Meta talk:Administrators/Removal/Archives/2009

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

What is the point of this?

You've just removed adminship without discussion from two Foundation employees and James Forrester, and you're threatening to take it away from a system administrator, Delphine, Florence, Erik (the Foundation's Deputy Director), and two stewards.

Can we please, please, please think about what we're doing before we go mechanically following process? Werdna 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Meta policy is quite clear: inactive admins will be removed after six months if there has been minimal (i.e. fewer than ten edits) activity. If there has been minimal use of admin rights, but general activity, those admins can sign to indicate they wish to continue. If any admin wishes to return to adminship, they are welcome to create an RfA as anyone else is.
I don't see how someone's position on the foundation has anything to do with adminship on Meta. There are of course exceptions, for example, I removed Bastique's "official" account used to add names to the identification noticeboard which is fully protected. But if the said members the foundation don't even edit Meta, they don't require adminship, and if they found they did, I'm sure they could get it very easily. As for stewards, they are unrelated to Meta adminship. Stewards do not automatically gain admin rights here. Majorly talk 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thought was had: see Meta talk:Administrators/confirm#Tired_of_this. My actions here are aligned with community consensus; if the decision of January is seen to be problematic, things are open to discussion and the situation can be reviewed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether central notice edits are logged at all. Shuhari's desysop may be not valid for that reason. vvv 15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering how this policy came into existence, given there is not really a "meta community" to create consensus on such a "policy". I'm completely opposed to broad actions such as this, given that there is no rationale reason to remove someone's admin access on meta, even if they've been inactive here for a year. bastique demandez! 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You're very much mistaken about the meta community. Of course there is a community. Here is where the policy was originally discussed. It looks like quite a few people commented. That's our community right there. Majorly talk 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed this on IRC with Majorly. Obviously I'm not discussing the consensus, but the sensibility of such a policy. After pressing for examples, I was unable to elicit a single benefit of such a policy, while finding many disadvantages, primarily the frustration and friction caused when you rudely remove rights from somebody without any discussion. Werdna 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The meta policy of adminship, which I assume every admin reads is "get it if you need it, use it, lose if you don't". It's supposed to be a working wiki, and so admins who have stopped editing, for whatever reason, have no need to continue to hold on to admin rights. It's simply a matter of housekeeping. Perhaps the policy can be changed to make it less stringest (perhaps a year inactivity, which I'd be OK with). The fact is, many people agree with this removal policy so there must be a good reason for it, even if I can't think of it off the top of my head. I suggest if you're unhappy with how it is, to initiate (another) discussion. I don't think you'll find any agreement to remove inactivity policy altogether, but the possibilities of altering it are there.
The reason why people are removed without notice is so the system isn't gamed by people who only edit Meta in order to conserve admin rights (i.e. by showing up and signing whenever they're asked to). Likewise, I've yet to see a single argument as to why people who don't edit require admin rights. Majorly talk 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose people who think there isn't a community at Meta must not be part of it. That doesn't mean there isn't one - please do review past discussions, where you'll find both a community discussing the issue, and the rationales presented for the current consensus. As always, consensus may change; please feel free to bring up any arguments you feel are relevant to supporting your position. For now, the community's longstanding decision to remove inactive administrators in in effect & I see no problems with that.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Completely aside from the process, I will say that there are a number of good reasons to remove inactive admins. Adminship is not just a technical access. We can't just give it out forever to people we know aren't going to go berserk and delete the main page. There are responsibilities and expectations that come with adminship: that a new user should be able to approach an admin and seek direction, that an admin should be aware of policy, that they should know how to interpret consensus based on policy at such Meta processes as RfD, that they should know about community norms, and so on. A person who has edited only four or five times in half a year can't have this awareness. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)