Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Long term inactive administrators (December 2007)
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a discussion respecting what to do with inactive administrators. Please do not modify it.
Long term inactive administrators[edit]
All of the administrators listed below have been inactive for a significant period of time and it is on this basis I propose the rights are removed. Whilst noting all these users have this in commons, there may be other things to take into consideration for each user so I've kept them separate rather than grouping them. Adambro 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has an attempt been made to contact these users? --SVTCobra 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None whatsoever. For what reasons would you consider it worth attempting to contact them? Of the users listed below we have The bellman who has been inactive for 423 days all the way up to User:DouglasGreen who has been inactive for 884 days. I consider it unlikely that they are going to suddenly reappear and if they did, would it really be appropriate to step back into an admin role, would their knowledge of the current Wikinews situation really permit them to preform this role effectively? Whether it's just over a year or nearly two and a half, they clearly aren't on a short wikibreak. If they do return, and I certainly don't think reminding them they have admin rights is the right way to get them back, they should return under their own steam, the community can consider whether to reinstate the rights. Until then, we should remove the rights so as to try to get the number of users with admin rights down to a number that actually reflects the number of users who might actually use the rights. Adambro 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that you are essentially running a test of proposed policy, WN:IP, which requires that they be contacted. Also, these users were not around when this policy was proposed, so they cannot reasonably be assumed to realize that their inactivity would result in loss of privileges. --SVTCobra 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a test run of WN:IP and I'd ask that this isn't consider so, rather it is an attempt to begin to solve this issue in the most straightforward way possible which I consider this request to be. It would be ludicrous for any of these users to return after more than a year away expecting the status quo to have been maintained in that time. I don't consider it appropriate or necessary in this case to contact these users due to the length of time they've been absent as I've outlined above. Admin rights are granted not as some reward for hard work but as a tool that should be utilised. I don't see what contacting them would gain and would invite any suggestions as to why this should be done. Adambro 14:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, an attempt should be made to contact them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a test run of WN:IP and I'd ask that this isn't consider so, rather it is an attempt to begin to solve this issue in the most straightforward way possible which I consider this request to be. It would be ludicrous for any of these users to return after more than a year away expecting the status quo to have been maintained in that time. I don't consider it appropriate or necessary in this case to contact these users due to the length of time they've been absent as I've outlined above. Admin rights are granted not as some reward for hard work but as a tool that should be utilised. I don't see what contacting them would gain and would invite any suggestions as to why this should be done. Adambro 14:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Jason, I've outlined a number of reasons why contacting might be pointless and/or unwise so don't just come along and say that they should be contacted. As I said in my comment above, I'd welcome any suggestions as to why contacting them would be useful despite the issues I've noted. Adambro 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look we have policies and procedures. And we follow them. And IMO, until ALL admins have been contacted or an attempt to truly contact them has been made, then no voting should even commence. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Jason, I've outlined a number of reasons why contacting might be pointless and/or unwise so don't just come along and say that they should be contacted. As I said in my comment above, I'd welcome any suggestions as to why contacting them would be useful despite the issues I've noted. Adambro 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do indeed have policies and procedures, although they say little about this situation, hence the proposed policy related to this. You are welcome to your opinion DF but this request is perfectly valid without contacting these users and the community are free to have their say and vote. Again, since no suggestions as to why we should contact these admins has been put forward I still don't consider it necessary or appropriate. Adambro 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but several of your colleagues have vastly different opinions, so you're welcome to dig your head out of the sand and come up with some sort of effort to address this issue. Surely you have heard of E-mail? Pilotguy roger that 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I welcome any comments and suggestions about how to proceed with this issue but whilst I note the two users suggesting I should contact these admins, I've not seen any justification for doing so to address the concerns I've already outlined. It is on this basis that I maintain my position. Adambro 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding this diff, I am not going to feel forced into contacting these admins simply because my request is not receiving support. If anyone would put forward some reasons why these admins should be contacted then my thinking might be influenced. It is ridiculous that some members of the community consider it more important to remind these users who haven't participated for over a year that they have admin rights rather than putting the WN project, and its current contributors first. If this request fails because I don't contact them then so be it, I've made clear my concerns and no one has provided reasons for ignoring them. There needs to be some reviewing of priorities going on here. Adambro 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been under the impression we contact them. It is very simple: Leave a message on their talk page and e-mail them through Wikinews. I refuse to and will not vote on any de-admin unless an effort to contact them has been made. Since I have been around that's how we do it and I see no reason why it needs to change now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to choose not to vote if you wish but I'm not going to go against my thinking on this issue simply because "that's how we do it". For a start, my understanding is that "we" haven't done anything about this issue in the past so I'm not sure how we can really have established a procedure. Policies or guidelines, conventions or traditions, they are all open to question and not set in stone. As I've stated, I have a number of concerns about contacting these inactive users and until some justification for contacting them is put forward my position will remain unchanged. I keep asking for this but no suggestions are forthcoming and still the "we must contact them" persists. If we were to contact these users, what would we say? Are we going to wait for some kind of reply? Adambro 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Life can be so simple sometimes... I just took 3 minutes to email User:The bellman and User:Karen through wiki-mail, the others don't have it activated and their pages don't list email addresses, plus they're not on WN:CV (were a lot of emails can be found). So, reasonable attempt made, no give them some reasonable time to respond. