Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2021
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Inactive administrators as of 13 August 2021
[edit]Admin actions over the last six months can be checked using this tool.
Notes
[edit]- Inactive administrators have been notified via talk page message and email, according to the policy.
- Exemptions:
- CommonsDelinker and KrinkleBot (no admin actions each) are exempt for being bot accounts.
- Lofty abyss (1 admin action) is exempt for having notified the community earlier, according to the policy.
- Additional permissions:
- 99of9 has bureaucrat. If they fail to sign here, it will also be removed, according to the policy.
- Rama has oversighter. If they fail to sign here, it will also be removed, according to the policy.
- Mdaniels5757 has interface-admin. If they fail to sign here, it will also be removed, according to the policy.
List
[edit]Inactive since last run
[edit]- Golbez (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) (4 admin actions)
- I'd conclude that Golbez made exactly 5 admin actions within 6 months after their signature at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2021 at 16:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC). Different opinions? --Krd 11:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should consider "the time of the notice" per the policy which is "07:59, 13 February 2021", so this action is after the six-month period. Sorry Golbez, just trying to enforce the policy. I may support you if you decide to go through another RfA. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course right, I read the policy wrong assuming the date of the signature is relevant. So, rights removed per policy. Sorry. --Krd 13:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for removing this persons rights Krd. We should only keep admins who actually do work here - Not keep those who only make six admin edits a year in order for them to keep their tools. It's GAMING the system and it's wrong. –Davey2010Talk 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course right, I read the policy wrong assuming the date of the signature is relevant. So, rights removed per policy. Sorry. --Krd 13:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should consider "the time of the notice" per the policy which is "07:59, 13 February 2021", so this action is after the six-month period. Sorry Golbez, just trying to enforce the policy. I may support you if you decide to go through another RfA. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd conclude that Golbez made exactly 5 admin actions within 6 months after their signature at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2021 at 16:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC). Different opinions? --Krd 11:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Juliancolton (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) (0 admin action)
- Removed. --Krd 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Inactive non-admin interface administrators
[edit]Username | Admin actions | Current status |
---|---|---|
Dschwen (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) | 1 | Signed |
FDMS4 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) | 0 | Removed |
Admin responses
[edit]Admins who have been queried about their adminship, please sign below and also fill in the table above. If you don't sign by 12 September 2021, 23:59:59 UTC, you will lose adminship automatically.
Confirm your adminship here
[edit]- --DaB. (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Could there be a bug in the software? I was quite active in the spring AFAIR. --DaB. (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @DaB.: Hi. Per the logs, your last admin action was on 28 October 2020, which is over 6 months ago. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Confirming adminship-- notafish }<';> 13:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still here. Would rather keep it. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Golbez: Hi. Sorry but you aren't eligible for keeping the admin rights. Per the policy, less than 5 admin actions for the second time continuously results in removal of admin rights. But let's see what crats say. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- What a horrible policy. You lost an admin today. Great job, the project is clearly better off with my help I guess. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Golbez: Hi. Sorry but you aren't eligible for keeping the admin rights. Per the policy, less than 5 admin actions for the second time continuously results in removal of admin rights. But let's see what crats say. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still here. --Polarlys (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I routinely perform Oversight actions. Rama (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm active on my backends on WMF cloud (WikiMiniAtlas and FastCCI). I'd like to retain interface admin rights for the express purpose of managing the front ends interfaces if necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still here, just tend to be on and off depending on my other hobbies. Plenty of admin actions in Jan and Feb just before the 6-month cut-off. --Pitke (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Confirming. —David Levy 21:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Confirming. Also still working across the Wikimedia ecosystem. --99of9 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still here, I'd like to keep my admin rights too -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still here. I was quite busy lately IRL, but I will try to be more active on Commons in the future. BrightRaven (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still here. Hesperian 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still somewhat active. clpo13(talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't realize I needed to sign somewhere? czar 01:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
To resign your adminship, sign here
[edit]- Dantadd✉ 23:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Dantadd: Hi. In Special:Diff/581063753 you signed here in resign section and marked status as signed, so probably you want to resign therefore I had updated the status but looks like a crat isn't sure. So can you please confirm whether you want to resign or not? Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I confirm my resignation. Thanks.Dantadd✉ 18:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your service. --Krd 05:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I confirm my resignation. Thanks.Dantadd✉ 18:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Results
[edit]The following admins:
Czar (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)- Dereckson (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)
