Wikinews talk:Inactive Policy

Add topic
Active discussions

CommentsEdit

The bar you are setting for remaining an admin is almost higher than that for becoming an admin on Wikinews. --SVTCobra 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, adminship is granted when one feels they can trust a user. Trust is fragile, in my experience.  Thunderhead  ►  03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I would propose adding an Assumed resignations section to WN:A where, after matching the criteria we end up agreeing on, inactive administrators and bureaucrats are listed. After a period of listing there, for example a week, a bureaucrat may de-sysop.
My thinking is, we should have a process that starts when the criteria are met and a period of time for anyone on the wiki who knows the inactive user to contact them.
I'm not going to vote on this at the moment, I think a vote should be deferred until there has been time to discuss the rules we are going to apply. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree Brian. That is just more work, and will become a popularity contest, "I like UserXXX support him....I hate UserYYY"
I strongly support this policy, and am making it my goal to ensure it is passed. I support Edbrown’s changes, that includes everyone who is elected into a position of trust.
This must pass, in a strong form, not some watered down liberal form, I proposed this, as there was talk on the talkpage of WN:A, and as 1) I get sick of the “We already have 46 admins, why do we need any more” and 2) It will allow us to be more generous in granting adminship, because adminship can be removed if they are inactive, (and already if adminship is misused, the arbcom can remove it)

Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brian (New Zealand). I propose that we directly follow the policy on Meta.  Thunderhead  ►  08:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Note Thunder, that this is slightly different than meta's policy. It has been adapted for wikinews, what works there, will IMO most likely work in the same form hereBrian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it be turned into a popularity contest. There shouldn't be exceptions, just an opportunity for someone in the community to either email or place a message on the listed user's talk. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. We need to adapt it, and we need to notify the user.  Thunderhead  ►  09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a warning should be sent, before they loose it, giving everyone a chance to comeback, if they can. However, that should not be in the policy, it should be something that is done, as of respect and as a way to maybe get some users back (even if it was just to meet the min requirements.) So, if every admin, currently 46, wrote 1 article each 6 months, and 100 eidts each, that is a damn sight better for us, than no article, and no 4600 edits. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Meta Admin policy Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think commons has something similar. to contrast with wikipedia's policy where there is 1200 some admins. Bawolff 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Meta's policy is not like Wikinews'. They vote on removing the users' admin rights, we remove the users' admin rights immediatly without voting on it. I would support this policy if we follow Meta's. FellowWikiNewsie 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Follow:No one has said it is the same! what works there, will not and cannot work here. A vote, is wrong because it comes a popularity contest, "I like UserXXX support him....I hate UserYYY". This policy does not get a procedure on how removing admins is done. OIt just sets a standard that current admins must meet. The policy should not say a vote has to be held, remember voting is evil. However, I would expect a procedure (note the different between policy and procedure) will be developed, where like Briammc says before. Add an Assumed resignations section to WN:A where, after matching the criteria in this policy, inactive administrators and bureaucrats are listed. After a period of listing there, for example a week, then the users privileges will be removed. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...I looked at the Meta page for voting on removing admin rights...I don't see any hate comments. FellowWikiNewsie 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are completely, and deliberately missing my point. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting viewsEdit

