Hoi, When an inconvenient truth is uttered, it is convenient not to have the issue discussed. When people do not care to implement a policy, it can be safely argued that there is a problem with that policy. The least that can be said about this "policy" is that it is not universally welcomed.

When others have to do the dirty work, you have a way of keeping your hands clean. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/15 Finn Rindahl finnrindwiki@gmail.com

Let's not open the whole debate again, to (hopefully) answer Huivs question

• there is a other policy and a way to implement it, see

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section

There was a new run scheduled for february 6th, but it doesn't seem anyone felt that organising this was their responsibility. (Anyone could have done it, but everyone thought someone else would do it in so noone did). I'm waiting for someone else myself ;)

Finn R

2009/2/15 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com

Hoi,

...

The notion that you "have to" desysop people when they are inactive is a falacy on several levels. When people are trusted, they can imho be an admin. In many ways it is an old debate but the difference is that you delete people. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/15 abigor@forgotten-beauty.com

...

Hello,

I need some information I can't really fin don Commons.

We have a policy that says you have to do 5 admin actions in 6 months to keep your adminship, we have sererval users that doesn't have any admin actions for more than a year, can those user be desysoped on Meta or is there a other policy?

Best regards,

Huiv

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Hoi, When you take away the capability to do good, you will find that you also take away motivation to be involved, to lend a hand. Commons is underperforming because it does not have enough material to give each Wikipedia their own illustration for their articles. When it is pointed out that this means 2,8 million times 300, people say that Commons cannot cope and that this is unrealistic.

This policy *has* been adopted and it *is* not beneficial. Apparently the efficacy of policies is not to be reviewed and neither is the call for such a review welcome. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/15 Finn Rindahl finnrindwiki@gmail.com

Sorry Gerard, I didn't mean to rudely cut you of. My point was just that such a policy *has* been adapted by Commons already, (before my time there actually), while I understood Abigors question to be about where they could find this policy and how it is implemented.

The reason why I "keep my hands clean" here is that while I don't mind the inactivity desysop policy (If you don't use tools, you don't need them) I certainly don't think it's a great priority (if you don't use tools, you don't misuse them either ;) There are other work at Commons which is far more urgent in my opinion.

Regards,

Finn R

2009/2/15 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com

...

Hoi, When an inconvenient truth is uttered, it is convenient not to have the issue discussed. When people do not care to implement a policy, it can be safely argued that there is a problem with that policy. The least that can be said about this "policy" is that it is not universally welcomed.

When others have to do the dirty work, you have a way of keeping your hands clean. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/15 Finn Rindahl finnrindwiki@gmail.com

...

Let's not open the whole debate again, to (hopefully) answer Huivs question - there is a other policy and a way to implement it, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section

There was a new run scheduled for february 6th, but it doesn't seem anyone felt that organising this was their responsibility. (Anyone could have done it, but everyone thought someone else would do it in so noone did). I'm waiting for someone else myself ;)

Finn R

2009/2/15 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com

Hoi,

...

The notion that you "have to" desysop people when they are inactive is a falacy on several levels. When people are trusted, they can imho be an admin. In many ways it is an old debate but the difference is that you delete people. Thanks, GerardM

2009/2/15 abigor@forgotten-beauty.com

...

Hello,

I need some information I can't really fin don Commons.

We have a policy that says you have to do 5 admin actions in 6 months to keep your adminship, we have sererval users that doesn't have any admin actions for more than a year, can those user be desysoped on Meta or is there a other policy?

Best regards,

Huiv

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

---

Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l