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can give you one good reason: These people are who took WN off the ground and made it what it is today. Without them there would not have been a Wikinews. And to simply take away their admin-ship because they may have personal issues or busy with other things is ridiculous. I am not concerned with a reply. I am more concerned with letting them know whats going on. They have that right, and so far as I know no one is required to sit in front of their computer and monitor every detail happening on WN and contributing to it. If it were difficult to contact them, I would agree with you. But in this case its very very easy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Steven's message: I'm very disappointed that you'd choose to go behind my back as it were and choose to contact them despite the concerns I've outlined. The decision was not based on whether or not it would be possible to email them, I'm perfectly familiar with how to email a user. So now what do we do Steve? Are we supposed to sit around waiting for some kind of reply? Adambro 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes...a reasonable time frame. We don't have to wait weeks if that's what you are implying. But it was rather simple to contact them and if you were refusing to contact them, then I see no reason why someone else should not make that attempt. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never suggested that there was any real problem with trying to contact these users, rather that it would be unwise to do so or not necessary worth doing. It should be plainly obvious that ignoring the concerns I've outlined is somewhat impolite. I've still yet to hear any reasons for contacting them despite this having taken place. Still, we can't change the past so perhaps Steve could at least provide us with a copy of the message he has sent so we can begin to consider what sort of response we might expect. There is plenty of time for them to respond now as the request won't be closed for a good while I'd think. In the meantime, I see nothing which prevents anyone from voting or otherwise commenting on these users and I don't see what response from these users would impact on the process. Unless of course they state on wiki that they wish for their rights to be removed which would speedy things up. Adambro 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going behind your back, I'm doing what is commonly done, i.e. informing users they're being voted on. I'd say wait at least a week. I simply sent them a short message inviting them to come here and comment if they want. I think that if they would, it could change some votes (mine at least). I didn't mean to insult you and if I have, I apologise, but it was not my intention. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm putting a message on the talk page of any admin listed below who hasn't been contacted. They might still watch us, just not contribute. Anyways, the way I see it is that this is a public process, and the people being voted on should know about it. I don't expect that they're are going to come back, all I expect them to do is maybe leave a note on top of there request at most. The way I see it is it is common courtesy to tell them what is happening. I wouldn't want this to happen to me without even an attempt at telling me. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have emailed ronline and Cgorman, as well left messages on their 'pedia talk page where they have edited recently. That just leaves DouglasGreen unknowing of this. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Bawolff for the email. You can remove my adminship status, no vote needed. I enjoyed writing here in the early days, and may some time return; however, for the moment, life is too busy for me to commit to this project. Good luck all. → CGorman (Talk) 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have emailed ronline and Cgorman, as well left messages on their 'pedia talk page where they have edited recently. That just leaves DouglasGreen unknowing of this. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm putting a message on the talk page of any admin listed below who hasn't been contacted. They might still watch us, just not contribute. Anyways, the way I see it is that this is a public process, and the people being voted on should know about it. I don't expect that they're are going to come back, all I expect them to do is maybe leave a note on top of there request at most. The way I see it is it is common courtesy to tell them what is happening. I wouldn't want this to happen to me without even an attempt at telling me. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going behind your back, I'm doing what is commonly done, i.e. informing users they're being voted on. I'd say wait at least a week. I simply sent them a short message inviting them to come here and comment if they want. I think that if they would, it could change some votes (mine at least). I didn't mean to insult you and if I have, I apologise, but it was not my intention. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above response is exactly why these people should be contacted. Where the response is "I don't have time but might come back" phrased such as this we've been fair and civil. If there is no response then that may prejudice people if they come back at some point looking to have the same privileges.
- I object to the entrenched positions that a couple of contributors have taken on this issue. Neither of those advocating either extreme have backed up their assertions with valid reasons. On one side we have "OMG! They were here in the beginning, we must apply a procedure I imagine we have" versus "OMG! You invited them back? What if they take you up on the offer and we can't de-admin?" --Brian McNeil / talk 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CGorman no longer has admin rights following his comment that he is happy for it to be removed. Adambro 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are neglected pages on this very issue - WN:SL. If we're going to do things right I'd think the first people that the stop-loss should be applied to are inactive admins. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CGorman no longer has admin rights following his comment that he is happy for it to be removed. Adambro 13:03, 2 January 2008 (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.