Voting is evil, plus it should be deabted before it is voted on Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*Support DragonFire1024 04:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Per brianmc's comment above but will still likely support. DragonFire1024 07:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support --Nzgabriel | Talk 09:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
  • oppose I don't see the need for this (with exception to maybe accredited reporters), I don't see the need to de-admin people just because they're inactive. Bawolff 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Especially considering that arbitrators are relelected every year, so if they're inactive they won't be elected again. Bawolff 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This sounds like we are punishing admins because they are inactive. Some of them need to leave for good reasons, real life, etc. If a user doesn't want to be an admin anymore they can request it. This policy should only apply to accredited reporters. FellowWikiNewsie 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Not Bawolff? why should we allow inactive admins been GOD, who feel that they have "unlimited privilege and power", these adminship, etc is a tool to assist in this sites most important function, and that "is" news stories. your right about arbitrators been reelected, so that has been removed. There is a need for this, a very important need, to keep checks and balances in place in Wikinews, to ensure the community is trusting, and to adminship etc to be put into perspective. Admins, Bureaucrats and AR are not different from other users, except that after a certain amount of time they have earned the trust of the community to perform certain functions that new users need more time to learn about, users come and go, but in fact, there is a far smaller number of active Admins and Bureaucrats who patrol Recent Changes and do what they can to ensure the high quality of our content (and see that it the content is provided in an amicable manner). Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Just my personal opinion, Honestly I don't have a very good argument to back it up. *ducks*. Mostly, if they were able to get it in the past, then they should keep it (IMO) unless the community looses faith (via a de-admin vote). Bawolff 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Why should good admins who earned the community's trust be removed of their admin status? They shoudn't. FellowWikiNewsie 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Old admins...really old ones who have not edited in forever, have NOT earned the trust of new users. DragonFire1024 21:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
They did not earn this communities trust. Wikinews changes week by week. Hardly no user, who was here when I started, is still here today. How can you expect todays community to trust these users, when they don't know these users. When you get this tools, you should be active, it is no excuse not to be - why do you need them, as you can't use them when your not active. If you look at admin history, over the entire history of wikinews, we should not be giving out admimship as every (or nearly every) admin's article count has gone down, and in many cases died after receiving adminship, and that is what this is to address. When you receive adminship, you make a commiment, a contract, with the community to meet those basic requirements. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Quote

They did not earn this communities trust. How can you expect todays community to trust these users, when they don't know these users.


Ok. I request that BrianMc, Bawolff, Brian New Zealand, etc, be removed of their status because I joined Wikinews after they became admins. LOL. FellowWikiNewsie 22:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This policy is not to target active users like that, who were editing the day you join WN, and are still editing today. It is for users who have never edited at all, in your time been here. Then turning up and taking over. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh?? From what I see on this page is that this policy is about admins that have less than 100 edits in the last 6 months get de-admined, not "for users who have never edited at all, in your time been here. Then turning up and taking over." Huh??? Isn't it good if they start editing("turning up and taking over")??? I am confused by your comments. FellowWikiNewsie 22:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This Is what this policy is for. If you are not active, you would not need adminship. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not feel the requirements accurately reflect what inactive means. I have a big problem with the requirement of “at least one news article.” From October 2005 till mid August 2006 I did not write any articles (I did 30+ in the weeks before my break and was burned out). I would not consider my self inactive though, I was very involved in the community and made over 3000 edits during those months. Mine is a bit of an extreme case, but these hard numbers are unfair to our users who are involved and active copy editors or doing admin things but are not creating new articles.We have no real reason to get rid of admins, so some sort of low min number of edits (~10-15 in 6 months) would be good. --Cspurrier 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If wikinews admins can't write a news article, then they are not helping in improving the site. They are just setting more policy's rules and voting to delete news articles someone else has made a effort to write. Why should someone who has not written, have a right to delete a article, that a user in good faith has written. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So, users like Bawolff, etc, are not helping in improving the site? This is an insult to those users reading this. I ask that you review our civility policy. Thank you. FellowWikiNewsie 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I ask you to review that policy. Do not cite policy as attack, as that is not in-line with WN:E. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to attack you by citing a guidline. I am grearly sorry if I have offended you. Lets all try to respect everyone's opinions regardless if they support this new policy or not :-) FellowWikiNewsie 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, lets calm down here for a little bit. I do understand where you (people supporting this) are coming from, but having a guideline to remove adminship, etc for being inactive, where you don't have to be active to get said position in the first place seems a bit strong to me. I would support CSpurrier's idea though, as in all honsetly, I'm not really sure that people like ronline (talkcontribsblocksprotectsdeletionsmoves) (To pull a random name out of a hat), who hasn't had a single edit in 8 months, should still have adminship. Not to say that if s/he becomes active again s/he shouldn't get it back fairly easily perhaps, but I think that keeping it for him/her after so long may be a bit too much to expect. On a side note, its actually intreasting to look back at my RfA. out of the 7 who supported me, only 3 are still active (Ed, Deprify, CSpurrier) three have left (Amgine, MrM, Neutralizer), and to be truthful I don't even remember who Wolfrider was. Its sort of sad, that only three of those names are still here. There has actually been lots of changes in the site population since I joined. Bawolff 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think something like this should be created for Accredited Reporters, but for the rest an "inactive admins" section does just fine.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I am so tired ofEdit