- Y.haruo (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)
and the following interface admins:
- FDMS4 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)
have failed to sign before 13th September. Therefore as per the policy, their rights will be removed. Thanks to them for their service! @Krd: ^, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I just signed above. I didn't realize there was a signing requirement. czar 01:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It appears we now are having difficult decisions with every inactivity run. The signature of Czar clearly appeared too late. They made enough admin actions after the notice, but the policy clearly states that the signature is required. This was also clearly pointed out in the talk page message, and is common sense for years. While I'm not really a friend of applying a policy for no reason except for the sake of the policy, I also don't see any argument why a bureaucrat could override the policy in this case, so my conclusion is to remove the rights from the four accounts mentioned above. Thank you all for your service! --Krd 06:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's disappointing. czar 06:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously it is. You are of course always welcome to create a new RFA. --Krd 07:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's disappointing. czar 06:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It appears we now are having difficult decisions with every inactivity run. The signature of Czar clearly appeared too late. They made enough admin actions after the notice, but the policy clearly states that the signature is required. This was also clearly pointed out in the talk page message, and is common sense for years. While I'm not really a friend of applying a policy for no reason except for the sake of the policy, I also don't see any argument why a bureaucrat could override the policy in this case, so my conclusion is to remove the rights from the four accounts mentioned above. Thank you all for your service! --Krd 06:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
In the past signing was not demanded so harshly:
- Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2018: "Gruznov signed at bit after the deadline, and performed 2 admin actions. I'm going to count this as sufficient for this run."
- Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2017: "Failed to sign, but performed > 5 admin actions since the start of the run"
- Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2016: "Failed to sign, but performed > 5 admin actions since the start of the run"
I would restore Czar's rights. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- So should we change the policy accordingly that signature OR admin actions are sufficient? --Krd 08:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that will correspond more to how we have acted in the past. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I would object to restoring their rights - Czar has as far as I know been a great admin and they're a respected user here and at EN ... however unfortunately policy is policy and if we were to allow restoration here then it would open a whole can of worms and could set a precedent of "Oh I forgot to sign, oh well I'll ask anyway" so for that reason and that reason alone I have to oppose.
- It's unfortunately one of those instances where nobodies a winner here but as I said unfortunately for better or for worse policy is policy,
I appreciate it's a lot of hoo-har going through RFA again but realistically I can't see why they wouldn't sail through this time as they've been active and as far as I know haven't landed themselves in hot water. –Davey2010Talk 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)- We can distinguish good from bad ourselves. And you, Davey, do that as well. In my opinion this is place to follow Commons:Ignore all rules. If somebody unworthy applies for admin (or other) rights, we understand that and do not give the rights. Taivo (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair point Taivo we do. I have very mixed feelings on it and am 50/50. Either way I'm pleased they're an admin again, –Davey2010Talk 11:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's of course not easy for me to admit having made a wrong call again, but (ignoring most of the arguments shown above) I now think the most important point is that, at the time of the closure of the discussion the user simply wasn't inactive per policy any longer, and it does not matter if they had been inactive before. So the removal of the rights for inactivity was not reasonable. I will restore them now and apologize to the user. --Krd 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- (No personal thing with Czar, just trynna understand the policy) The policy clearly mentioned that it requires signature. I would say that the policy got violated in the previous inactivity runs mentioned by Taivo. @Krd: With respect, I think your change to the policy page is controversial as it has been done without community discussion. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course free to revert it, if you think it's controversial. I though think it's not a change but a clarification. We cannot remove right from somebody per "inactivity" rationale when the user in fact isn't inactive at the time the removal happens, it just doesn't make any sense at all. --Krd 10:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. What's the point of signature procedure then? -- CptViraj (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Clarification: Though I don't agree with applying IAR here, I have no objection with Czar's rights being restored. I just want to have a clear policy with community consensus so we don't have this type of situations in future runs. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course free to revert it, if you think it's controversial. I though think it's not a change but a clarification. We cannot remove right from somebody per "inactivity" rationale when the user in fact isn't inactive at the time the removal happens, it just doesn't make any sense at all. --Krd 10:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- (No personal thing with Czar, just trynna understand the policy) The policy clearly mentioned that it requires signature. I would say that the policy got violated in the previous inactivity runs mentioned by Taivo. @Krd: With respect, I think your change to the policy page is controversial as it has been done without community discussion. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- We can distinguish good from bad ourselves. And you, Davey, do that as well. In my opinion this is place to follow Commons:Ignore all rules. If somebody unworthy applies for admin (or other) rights, we understand that and do not give the rights. Taivo (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)