Meta talk:Administrators/Archives/2005

Bit removed

The fact that it took a month for me to notice that I didn't have the delete button perhaps shows that I don't really need admin powers here anymore! And if inactivity implies deadminship, then that is something I am happy to live with ^*. However I do think it is wrong that the de-admining took place without a little note or anything to inform me. Indeed the edit to this page, listing the newly inactive people was made without so much as a summary comment. Pcb21 15:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would be grateful if someone could point me to the actual poll on deadminning policy. I can find a reference to the poll on the requests for adminship page that points to a redirect to this page, but nothing in the history. Pcb21 15:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, could someone delete "Homer Simpson" from sep11.wiki. Thanks. Pcb21 15:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The poll was at Meta:Requests for adminship#Sysop confirmation.2C April 2005, though I believe it was re-opened after some of the people there were de-sysoped. I do agree with you that people need to be informed when they are having their status removed, though I can understand that Anthere may have thought there was little point in doing this for users who had been inactive for 10 months. I've deleted Homer Simpson. Angela 16:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see, what is still there, was the poll. So, from what I can tell, and please tell me if I am wrong, the "inactivity => deadminship" policy decision was made without wide comment. If that is the case, it could be the wrong decision. After all if the user is active on their "home" wiki, then the small benefit to be had from that user occasionally passing through and using their powers to the good probably outweighs the possible outweighs the negatives (security)?

Hmmm I have a different opinion from you. If you are active on your home wiki, that's nice. But it doesn't mean you are automatically worthy to be granted sysophood here on meta - unless you are also active here and involved into its community. If you have no edit during 10 months on a wiki, how can you convince you are familiar with its policies? (Personally I proposed on some wikis "three months inactivity, then desysoping policy") From my view, not only security but more engagement seem to be a matter here. To make clear, I have no reason to oppose you run again. I state here only inactivity for a long term seems to be a good reason of desysopping for me. Aph.

The point you make about familiarity with current policies is a good one and I hadn't thought about that when making my comments. It alone is sufficient to tip the balance in favour of me supporting the desysop process. I'm sure next time people are desysoped this way, a note will be left on their talk page here on meta just to keep them informed (if and) when they come back. Pcb21 13:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This policy was proposed, agreed upon, is explained on admin policy, and now have been applied for more than a year. As far as I know, no one really complained. It has too sides... one is simply to remove adminship to those inactive here to avoid an unhealthy inflation of admins while only a very limited number actually does the job. The other side is a simple reconfirmation of sysop once a year, per quarter; No big deal. This policy was set for several reasons, one being that many editors were made here sysops by "poor process". More than a year ago, the process to make admin here was simply to accept any request from someone already admin on another project. But the problem is that we give sysop access with no vote on small projects, sometimes resulting in people given sysop access, which really should not... we started observing an inflation of people being automatically made sysops here, even though meta community did not trusted them at all.

People on meta do not consider sysopship is a big deal. You need it ? Ask for it. You are inactive, you loose it. You do not need it, drop it. Pcb, if for whatever reason, you think it would be helpful for you to have it again, please do ask. We do not make big deal over this, you'll be made very quickly :-)

I do not think I ever left a note on a user page for deadminship due to inactivity... because in most cases, they are... precisely gone :-) Besides, I think sysops should know the process related to adminship if they are sysops here. Hence, all sysops active here, should know they will be desysop if they leave, and have their status reconfirmed every year. Again, no big deal. Different community, different rules ;-)

Anthere 16:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the other matter, I am feeling the urge to take up cause of sep11.wiki... (discussion moved to Meta:Babel)

50 edits per year

It seems a bit strange that I have to do at least 50 edits per year if I want to keep my sysop access. Meta sysopship is an important but most certainly ancillary part of my activities. I made about 150 edits this year so it's not a problem this time around, but at some time in the future I might have to take a bit of time off development work at the end of each year, to make up my 50 edit quota. Was that the intention of the policy? -- Tim Starling 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't the intention. Perhaps there's no need to have the inactivity clasue as well as the "Poll after a year" part since this would allow inactive people who are still trusted to retain adminship. Angela 02:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)