Jimbo not writing a news story, where's Eloquence, what about Angela? And don't even go there that they only go to Wikipedia. Their heads are in a cloud, missing it. -Edbrown05 08:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

retract on Eloquence comment... but it stands on Jimbo and Angela, they never did a thing here, except maybe condone this cite. -Edbrown05 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't people write news at Wikinews? I'm guilty of every crime that exists, but think I managed to get a news story out somewhere in that mix! -Edbrown05 09:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Jimbo has a story in him, but won't even comment on a featured article, about him on a Wikimedia foundation news page. How's that for... disengaged (is the word maybe)? -Edbrown05 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of those users will met this requirement. Eloquence may met the amount of edits (have not counted, so not 100% sure) but he does not met the 1 article rule Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Eloquence has a little over 200 edits in the last 12 months. However, the life of the wiki is new stories... --Brian McNeil / talk 11:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't think anyone would really consider eloquence active at the moment, he definitly wrote stories in the past. I personally have written very few stories [0 as of when I was nominated for adminship], but I feel I'm still a useful wikinewsie. There is other things to this site then just writing new stories (even if that's the most important part). Bawolff 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Bawolff, yes you are a useful wikinewsie. There are other things to this site then just writing new stories, but writing news stories is wikinews, if a Bureaucrat, Administrator, or Accredited Reporter is not willing to met a requirement to have one, only 1 article every 6 months, how useful is that wikinewsie really to the site.
You say eloquence is not active at the moment, but definitely wrote stories in the past” the point of this policy is not to make exceptions, the point of this policy is to have one rule for all. You met the min requirements, or you lose it. Now, I believe that is fair, for the user, and for the community Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

edits of 90 of which must be in the mainspaceEdit

that might be drilling, what makes the difference between a mainspace edit and one otherwise? I do agree it must be measurable, but the measurement must be understood. -Edbrown05 09:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I have changed it, so 100 edits, and an article. That is fair in my books. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Another obnoxious comment by SVTCobraEdit

If only half of you dedicated half as much time to creating content for the main page as you do deliberating this policy crap, we'd have half-decent news-coverage on Wikinews. Oh, and don't get me started on the people recruiting for "Wikinews Video 2.0". The most precious resource on Wikinews is the human resource, and we have precious little of it here. Wikipedia succeeded because of its mass content. What I see happening here (at Wikinews), is a bunch of people dreaming to make it cooler and compete with TV and video-blogs. My point is that Wikinews can only succeed if the breadth of our news-coverage exceeds that which can be found anywhere else. If a reasonably web-savvy person seeks news on what's happening today, they go to CNN or BBC or similar. If they want to know about a specific subject, they go to site dedicated to that, like "space.com" if you want news about space exploration or CNET for tech news. Wikinews has to exceed the depth and breadth of both kinds of sources to succeed. It can only happen if people contribute stories of every kind. I have chosen to concentrate on the "big stories" since I see that as the bottom line. Without that, the stories about hotels in Buffalo, NY and anti-drug advertising aimed at teens in New Zealand and the color of plant on other planets, is just an exercise in randomness, that you cannot expect anyone to tune into. --SVTCobra 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Bawolff 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Apart from I cannot see how this is related to inactive admins. This is well said, and is reason why I want things to improve. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That is another point SVTCobra [what? wikimedia got u running scared about being politically correct?], when the right thing to do is be somebody who newer particpants recognize as somebody who is interested in what they are: news. If the old timers are going to sit back and think they can officiate? --I chuckled... it already hasn't worked that way--. -Edbrown05 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another policy optionEdit

