I just love the way that 21 users can vote to make a de-adminship policy without notifying any of the users concerned, including AFAIK on here. Nonsense like this only makes those more active on other projects tempted to only contribute to those projects and not Commons.
-Matt
As far as I know there has always been an activity requirement for Commons admins. We just made the criteria less vague. Even the first version http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators&oldid=18 has an inactivity section in it. Note that Commons adminship is generally not a big deal and that users who show interest in the community pass the RFA easily.
But you are right, we should have informed affected users. I'm sorry that we forgot.
Bryan
On 8/12/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I just love the way that 21 users can vote to make a de-adminship policy without notifying any of the users concerned, including AFAIK on here. Nonsense like this only makes those more active on other projects tempted to only contribute to those projects and not Commons.
-Matt
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 12/08/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I just love the way that 21 users can vote to make a de-adminship policy without notifying any of the users concerned, including AFAIK on here. Nonsense like this only makes those more active on other projects tempted to only contribute to those projects and not Commons.
-Matt
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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.
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
On 8/12/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
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
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
How is this new matthew? Commons adminship has been subject to removal uppon long inactivity. I recall it being so when I became admin, so I'm wondering why so much fuss now
On 8/12/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
How is this new matthew? Commons adminship has been subject to removal uppon long inactivity. I recall it being so when I became admin, so I'm wondering why so much fuss now
Inactivity, yes - but this is being applied to active Commons users who simply have not seen need to perform an admin action in a while. That is the part that irritates me.
I'm afraid all it's going to do is have people do pointless admin actions in order to keep 'active'.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid all it's going to do is have people do pointless admin actions in order to keep 'active'.
I hardly see what admin action would be pointless.
If anything, it will mean less work for the really active admins for a few days, while we, inactive admins, do a little work to keep our status. That much gained for the common(s) good.
Delphine
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:25:45 +0200, "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com said:
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid all it's going to do is have people do pointless admin actions in order to keep 'active'.
I hardly see what admin action would be pointless.
If anything, it will mean less work for the really active admins for a few days, while we, inactive admins, do a little work to keep our status. That much gained for the common(s) good.
Delphine
~notafish
With respect - anyone who cannot find five items to delete today is not looking in the right place!
Herby
On 8/13/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
With respect - anyone who cannot find five items to delete today is not looking in the right place!
Oh, I'm sure I could; I don't think that was really my point. In the end, what irritates me is not in the end an activity requirement in itself, but the way it was decided, the way it was notified, and the fact that increasingly I get the feeling that Commons wants only users and admins who are committed Commons community members, despite the fact that Commons is a service project primarily intended for the use and convenience of other Wikimedia projects.
-Matt
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:34:03 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com said:
On 8/13/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
With respect - anyone who cannot find five items to delete today is not looking in the right place!
Oh, I'm sure I could; I don't think that was really my point. In the end, what irritates me is not in the end an activity requirement in itself, but the way it was decided, the way it was notified, and the fact that increasingly I get the feeling that Commons wants only users and admins who are committed Commons community members, despite the fact that Commons is a service project primarily intended for the use and convenience of other Wikimedia projects.
-Matt
All users (constructive ones) are welcome on Commons. Personally I would not vote for someone who did not appear to be relatively active on Commons to become an admin there (that applies to all the projects that I hold rights on). You may see Commons as essentially a "service" project for other Wikis although I have a feeling that others may not see it the same.
I'm intrigued to know how you think individual Wikimedia projects should decide on issues, arrange policies and control aspects? Surely the only real option is within that project among active users of the project?
Herby
On 8/13/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
You may see Commons as essentially a "service" project for other Wikis although I have a feeling that others may not see it the same.
It was the reason for its creation. Scope creep has occurred, of course - which is not necessarily bad until decisions are made that detract from its original purpose.
I'm intrigued to know how you think individual Wikimedia projects should decide on issues, arrange policies and control aspects? Surely the only real option is within that project among active users of the project?
I'd say that when decisions are being made about things as wide-ranging as this, and only twenty-one people vote in favor of it, something is wrong.
Furthermore, I am an active Commons user and did not learn of the poll. I suspect that this applies to the vast majority of Commons users.
-Matt
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.)
On 8/13/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big deal?
None if I never used them. However, this is not the definition in use of 'inactive'.
-Matt
On 13/08/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
If you lose admin rights due to never using the tools, what's the big
deal?
None if I never used them. However, this is not the definition in use of 'inactive'.
-Matt
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
What is the definition? (if you wrote it here I must have missed it)
On 8/13/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:25:45 +0200, "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com said:
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid all it's going to do is have people do pointless admin actions in order to keep 'active'.
I hardly see what admin action would be pointless.
If anything, it will mean less work for the really active admins for a few days, while we, inactive admins, do a little work to keep our status. That much gained for the common(s) good.
With respect - anyone who cannot find five items to delete today is not looking in the right place!
Totally agreed. Actually, the time we're losing arguing about this on this mailing list should be better spent using our admin tools on commons to keep our status ;-)
Delphine
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:53:30 +0200, "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com said:
Totally agreed. Actually, the time we're losing arguing about this on this mailing list should be better spent using our admin tools on commons to keep our status ;-)
Back on line - I did my "five" before I got involved in the discussion :-)
Herby
On 13/08/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:53:30 +0200, "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com said:
Totally agreed. Actually, the time we're losing arguing about this on this mailing list should be better spent using our admin tools on commons to keep our status ;-)
Back on line - I did my "five" before I got involved in the discussion :-)
Herby
Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Did about 130 this morning, so you can't be calling *me* inactive :)
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
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
On 8/12/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
I've seen some complaints. Perhaps not too many because frankly fewer people are as interested in Meta or need it for their day-to-day work on a Wikimedia project.
Anyone removed can also ask to be reinstated.
I note that this part seems now to be controversial on Commons. Or at least, that it should be near automatic, and not require reconfirmation.
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.
Notified that the policy change was up for vote. I believe the low voting numbers show that not many people even knew it was up for discussion. It isn't that hard to post something to this mailing list, or to place a sitenotice or similar.
I would have no problem with policy about total inactivity. What I do have an issue about is that it requires regular admin action, not simply user action.
-Matt
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:16:37 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com said:
On 8/12/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
I've seen some complaints. Perhaps not too many because frankly fewer people are as interested in Meta or need it for their day-to-day work on a Wikimedia project.
Personally I consider the Meta policy excellent and in the proposed admin policy (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Adminship_policy) I would like to see a form on confirmation on Commons.
Anyone removed can also ask to be reinstated.
I note that this part seems now to be controversial on Commons. Or at least, that it should be near automatic, and not require reconfirmation.
The link above shows that Commons is working towards this and simplifying the return to tools for those who do relinquish them. In pratice an ex-Admin had the tools restored in 24 hours on Commons a couple of weeks ago - no one objected.
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.
Notified that the policy change was up for vote. I believe the low voting numbers show that not many people even knew it was up for discussion. It isn't that hard to post something to this mailing list, or to place a sitenotice or similar.
I would have no problem with policy about total inactivity. What I do have an issue about is that it requires regular admin action, not simply user action.
-Matt
Surely the onus is on any of us who consider ourselves active to watch what is going on - if I miss any discussion I do not see why someone should feel oblidged to point it out to me?
As to the fact that it is now admin actions thta are in focus - that was the issue the community felt was at the core of this. Admin tools are janitorial in nature - they are for using. When folk need them they should be able to get them and when they no longer use them they should be relinquished (but be able to get them back if they return to activity).
Herby
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l