Inactive administrators as of 13 August 2021

Admin actions over the last six months can be checked using this tool.

Notes

  • Inactive administrators have been notified via talk page message and email, according to the policy.
  • Exemptions:
    • CommonsDelinker and KrinkleBot (no admin actions each) are exempt for being bot accounts.
    • Lofty abyss (1 admin action) is exempt for having notified the community earlier, according to the policy.
  • Additional permissions:
    • 99of9 has bureaucrat. If they fail to sign here, it will also be removed, according to the policy.
    • Rama has oversighter. If they fail to sign here, it will also be removed, according to the policy.
    • Mdaniels5757 has interface-admin. If they fail to sign here, it will also be removed, according to the policy.
-- CptViraj (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-- CptViraj (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List

Username Admin actions Current status
Alno (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 4 Signed
Czar (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 4 Active
Miya (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 4 Signed
Pitke (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 3 Signed
Rama (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 3 Signed
David Levy (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 2 Signed
Y.haruo (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 2  Removed
99of9 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 1 Signed
BrightRaven (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 1 Signed
Polarlys (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 1 Signed
Clpo13 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0 Signed
DaB. (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0 Signed
Dantadd (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0 Resigned
Dereckson (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0  Removed
Hesperian (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0 Signed
Mdaniels5757 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0 Signed
Notafish (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0 Signed

Inactive since last run

Inactive non-admin interface administrators

Username Admin actions Current status
Dschwen (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 1 Signed
FDMS4 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 0  Removed

Admin responses

Admins who have been queried about their adminship, please sign below and also fill in the table above. If you don't sign by 12 September 2021, 23:59:59 UTC, you will lose adminship automatically.

Confirm your adminship here

  • I'm active on my backends on WMF cloud (WikiMiniAtlas and FastCCI). I'd like to retain interface admin rights for the express purpose of managing the front ends interfaces if necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To resign your adminship, sign here

I confirm my resignation. Thanks.Dantadd✉ 18:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. --Krd 05:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results

The following admins:

and the following interface admins:

have failed to sign before 13th September. Therefore as per the policy, their rights will be removed. Thanks to them for their service! @Krd: ^, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just signed above. I didn't realize there was a signing requirement. czar 01:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we now are having difficult decisions with every inactivity run. The signature of Czar clearly appeared too late. They made enough admin actions after the notice, but the policy clearly states that the signature is required. This was also clearly pointed out in the talk page message, and is common sense for years. While I'm not really a friend of applying a policy for no reason except for the sake of the policy, I also don't see any argument why a bureaucrat could override the policy in this case, so my conclusion is to remove the rights from the four accounts mentioned above. Thank you all for your service! --Krd 06:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's disappointing. czar 06:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is. You are of course always welcome to create a new RFA. --Krd 07:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past signing was not demanded so harshly:

I would restore Czar's rights. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So should we change the policy accordingly that signature OR admin actions are sufficient? --Krd 08:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that will correspond more to how we have acted in the past. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would object to restoring their rights - Czar has as far as I know been a great admin and they're a respected user here and at EN ... however unfortunately policy is policy and if we were to allow restoration here then it would open a whole can of worms and could set a precedent of "Oh I forgot to sign, oh well I'll ask anyway" so for that reason and that reason alone I have to oppose.
It's unfortunately one of those instances where nobodies a winner here but as I said unfortunately for better or for worse policy is policy,
I appreciate it's a lot of hoo-har going through RFA again but realistically I can't see why they wouldn't sail through this time as they've been active and as far as I know haven't landed themselves in hot water. –Davey2010Talk 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can distinguish good from bad ourselves. And you, Davey, do that as well. In my opinion this is place to follow Commons:Ignore all rules. If somebody unworthy applies for admin (or other) rights, we understand that and do not give the rights. Taivo (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point Taivo we do. I have very mixed feelings on it and am 50/50. Either way I'm pleased they're an admin again, –Davey2010Talk 11:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's of course not easy for me to admit having made a wrong call again, but (ignoring most of the arguments shown above) I now think the most important point is that, at the time of the closure of the discussion the user simply wasn't inactive per policy any longer, and it does not matter if they had been inactive before. So the removal of the rights for inactivity was not reasonable. I will restore them now and apologize to the user. --Krd 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(No personal thing with Czar, just trynna understand the policy) The policy clearly mentioned that it requires signature. I would say that the policy got violated in the previous inactivity runs mentioned by Taivo. @Krd: With respect, I think your change to the policy page is controversial as it has been done without community discussion. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course free to revert it, if you think it's controversial. I though think it's not a change but a clarification. We cannot remove right from somebody per "inactivity" rationale when the user in fact isn't inactive at the time the removal happens, it just doesn't make any sense at all. --Krd 10:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What's the point of signature procedure then? -- CptViraj (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Though I don't agree with applying IAR here, I have no objection with Czar's rights being restored. I just want to have a clear policy with community consensus so we don't have this type of situations in future runs. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]