Bureaucrats, Administrators, and Accredited Reporters who become inactive are to be notified on their talk page and by e-mail. If the user wishes to keep the privileged status, they can post to WN:A within 14 days. A poll (in RFA format) is then held to determine if the user should keep their status. Users who do not reply or for whom consensus is not reached will have their privileged status removed.

I have proposed another policy option. This option allows the community rather then an arbitrary number to decide if the person still has the community's trust. --Cspurrier 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me. Bawolff 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Opposed Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have said before, this WILL make it become a popularity contest. A vote, is wrong because it comes a , "I like UserXXX support him....I hate UserYYY". Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
So what, it currently is a popularity contest. You win adminship by popularity votes, and the people who've lost adminship (through RFDA) loose it through popularity contests. Bawolff 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
When you have "arbitrary number" that is a standard every admin has to met. If you have a vote, some users will lose, why other ones will win. That is not fair for the people who lose. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with being “unfair” to the people who lose? Adminship is not some right that should be issued to people for completing some set of tasks. It is granted after the community expresses their support for the candidate. A user who is not popular odds are also does not have the trust of the comunnity. --Cspurrier 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I probably should have also made my proposal more clear, the poll in my proposal is not designed to be the indicator of inactivity (some sort of arbitrary number will have to be used for that) but rather the method of allowing people to keep their status when the community believes it to be in the best interests of the community. --Cspurrier 01:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?Edit

I am not sure I see the rationale the Rationale is attempting to provide. I can see some value in removing the status of people who no longer have the trust of the community, but I fail to see how inactivity can be anything but a very crude indicator of the community's trust. How does x edits and x new articles indicate the community's trust. Is a user who makes lots of minor edits and manages to write up a stub every 6 months any more valuable or more trusted then a user who copy edits and expands dozens of articles and participates in the community discussions?--Cspurrier 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my proposalEdit

I found this to be rather rude and counter productive. This policy proposal is in the Wikinews namespace, not in user space. The community space is for the community to edit, no one user owns content in this namespace. Additionally by selecting a name such as 'Inactive Policy' this page has been turned into the place to propose inactivity policies. If this was to only hold one option, it should have been named something like 'Inactive Policy ( Brian New Zealand's proposal) or Inactive Policy with a standard every admin has to met ' :) Policy should be allowed to develop naturally, preventing one option from being considered just harms the development of consensus on any version of a policy. --Cspurrier 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Craig, I through you had removed the first one. I did not see the "other" part Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I still say you are out the door if you are here no more...Edit

... how could it be otherwise? If you want to quantify it, maybe it refuses to be put into statistics easily. PVJ59 sez "i'm out the door", and there is no reaction from Wikinews? The user still has admin status. Is that correct? -Edbrown05 10:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, who is PVJ59? -Edbrown05 10:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, whois the whole host of inactive administrators... and accreditted reporters. This is a news site, not some academic place. -Edbrown05 10:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The Acredited reporters list if for authentication by events if people use the credentials awarded by wikinews to get into an event. This is the list of them. Not really sure what the innactive list of admins is really for. Maybe hide it at sometime??--MarkTalk 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe hide inactive accreditted reporters then too. -Edbrown05 10:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Note, PVJ evaded quite well his deadmiship. Technically he should not have it anymore as he lost his adminship in a request of de-adminship, than he left and we forgot to deadmin him. (personally i don't really care though). Ed, should know who he is though, he was active well he was here. The inacive adminship list is so people don't ask someone an admin related question, to someone who isn't here anymore. Bawolff 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I opposeEdit

