Hoi, When there is a need to be an admin and DO something, you will either have the buttons and DO the things that need doing or you forget about it. The point of keeping the role of admin is that it is easy to re-connect. The point of being forced to ask to be admin is that the chance of not bothering any more is exactly the reason why this is a bad policy for Commons. You lose good people in this way. Thanks, GerardM
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big deal?
You wouldn't miss them at all, since you never used them, and if you suddenly decided you wanted to, you can always ask for them back. No point in keeping the status for no reason (much like the many inactive bureaucrats on enwiki.)
Do you have any evidence that it will lose good people? If an admin has hardly used his tools in 5 months I find it likely that he doesn't bother much. It is then better to promote new admins who actually want to do something for real and not just hypothetically in some future.
However, I find it unfortunate that the quick regain of adminship within 24 hours didn't go through. I think the arguments against the de-adminship policy would have been significantly less then. In the event that someone wants to re-connect, they would then only have to wait 24 hours, which should be acceptable, no?
Regards, Fred
On 8/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When there is a need to be an admin and DO something, you will either have the buttons and DO the things that need doing or you forget about it. The point of keeping the role of admin is that it is easy to re-connect. The point of being forced to ask to be admin is that the chance of not bothering any more is exactly the reason why this is a bad policy for Commons. You lose good people in this way. Thanks, GerardM
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big
deal?
You wouldn't miss them at all, since you never used them, and if you suddenly decided you wanted to, you can always ask for them back. No point in keeping the status for no reason (much like the many inactive
bureaucrats
on enwiki.)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 8/28/07, Fredrik Josefsson fjosefsson@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have any evidence that it will lose good people? If an admin has hardly used his tools in 5 months I find it likely that he doesn't bother much. It is then better to promote new admins who actually want to do something for real and not just hypothetically in some future.
However, I find it unfortunate that the quick regain of adminship within 24 hours didn't go through. I think the arguments against the de-adminship policy would have been significantly less then. In the event that someone wants to re-connect, they would then only have to wait 24 hours, which should be acceptable, no?
Regards, Fred
On 8/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When there is a need to be an admin and DO something, you will either have the buttons and DO the things that need doing or you forget about it. The point of keeping the role of admin is that it is easy to re-connect. The point of being forced to ask to be admin is that the chance of not bothering any more is exactly the reason why this is a bad policy for Commons. You lose good people in this way. Thanks, GerardM
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big
deal?
You wouldn't miss them at all, since you never used them, and if you suddenly decided you wanted to, you can always ask for them back. No point in keeping the status for no reason (much like the many inactive
bureaucrats
on enwiki.)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I personally fail to see the problems with the policy. If you want to stay admin, but have been inactive lately, you 1) take 5 minutes to read up changes in deletion policies and 2) take 5 minutes and go delete 10 copyright violations or close 10 deletion requests.
This has 2 advantages: You help the overloaded active admins in reducing the backlogs and you become up to date with Commons again. It really only takes 10 minutes and you have your adminship back for 6 months.
Now of course I encourage you to not leave it with only a handful of deletions. Especially our deletion requests are horribly backlogged: We still have to close them up to May. So if you are reading this as admin who is about to lose his adminship, don't hesitate and go to [[Commons:Deletion requests/2007/05]] and [[Commons:Deletion requests/2007/06]]. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:00:40 +0200:
Now of course I encourage you to not leave it with only a handful of deletions. Especially our deletion requests are horribly backlogged: We still have to close them up to May. So if you are reading this as admin who is about to lose his adminship, don't hesitate and go to [[Commons:Deletion requests/2007/05]] and [[Commons:Deletion requests/2007/06]]. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
Does anyone have the link to Magnus' keep/delete-tool? What's the current status on delinking via bot?
Regards,
Flo
On 8/28/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What's the current status on delinking via bot?
If you mean CommonsDelinker; that's up & running.
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:56 +0200:
On 8/28/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What's the current status on delinking via bot?
If you mean CommonsDelinker; that's up & running.
Thanks, I've just found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
This means you no longer have to check, but only to delete?
Regards,
Flo
On 8/28/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:33:56 +0200:
On 8/28/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What's the current status on delinking via bot?
If you mean CommonsDelinker; that's up & running.
Thanks, I've just found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
This means you no longer have to check, but only to delete?
That's how I do it, and I've never had any complaints. But please give appropriate reason in the deletion summary, preferably with a link to the deletion request.
Regards, Fred.
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big
deal?
Please note that adminship is not only about deleting images and blocking people. It's also about technical maintenance.
I have been pretty inactive with respect to writing content, or deleting stuff, etc, for a while now. I am focusing on providing external tools for the community, using the toolserver. In order to make such tools work, I have to sometimes edit a bit of javascript, or change the categorization of a license template, or adjust a system message. This means I have barely any logged admin activity in the last months, and low overall activity. But I still believe having admin privileges for me and other "technical" admins is justified, as long as it is not abused. Having to find an admin for this kind of stuff, and making sure he gets all the details right, would be a real pain for all.
I realize that I'm not up to speed with deletion policy - so before deleting anything non-obvious, I would have to read up on the policy (or leave it to someone else). Admins should be trusted to be responsible enough to know when they shouldn't use their powers (otherwise, they shouldn't be admins).
I see no point in expiring adminship.
-- Duesentrieb
Duesentrieb wrote on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:44:51 +0200:
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big
deal?
Please note that adminship is not only about deleting images and blocking people. It's also about technical maintenance.
not to mention viewing deleted pages and using certain special pages ...
Regards,
Flo