Matthew Brown wrote:
On 8/12/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Deadminship also happens on Meta-Wiki (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship ). As far as I know, no one is told their status is being voted on. When someone becomes an admin, they should understand that inactivity will mean removal of rights.
I also think it's bullshit on Meta; both Meta and Commons are service projects that should not expect their contributors or admins to be primarily active on their projects.
I am not inactive on Commons. I have not had need to use admin tools for a few months.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that no notice of this proposed policy was made on either this mailing list or in a message to admins personally. I also suspect this was not by accident; it represents the deliberate intention by those promoting it that only those frequently participating in the "Commons community" should have a say in it.
That such a change was implemented after only 21 people voted in favor of it is frankly shocking. This is not a change in a guideline that affects only a few people; it's a change in site-wide policy affecting a great number of users. 314 people are listed as having admin tools on commons. The farce of 21 users being considered "consensus" here should be obvious.
-Matt
I do not see what's wrong with this. I set up this policy on meta a long time ago, because I felt it is non sense to stay admin when one does not need the tool and never come to the site. It is written in the policy and I consider that when someone ask to become admin on a site, one knows the policy attached to the status. In the over 2 years this has been implemented, I read no significant complain. Anyone removed can also ask to be reinstated.
I do not know why you say that users are not notified. I was one of the persons concerned by the deadminship on commons, and I received a notification on my talk page. I was informed.
ant