After reading the comments made it is clear to me that some people consider the Adminship position as some sort of "elite club". It is not. Adminship is granted to those who either a) desrve it or b) are trusted enough to be granted it. It is (yes, is) a popularity vote. Nothing can really change that. But de-adminising someone because they have become inactive is something that should not be enocuraged. In my opinion it would be used to keep the admin team to those few "elite" who edit every day. I'm guilty of missing some days from editing - does that make me less trusted? I don't think so - I personaly wouldn't think any less of some people if they missed a year from editing - that person gained the trust of the community who granted his sysop status, and that should not be revoked without good reason (abuse, primarily). --Skenmy(tcwi) 10:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the the flip side of the coin and I fully appreciate that. It doesn't change my mind, but I do understand. I don't think you can leave an organization for a year and come back to it with what you left with. -Edbrown05 10:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

not a big dealEdit

Just a historical note, the idea behind near permanent adminship was always "adminship is no big deal" so everyone who behaves almost all the time should be an admin. I can also imagine that bureaucrats and accredited reporters are slightly different issues.

I can say that it really does not matter much: Most old admins, and all bureaucrats, are fairly stable people. So no big crazy wheel wars from the past. But such people also won't be offended if you take away their adminship.

Why not try just reformatting the admin list into columns? Nyarlathotep 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins have two powers: page deletion and blocking. Its clear that most non-vandals should have page deletion powers. Otoh blocking powers can really intimidate new users and make people mad. So adminship votes are really about blocking powers, i.e. handling of conflict and stability.
To me, this suggests that inactive admins should be kept simply because they are normally stable people who handle conflict well. Otoh you can obviously nominate some long inactive admin for deadminship on the grounds that "they are inactive and they were never that great anyway". PVJ seems like the obvious candidate if you wish to try this. Nyarlathotep 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Work towards getting this implementedEdit

I'd like to see some work towards getting this policy implemented. I'm not sure I agree with the policy as it stands but I completely agree with the principle that inactive admins and bureaucrats should have these rights removed and accredited reporters should be active. For this reason I have added a third option which I would welcome comments on. It would probably be appropriate to discuss who we should make exempt from any such policy. Adambro

And the third option is? -Edbrown05 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Policy option 3. Adambro 09:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the weakest version of the policy has the highest chance of getting adopted. I dislike the 100 edits in 6 months criterion: I think inactivity can be defined as no activity at all during a 6 month period. Then they should be shifted to an "inactive" list. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the exemptions for jimbo etc should be extended to any user who has not been elected through the RfA process (except temporary/emergency adminship) or who would have been promoted without the RfA process (e.g. devs, sysadmins, board members, foundation members). TheFearow | userpage | contribs 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Eloquence, Jimbo, and Brion are the people who have not been normally elected. (Eloquence made herself an admin when he founded the wiki, Eloquence made Jimbo an admin when he started to hang arround, and Brion i assume just got it for being one of the primary devs) Eloquence stood for what is essentially a reconfirmation after the site got off the ground. Mindspillage is just a normal admin who got elected before she got on board. You might also want to consider bots in this. Bawolff 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In future, the foundation may sysop other members of the foundation etc. We just need to future-proof it. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well obvious they may do whatever they want and any of our local policies won't stop them, but they have not ever done it for the past (Jimbo was the only member on board well he got his adminship, and it had very little to do with being on board, and much to do with his status as founder of wikipedia). I agree with your idea of any extra-communital adminship grantings should be considered exempt. (However for the record, I fundamentally disagree with this policy, and as a whole don't support it in any way). Bawolff 04:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if it may only be used once in the future of Wikinews, it still needs to be in here somewhere, so people dont go around screaming "what do we do" when a non-community-elected admin becomes inactive. TheFearow | userpage | contribs 05:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Practicing necromancy and resurrecting an inconclusive discussionEdit

