Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming administrator inactivity criteria
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Reforming administrator inactivity criteria" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this RFC with the following results:
- 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months are the minimum to not be considered inactive.
- There is no reprieve, and any administrator not meeting the inactivity standard should lose all flags under the scope of this policy, upon request to stewards (or to local crats if applicable).
- There is no option to regain administrator/bureaucrat access besides applying again using the usual process.
Cheers, Bene* talk 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since redirects were implemented on Wikidata after this RFC, the number of administrator actions being done by administrators have been decreasing gradually. Nowadays, more administrators are being desysopped due to inactivity. Today, 6 of our administrators (including one bureaucrat) were desysopped due to inactivity. Therefore, I am proposing the administrator inactivity criteria to be reformed/changed because there will be not much administrator actions to be done on Wikidata. The current inactivity policy is defined as less than ten administrator/bureaucrat actions over a six month period. Please comment your views and opinions below.
Contents
- 1 Levels (choose ONE option)
- 1.1 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months
- 1.2 10 admin/crat actions over 6 months [status quo]
- 1.3 5 admin/crat actions over a year
- 1.4 10 admin/crat actions over a year
- 1.5 5 edits or admin/crat actions over 6 months
- 1.6 10 edits or admin/crat actions over 6 months
- 1.7 5 edits or admin/crat actions over a year
- 1.8 10 edits or admin/crat actions over a year
- 1.9 50 mainspace edits and 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months
- 1.10 50 edits and 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months
- 1.11 100 mainspace edits over 6 months
- 2 Reprieve
- 3 Regaining access
- 4 Comments/Discussions
5 admin/crat actions over 6 months
edit- (
Support as a
secondthird choice. --Rschen7754 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply] - (
Oppose – See rationale below. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support as second choice. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
- Support There should be a minimum like this. If no admin actions are to be done, there is also no need for this wiki to have so many users with admin access. Vogone (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Vogone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment by TCN7JM... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support first choice. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Admin should use their tools. If you don't use it, you can resign, like me. :) --Nouill (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support idem Nouill. --Agamitsudo (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support idem Nouill and Vogone. --Fralambert (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10 admin/crat actions over 6 months [status quo]
editChanging to option that was not available at the time of my comment (options were pretty limited then). --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]Support - Seems reasonable enough. 10 action/edits may provoke simple userspace edits to simply prolong the process. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- (
Oppose – See rationale below. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose The whole point of this RfC is that the status quo is broken.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment by TCN7JM... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
Support"If there is less work then fire the excess staff", seems reasonable to me because opening comment does not state why do we need more sysops then necessary.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5 admin/crat actions over a year
edit- (
Oppose – See rationale below. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
10 admin/crat actions over a year
edit- (
Oppose – See rationale below. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
5 edits or admin/crat actions over 6 months
edit- (
Oppose – Should be more active than this. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
10 edits or admin/crat actions over 6 months
edit- (
Oppose – Should be more active than this. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
5 edits or admin/crat actions over a year
edit- ( or do n normal edits? Multichill (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose – Should be more active than this. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
10 edits or admin/crat actions over a year
edit- (
Oppose – Should be more active than this. TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
50 mainspace edits and 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months
edit- (
Support as second ·addshore· talk to me! 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- ( Support I'd be totally fine with this compromise. Vogone (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- ( Support second choice. --Rschen7754 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support sounds like a best choice IMO. --Stryn (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as first choice. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (
Neutral still not sure of the benefit of 50 mainspace edits. Why not project edits? Those are more relevant to admin activity. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support as best at option at present. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ( Support second choice. --Nouill (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per Ajraddatz.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50 edits and 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months
editSupport as first ·addshore· talk to me! 00:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (
Oppose Admins should remember what the project is all about. --Rschen7754 02:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support second choice Ajraddatz (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support as second choice. --Stryn (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Support IMO the most sensible option.--Snaevar (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100 mainspace edits over 6 months
editSupport as a first choice. 100 might be a lot on other wikis, but the way Wikidata is set up, this could take all of 5 minutes. --Rschen7754 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Users can act in administrative capacity without actually performing admin actions, which is why I am against a rule that states "you must perform X admin actions in X months". Overall, if a user has been active on the wiki and is still familiar with the goings-on of the wiki, I see no reason to revoke the mop because (s)he's only performed nine actions in six months. And the game has changed even more now that merging items doesn't require the admin toolset, so you can't just head to RfD for a few minutes and rack up ten admin actions to keep the bit. Overall, I think adminship should be based on trust more than on "need". TCN7JM 02:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As TCN7JM notes, things like declining a deletion are admin actions, but they are not logged as such. (I'd like this clarified to require "mainspace edits + admin actions ≥ 100", since admin actions should still count for something, but I'm not married to the idea.) Mainspace edits illustrate than a user is still active on the project, even if they are diving their time amongst other wikis they are active on or taking time to focus on improving items rather than solely focusing on admin work. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (
Support This would be good too IMO. Support as a third choice. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- ( I am open to the addition of a mainspace edit criterium like this, but am against resigning the admin action criterium entirely. If there are indeed no admin actions to be done, there is absolutely no need to have (that many) users with administrator access here. Admin flags are no sign of extra editing authority or the like. Vogone (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose Admins should actually use their tools.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose per the above comment... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose not sure how mainspace edits = continued understanding of policies surrounding admin tool usage. I'd prefer to go by admin actions, which are a direct reflection of this. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose, no admin actions at all means that they don't use (read: need) their rights. --Stryn (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Oppose See my above comment. Personally, I can make 100 modification on wikidata in 6 month, just by the creation of article on wp:fr and the linking of those creation, without be involve in wikidata. --Nouill (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
- (
Extended absence
editIf an administrator posts on the administrator noticeboard that they will be away for an extended period of time, then no action should be taken until 30 days after their intended return date.
