone that left a message on his talk page that he is "not actively participating on Simple English Wikipedia these days". One of the project space edits was also to make sure that he extended his hold on the tools for a further year - being about three months from losing them due to inactivity.

Indeed, this is not the first time that this has happened. When questioned about his activity in July 2010, he replied making sure that he would retain the tools for a further year - despite not having used them since 2008 - a year before the previous deRfA.

The last administrative action performed was in May 2008, and no others have been performed since. This suggests that there is no need for the user to retain the administrator tools (And remember, we have no shortage of admins), and also that he may not be familiar with a number of our current policies - an awful lot has changed since 2008 when he was last properly active!

Whilst I am assuming good faith throughout this nomination and giving my reasons as above (Inactivity, may not know current policy etc) it does also slightly come across to me as someone who is "gaming the system", knowing that if he makes an edit a year he will not be desysopped - perhaps also hat collecting? Nonetheless, that is besides the point. What is the point is that, in my opinion, the current deRfA procedure is somewhat flawed, because, imo, things like this should not be able to happen underneath it - perhaps we add in a requirement to make X administrative actions (in the last X years?) or that X edits must be made - not just one. Users who are inactive but plan to return can always make this known at AN. Alas, though, I am now getting out of scope of this nomination!

I look forward to your comments. Please note: A !vote to support means that you support the removal of the tools. A !vote to oppose means that you think that Huji should retain the tools.

Thanks,

Goblin 13:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]

Note: The Inactive Administrators policy was changed after this RfdA was compiled and submitted and, as a result, my "nomination" statement is no longer accurate when taken in the context of the new, updated policy - Huji would now be considered inactive and have his rights removed on 1st January 2012. However, despite this, I still feel (As I have mentioned) that this is an example of the user gaming the system, and dragging out an already inactive adminship for a further year (Making four years since the tools were last used, ish) would be pointless. For reference purposes, my statement corresponds to this (And all earlier) revisions of the policy. Thanks, Goblin 16:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Support change

  1. Per "nomination". Goblin 13:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]
  2. Per the nomination and inactivity. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A clear-cut case. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - I don't think the policy in place is a good system. Yottie =talk= 07:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although we have a policy for inactive admins, this doesn't say that people cannot nominate people for inactivity. I support this as Huji is not active and as I agree that he made those edits only to retain his admin tool. I don't understand that people will retain tools they never use and so apparently do not need. I know that Huji is these days much more active at the farsi Wikipedia as an admin and checkuser. From my point of view, the user should be removed. Either be active and use the tool you have or lose them. -Barras (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Adminship is about use... if you need it, then keep it, if not, then remove it. For that matter, it is very much possible to make 100 small changes in one day and not edit for another year... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per nominator. User (or administrator) is not active to be keeping the rights... HydrizTalk 12:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'd normally be fine with the normal procedure but I think in this case, the accused(?) has only done the bare minimum required in order to keep the tools. fr33kman 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support removal - IMO he's exploiting the normal procedure to keep the tools. While we do not punish users, he has no need for him as explained by Gobby as he hasn't used them since '08. Support removal.--  † CR90  02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per CR90.--@jersey+ 02:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change

  1. Oppose Since we implemented the new 100 edits a year rule he will be removed Jan 1st. The purpose of the new method was to avoid situations like this were we have random removals throughout the year. So basically this is a procedural oppose. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Jon@talk:~$ 17:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    May you can explain your oppose? You know what can happen with unexplained opposes... Thanks, -Barras (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to speak for him but he has in the past mentioned that he won't support any measure that requires admins to have a certain edit count. So that would be my guess. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Djsasso has my pulse. Can't force people to work (or work more), or we can, but I think that is fundamentally wrong in a volunteer project. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I would rather let the procedure take its normal course. Kansan (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Let's let the policy run it's course. Even per the new policy of 100 edits, Huji could still return and make that number of edits, if he wishes. So, we need to give him that time.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, you're missing the point. The user has made no admin actions in three years, and just a handful of edits in the same period. The only edits made are to ensure that he gets to retain adminship for a further year, and under both the new and the old systems should have been de-admined back in 2009. If he had any intention of staying active, we wouldn't see a pattern of edits to retain adminship just before it's due to go. Goblin 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
    Oh no, I get your point, but I think we made the changes to the policy for a reason, and we should let it run it's course. Looking at a few of our inactive admins, we could have de-admined them in 2009/2010 per the new policy as well, so I think bringing Huji to RFDA when in the past he has been fully within policy is a little unfair, as we have not brought the others here while they are in the same boat. BTW, The old policy was only about edits. 1 edit per year, and you kept the tools. It didn't say anything about actual admin actions, so in 2009 Huji was fully within policy to keep the tools.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'm seeing this denomination as a way to forcibly remove Huji from his adminship position. If he really wanted to give up his admin tools, he would have resigned at AN. Also this wiki already has a policy for deadminship, so let's stick with the policy. —stay (sic)! 07:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments change

  • If we have then there's no mention of it anywhere - the policy page doesn't make any mention of it at all. I don't recall any discussion being made. Goblin 14:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]
  • Well, I was away for the start of it but not the culmination, so must have missed it. However, reading Gordon's comments (the last such comments on there) he states that "most are in favor of a change, whether it be an extension of 100 edits or a lower number. The people in opposition do however make good points", suggesting that it has never been formally closed (Which it hasn't been until now, apparently). I would suggest also that, because the change has not been made until after this RfdA was filed that the new policy does not apply to it, and rather the old one. (Not that either makes much difference, to be honest, as RfdAs should still be able to be filed at any time for any reason, regardless of policy). Goblin 15:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
  • I mean if you want to go after a user go for it. But what harm does it do to wait? The idea being that if you hound inactive administrators like this then you won't ever get them to come back. Where as if you handle it respectfully and with a set schedule then you might just eventually get them back, which is what the goal should be since we can always use more editors. I have no problem with his tools being removed. I just don't like how we always seem to go after inactive admins like they are bad people. Personally I think RfDas should only be used when an admin misused their tools. Ideally I would like an admin in Huji's position to just request removal on his own since he clearly knows he isn't editing here anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still kind of new here and not as familiar with the policies as I am at en.WP, but I would it makes little difference which way this goes. This user obviously is not interested in editing here and will almost certainly have their tools removed through the new automatic process. The fact they aren't using them tells us two things: 1:they also aren't misusing them 2:they probably don't really care if they lose them. Pulling them now does no harm, but neither does waiting for it to happen automatically. The only mitigating factor I see is that they appear to have done the absolute bare minimum required over the last several years, suggesting they want to retain their "status" but don't actually care about this project. I guess I would say that is a weak argument to just remove the tools and be done with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2011 (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/Huji_2&oldid=8898388"