Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/FrancoGG

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as successful: At simple vote it stands at 12/8 is 60% for removal, however a couple of comments in the oppose section are problematic. It would generally require 65% to support a desysopping, but at least two comments are unhelpful. The community standard did get discussed as being either 6 months or 1 year, this editor meets both of those. Additionally, Franco has been informed about this action and has had at least 1 month to respond. No response has been forthcoming so I think it is safe to believe that there is no object on his part. Although I have taken part myself in this RFDA, I believe that crats can be trusted to remain neutral. I held a crat chat prior to coming to this decision. It was decided to close as desysop, but also that we need to solidify the times after which we desysop and write a guideline page in the WP namespace for future reference. fr33kman talk 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I've decided to not close this as successful. I think we need to discuss a standard first. This has been done a few times at [1], [2], [3] and most recently [4] have seemed to indicate a threshold of 1 year. But since it still keeps getting raised I think we should thrash this issue out once and for all and then write a guideline page before acting further. fr33kman talk 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrancoGG[change source]

FrancoGG (talk · contribs)

End date: 11 August 2009; 16:50

Last edit and also logged action were made on August 4, 2008. One year inactivity. I left FrancoGG a note about this on his eswiki user talk page and also on his local user talk. Further more I have mailed him and got no reply. Therefore, I request the removal of his admin bit due to inactivity. --Barras || talk 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Per my "nom" --Barras || talk 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Since we have adopted the "use it or lose it" stance. fr33kman talk 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yup, per 1 year inactivity. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too inactive. Shappy talk 17:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yep. No Problems with that. I kind of have the same concerns as Nonvocal. I would hope that if he returns, if he has to run an RFA, that it would pass very smoothly.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Inactive, no current need of the tools --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Never heard of him. If he was to start resuming admin tasks, it would be a complete stranger at the controls. I want people I can trust in RfA, strangers I cannot. —MC8 (b · t) 00:53, Monday August 10 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support - Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - One year inactivity is too long for me. Support demotion. Razorflame 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per what everyone else has said, and per our previous RfDAs. Though did we ever decide whether they needed an RfA to get the tools back or not...? Goblin 12:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
  12. Support —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 12:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. There is currently no standard stated anywhere (I could have missed it) that would permit it's return if he returns. I would support if he can get it back without having to undergoe another RFA. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the da-adminship of Billz, I have no problems, if he get his tools back, when he returns. See the desyssoping of Billz. Barras || talk 17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See this. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I support this request, he can get the tolls back on request? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I gues, yes. That's our normal way. See also the desysop of Billz. If he comes back, and he reuest his tools on ANI back and no one objects, he gets the tools back. Barras || talk 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think we need a more clear and explicit policy on the matter before we arbitrarily desysop people. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juliancolton said it exactly how I would. hmwithτ 06:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Julian took the words right out of my mouth. →javért stargaze 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We need to be consistent on de-sysopping people arbtrarily or not.. much what Julian said. иιƒкч? 09:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This seems just far too random. Why is this not included with the other four who are up? It's poorly organised, and pointless if we just reflag them when they return. Majorly talk 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this one has passed the 1 year mark which was the old standard. The other one was because Eptalon has proposed a new 6 month mark. -Djsasso (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And because this one was created before the others. Barras || talk 15:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose so we can get back to article writing. There's no true gain activity to this except another swath of bureaucracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

What is consensus when someone is up for desysoping? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive3#Removal_of_access. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That shows unanimous or almost unanimous approval. Should we create a policy about desysoping? For example: 1 year of inactivity and you get a RfDA. At that RfDA there should be 90% approval for it to be successful. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess same rules like admiship: at least 65% support. In this case, support for the removal. Barras || talk 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I create the policy or should it go to a vote before that? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a policy, its the same as getting the flag. You don't need to write everything down. Relax a bit. :) -Djsasso (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barras wanted to know whether there is a policy, and there isn't. The only way a user would know is by 1. asking the old-timers or 2. looking through all the archives (a very tedious task). So, we should at least leave a note in WP:ADMIN about this. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion is that you are thinking of the two as separate processes, they are really the same thing. RfDeA is just a second Rfa basically with the support and oppose being flip flopped. -Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the point in deadminning somebody if they are simply able to ask for it back if/when they return. It makes this whole thing pretty pointless. Majorly talk 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we need a clear rule for it. Barras || talk 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the only reason anyone could supply for removing them in the first place was security.... I have no problem leaving it on them permanently. But if we are going to remove them, they should definitely be able to get them back just by asking. -Djsasso (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why bother removing it? And there's more reasons than security. Majorly talk 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, IMO the use it or lose it policy is great. A year is an incredibly long time, and if you haven't edited at all in the project, what's the point? We could try to contact the user ahead of time and ask them whether they would mind or not, but we don't want hundreds of admins and only a few are active. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said I have no problem never removing them. I do recall it was you that started the desire to start removing them last year, by all means why do you think we should remove them? I only vote to remove them because the accounts can be compromised. I see no other valid reason for removing them. I know some people mention that people become out of touch with current policies, but I don't see how people can't get up to date on things like that in a matter of days. -Djsasso (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Please note I have started thinking about a general rule about what ot do with inactive admins. I have posted a message to simple talk.--Eptalon (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship/FrancoGG&oldid=8894406"