Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Shapiros10
Activity levels[change source]
I don't understand. We are all volunteers. We should decide where to use out time. I don't understand why an editor with only a handful of QD and a handful of VIP would be opposed. I work a very demanding job, and sometimes all I can muster is a well thought out comment on a noticeboard, let alone a drawn out mainspace project. I edit mainspace when I can. I hope, that if I ever allow myself to be nominated for adminship, that nobody opposes me for my activity levels. Heck, by the criterion I see on the RFA, I should have my rollbacker permission removed, I've used it once. And on other projects, where I've used it a handful of times.
You gave me rollbacker because you trusted me, not because I had a *need*.
Adminship is about trust. It is not an award, or a badge (should not be a badge). It should not be a reward for obtaining a certain activity level. That is the wrong incentive. Please thoughtfully consider.
Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- One of the many arguements people have for activity levels and adminship is that an inactive admin account can be a security risk for being hacked into. Another reason people tend to oppose for activity levels is that, with low activity we can't be sure if we trust that person as they haven't had enough edits to gain trust. A user with 100 perfect edits over a few months is not going to be as trusted as a person with 1000 perfect edits over a few months because its easy to hide your bad habbits in only a few edits but once you have alot of edits your personality is bound to show through. That being said the standard here for how many edits most people count as alot is waaaaay below what I am used to. On en you aren't likely to get adminship unless you have well over 5k edits and many months of activity...often in the area of 6 months. I am not saying that version is better, just that when compared to those standards this wiki is pretty lax on who gets in and who doesn't. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. There are processes for hacked admin accounts, and there are also processes where adminship can be removed. Just like the importer discussions take place on simple, so can "remove admin" discussions" as well. I don't see the inherent security risk. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't processes for where adminship can be removed unless a massive issue has happened. Adminship is pretty much permanant unless you go totally inactive and they remove it for safety reasons. People can voluntarily give it up, but once you have it, it isn't going anywhere. We don't have an arb com committee here so I don't know how this wiki would handle it but on en they are the only ones who can remove it and you pretty much have to do something really disastirous like go on a 1000 edit vandalism tear or deletion tear. I believe in the past we said if we ever needed an arbitration done we would ask en but I forget. But offically there are no processes to remove admin once a person has it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- If an admin account is being obviously hacked (and goes on that spree), we can have a bureaucrat switch it off or find a steward at the Meta level to take care of it. Either way (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- In that case yes, I was referring more to someone who was abusing the tools. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- If an admin account is being obviously hacked (and goes on that spree), we can have a bureaucrat switch it off or find a steward at the Meta level to take care of it. Either way (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't processes for where adminship can be removed unless a massive issue has happened. Adminship is pretty much permanant unless you go totally inactive and they remove it for safety reasons. People can voluntarily give it up, but once you have it, it isn't going anywhere. We don't have an arb com committee here so I don't know how this wiki would handle it but on en they are the only ones who can remove it and you pretty much have to do something really disastirous like go on a 1000 edit vandalism tear or deletion tear. I believe in the past we said if we ever needed an arbitration done we would ask en but I forget. But offically there are no processes to remove admin once a person has it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rubbish reason (the first one). There are loads of inactive admins around, so that's not valid. And over a period of 6 months it's very hard not to show your habbits, even in 1000 edits. I think I might propose a re-confirmation of adminship so that admins that are inactive or not trusted can be de-sysopped. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually we recently removed any that were super inactive. But they can have their bit back if they come back. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually there are more that are inactive. And I know some were removed, but that was a couple of months ago. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, these are simply not reasons to oppose over. Shap has been editing for six months, and while he's not as active as some, we can still see what he's like. Editcountitis is dangerous, and too many people have it here. Also the problem is the false idea adminship is somehow a big deal. This is Simple English Wikipedia, one of the least important projects hosted by Wikimedia - it's not even a real language. We should be grateful people are offering to help out, not shunning them away. One day a request to close this project will pass because of the arrogance shown by some people on here.
- No, they cannot just get their bit back. That's why it was removed. It makes no sense to give someone who hasn't edited since 2006 adminship, but deny it to someone else for "inactivity". Majorly talk 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion held at the time, most people only agreed should they be able to have their bit back should they request it. And the size and importance of this wiki is why I personally think adminship is a bigger deal here. Because with such a small community the actions of the admins have a bigger impact on new users to the site, I know of many editors that refuse to come here because of the attitudes of some previous and current admins here. So its massively important we get the right people as admins here because we don't want to scare off what few editors we do get here. -Djsasso (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Based on your comments I think you could scare more than a few users away. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- If someone who was removed wants their bit back, that was removed in a community vote, they should have to ask the community for it back. This wiki is not important in the grand scheme of things. It's why people keep nominating it to be closed. Are you seriously suggesting this candidate would scare off potential editors? Or is it just an unsubstantiated attack? Majorly talk 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion has nothing to do with the candidate and should probably be on the main rfa talk. I note I didn't even oppose for the reason being discussed. I was just replying to novocalscream. -Djsasso (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it does have something to do with this user as this user is the victim of these bad opposes. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but he was asking in a general way. My comment wasn't directed at this candidate or I would have opposed for that reason. -Djsasso (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion goes here, I'm referring to this RFA. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- As soon as I am done with Brown tree snake I'd like to comment here further. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but he was asking in a general way. My comment wasn't directed at this candidate or I would have opposed for that reason. -Djsasso (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it does have something to do with this user as this user is the victim of these bad opposes. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion has nothing to do with the candidate and should probably be on the main rfa talk. I note I didn't even oppose for the reason being discussed. I was just replying to novocalscream. -Djsasso (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- If someone who was removed wants their bit back, that was removed in a community vote, they should have to ask the community for it back. This wiki is not important in the grand scheme of things. It's why people keep nominating it to be closed. Are you seriously suggesting this candidate would scare off potential editors? Or is it just an unsubstantiated attack? Majorly talk 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Based on your comments I think you could scare more than a few users away. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion held at the time, most people only agreed should they be able to have their bit back should they request it. And the size and importance of this wiki is why I personally think adminship is a bigger deal here. Because with such a small community the actions of the admins have a bigger impact on new users to the site, I know of many editors that refuse to come here because of the attitudes of some previous and current admins here. So its massively important we get the right people as admins here because we don't want to scare off what few editors we do get here. -Djsasso (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually there are more that are inactive. And I know some were removed, but that was a couple of months ago. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually we recently removed any that were super inactive. But they can have their bit back if they come back. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. There are processes for hacked admin accounts, and there are also processes where adminship can be removed. Just like the importer discussions take place on simple, so can "remove admin" discussions" as well. I don't see the inherent security risk. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I don't see what's the problem. I'm on daily (being online isn't the same thing as making a lot of edits), and I wouldn't scare anyone off. I've matured a lot if you compare me now to how I was when I first started, I've reverted quite a bit of vandalism (once again, reverting vandalism isn't the same thing as warning someone 4 times and getting 1 VIP report). Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)