Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Inactive, privileged accounts (2013)

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions‎ | Removal


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Housekeeping; inactive, privileged accounts edit

The below have all been actioned; good to see one or two with little time pop up and say a few words.
The following are a list of users who have elevated privileges on Wikinews who qualify for de-privving under the proposed inactivity policy.
  • I am working to build this list, and will take time to ensure efforts are made to contact these individuals via email, their talk pages here and any talk page they may indicate as a home project.
Unless otherwise indicated, this move to de-priv should (with the exception of reviewer rights) allow a speedy regaining of privileges should these individuals become active again. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: We don't need the proposed inactive policy. We have an enacted Privilege expiry policy, which already covers reviewer, and which does not require prior notification (though it doesn't forbid it either). --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action the lot? edit

  • With Pi zero having reminded me of WN:PeP, all of these technically qualify for privs being downgraded. Is there anyone who wants to comment on the merit of doing so? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although all of these may technically have expired, there is no harm in politely informing them via usual channels, waiting for a brief period of time (48 hours? a week?) before acting. Remember, these are people who are not involved and not using their privileges, so there should be no need to rush.
    For future expiries we may wish to drop a reminder note a day or two in advance of technical expiration. "We noticed you have not been active lately, and we know life may get between a Wikinewsie and the wiki. Just so you're aware, after {time period} of inactivity your {privilege type} will be reduced from {X} to {Y}." - Amgine | t 14:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yah. I just had a little chuckle at the thought of processing one of these a year after the prior priv went (tomorrow). --Brian McNeil / talk 14:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth pointing out to people that privileges can be regained with the greatest of ease where inactivity was the only reason for removing. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 14:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussed idea was not reminding people in advance, as "We don't want people coming back to make a token edit because they were pre-notified" (wording of Pi zero, copy pasted from the talk page I linked). Gryllida 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think we're going to agree on the "token edits" issue..." same talk page. Echo chambers do not a consensus make. - Amgine | t 10:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a lawyerly reflex there, Amgine? :-)
At the time we enacted the policy (as I recall, much of the discussion on that particular point was on other pages), we'd had several examples in recent memory of folks from the fork returning abruptly with egregiously policy-violating reviewer actions. So we crafted the policy with a similar spirit of admin's discretion in it as in our —imho, extraordinarily sane— blocking policy. When I applied the PeP on a large scale shortly before New Year's, I chose not to inform anyone in advance, because there were some on the list whom it would have been a bad idea to inform in advance and I had no wish to single them out by informing others. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. However, any such action taken without attempting prior notification is, by definition, uninformed consent. Which, I'm sure, you would not normally wish to accurately be applied to en.WN dev actions. While I understand the arguments in favour of such a policy, I do not feel their potential, even probable, benefit outweigh the certain harm. That was and is my opinion, and not likely to change. It costs very little to correct an error, much less than to repair a project's reputation. - Amgine | t 14:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
That's specious, since there's no consent involved (though sadly I'd not be surprised to see some legalistic... nonsense... conjured to claim otherwise). --Pi zero (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's clearly a point at which we are unlikely to agree. You have the policy you are comfortable with. It does not prevent you from dropping a note to inform, neither does it require it. - Amgine | t 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. So there is something on which we agree. ;-)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About 10 days passed, I think; I would perhaps suggest taking this action in bulk, as planned. Gryllida 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All below changes actioned; closing, and will notify via talk pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You got a little eager with the actioning Brian, my last edit pre-revocation was on the 25th :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Calebrw (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Cartman02au (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Chiacomo (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Cocoaguy (talk · contribs) — remove Admin, Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Divol (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Eloquence (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Foxj (talk · contribs) — remove Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Juliancolton (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Peter.C (talk · contribs) — remove Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Phearson (talk · contribs) — remove Editor edit

Questions, comments edit

I am deeply sorry that I have not been active. I have been struggling with a health issue and time away from the computer is neccessary. I intend to resume recording voice for articles tomorrow. Phearson (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phearson! Take care of yourself, first. When you are able to take up the mop again, there is an expedited process for getting your buttons back again. - Amgine | t 08:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Votes edit

Pmlineditor (talk · contribs) — remove Admin, Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Ragettho (talk · contribs) — remove Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Terinjokes (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

The wub (talk · contribs) — remove Admin, Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Voice of All (talk · contribs) — remove Editor edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Wackywace (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit

Zanimum (talk · contribs) — remove Admin edit

Questions, comments edit
Votes edit
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Removal/Inactive,_privileged_accounts_(2013)&oldid=4559326"