I believe we're now in a position where we should move on from the above discussion, and inconclusive vote and work towards something that will clear down the list of inactive admins. Please review all above and comment on my below proposal. The issue of "I like xxx" is excluded, although there is nothing stopping people from contacting xxx and inviting them back at any stage in the process. I've flagged and sub-sectioned the below additions. If a section heading doesn't have "discussion" please leave as-is and sign comments in discussion sections. If consensus starts to form around edits to my proposals strike prior content and replace so it can instantly be seen how things are developing. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 proposed rulesEdit

We divide WN:A into active administrators, inactive administrators, pending retirement, and procedurally retired.

  1. active - as now.
  2. inactive - no main name space edits in 3 months +
  3. pending retirement - no edits whatsoever in 6 months + (notified of status change)
  4. procedurally retired - no main name space edits in 9 months + (privs removed)

December 2007 proposed rules - discussionEdit

Note the "odd" exception I've worked into the above, you can move to procedurally retired from inactive if you don't edit in main name space. This is where I think we need some discussion on this, and a list of admins that fall into the latter two categories. For implementation I believe we should default all to the third category and give notice of two or three months before de-sysop.

Regaining the sysop bit - discussionEdit

I, personally, would be opposed to criteria other than those applied at the prior successful RfA being applied for re-adminship (i.e. no special rules for ex-admins). I would prefer we place trust in the community to take that into account. One thing I think we have to consider is that many of our contributors are quite young and may go to college and take a gap year to go trekking round Nepal or something like that. If they come back, start editing and sticking {{delete}} tags everywhere (I mean appropriately), I think I'd trust the community to fairly re-admin them after an intense grilling about their time out and all the pictures they should've put on Commons. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Accredited Reporter inactivity - December 2007 discussionEdit

I believe the rules - or to use the more appropriate term - procedure for accredited reporters should be similarly framed. Open to input on that to draft a new section which is as concise as that for sysops. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A very simple policyEdit

How about :

  • Any admin inactive for 6 months has their listing moved to "retireable" from merely "inactive".
  • No one should yell at anyone for posting an RfdA for any "retireable" admin.
  • But any such RfdA should mention if we're talking about no edits whatsoever, no main namespace edits, etc.
  • Bureaucrats should let such an inactivity RfdA run for at least a month before closing.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at how well this minimal change would work. Anyway you'd need some sort of vote for deadmin because the Bureaucrats probably won't feel comfortable making the change without one. Nyarlathotep 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I just gave your police a rewrite along these lines. Give it a think. Nyarlathotep 06:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. Bawolff 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This version is very wordy but doesn't actually say a great deal about how we handle this situation although I agree with the criteria here that after 9 months a user can be considered inactive and their rights removed via the normal request process. However, this version fails to address a big concerns of what we do if these people return? My suggestion would be that there is no "speedy" restoration of rights and that it should go through the normal process and that a RfA etc shouldn't be considered with much merit if it is made early on after their return.
My next concern with this version is the insistence that the user is contacted after being inactive for 9 months. As I've mentioned at WN:A, whilst this might be considered courteous, I think there are a number of issues about this. For what purpose would we contact them and what exactly would we be saying? Come back and you can keep your rights? If someone is away for a prolonged period of time then they've forfeited these and it probably isn't appropriate for them to return to all the buttons. Adambro 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This version deals with such issues in the way that's least annoying to the Bureaucrats : voting. No body gets a free pass back in, but obviously people will vote quickly for good admins that left. It's just not that complex an issue. Also, it's not that wordy, this "policy" is mostly just a restatement of other policies like "assume good faith", I think that's why Brian tried to promote it so quickly, but I think a lot of people need to see the line "there should be no taboo against nominating a pensioner for removal of status" in print before they feel comfortable with it. Nyarlathotep 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Inactive Policy".