Oppose promotes gaming the system. --Rschen7754 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how? I don't see what there is to be "gamed" here. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{Subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC).</small><br /> (talk)
Oppose per Rschen7754; if an administrator knows that they will be away for an extended period of time, then they should resign pre-emptively. --Ricordisamoa 05:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose That defeats the purpose of an inactivity policy. Users "be[ing] away for an extended period of time" which is longer than the one defined by the policy are very likely not to be familiar with the goings-on on this wiki anymore. Vogone (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Said admin should instead temporarily resign the tools, per below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated reprieves
editIf a user has made the same number of edits as the number of actions required in the "Levels" section above, but have not made that many actions requiring any of the administrator/crat/CU/OS flags (or translationadmin status if #2 from Scope passes) they may request to keep their admin status within a week of the official notification by talk page and email.
Oppose This is how the Meta system works, and it is fundamentally broken. --Rschen7754 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one reprieve
editIf a user has made the same number of edits as the number of actions required in the "Levels" section above, but have not made that many actions requiring any of the administrator/crat/CU/OS flags (or translationadmin status if #2 from Scope passes) they may request to keep their admin status within a week of the official notification by talk page and email. However, if during the last inactivity cycle they have already done this, they may not do so again.
Oppose What's the point in having this limit?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No reprieve
editThere is no reprieve, and any administrator not meeting the inactivity standard should lose all flags under the scope of this policy, upon request to stewards (or to local crats if applicable).
Support --Rschen7754 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vogone (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·addshore· talk to me! 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the simplest one. --Stryn (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nouill (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any administrator/bureaucrat desysopped under inactivity can regain their access, unless it was under controversy. They do not need to run for RFA/RFB again.
- I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. If we accept this, then the inactivity criteria doesn't really matter, because every desysopped inactive admin can get their rights back for request. --Stryn (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, but their adminship should be permanently removed after a long time of completely inactivity (0 edits).--GZWDer (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What if there's a valid justification? (ie. was busy in real life, but now has time etc.) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the community can evaluate that in a new RFA. --Rschen7754 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What if there's a valid justification? (ie. was busy in real life, but now has time etc.) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose makes the policy meaningless. --Rschen7754 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. The purpose of the policy is presumably to avoid having dormant admin accounts. This does not significantly subvert that. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{Subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC).</small><br /> (talk)
- Nope, the policy is to make sure that only people who are actually active have the tools. This isn't enwiki. --Rschen7754 19:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. The purpose of the policy is presumably to avoid having dormant admin accounts. This does not significantly subvert that. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{Subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC).</small><br /> (talk)
Oppose Why have the policy if it can just be thrown out the window? TCN7JM 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TCN7JM --Ricordisamoa 05:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A successful RFA is an acknowledgement that the user has been vetted by the community and deemed trusted enough to handle the admin toolset. Going inactive doesn't change that determination by the community; inactive accounts are de-flagged as a security measure, because they are more prone to hostile takeover than active accounts, not to 'punish' the user for being inactive. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. Like I mentioned above, I'm all for adminship being based on trust, but depending on how long the user was inactive, they may need to familiarize themselves with new/changed policies. Then again, one could assume they are trustworthy enough to do this before re-requesting the toolset...hm. I might have to think about this one a little while. TCN7JM 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I thought about it overnight. I'm thinking that my oppose was not based on trust (it never was, and my post immediately above has nothing to do with my actual argument; perhaps because it was written at 3:23 a.m. local time), but rather that the policy becomes pointless if you can just request the tools back and regain them every six months. Should the criteria I supported gain the most support, a user wouldn't actually have to perform 100 edits to keep administrator access, only one: the one to re-request the tools. What I would support is something along the lines of "user must perform 100 mainspace edits before being re-granted access to tools, but does not need to run another RfA". This way, the policy still has meaning, but the user still remains trusted in the eyes of the system and doesn't need to re-run at RfA. TCN7JM 14:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What would happen with cases like JurgenNL? (Yes, I know he resigned instead of being desysopped for inactivity but still). --Rschen7754 03:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- JurgenNL and TBloemink are both WMF-banned from the admin tools. Vogone (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What would happen with cases like JurgenNL? (Yes, I know he resigned instead of being desysopped for inactivity but still). --Rschen7754 03:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I thought about it overnight. I'm thinking that my oppose was not based on trust (it never was, and my post immediately above has nothing to do with my actual argument; perhaps because it was written at 3:23 a.m. local time), but rather that the policy becomes pointless if you can just request the tools back and regain them every six months. Should the criteria I supported gain the most support, a user wouldn't actually have to perform 100 edits to keep administrator access, only one: the one to re-request the tools. What I would support is something along the lines of "user must perform 100 mainspace edits before being re-granted access to tools, but does not need to run another RfA". This way, the policy still has meaning, but the user still remains trusted in the eyes of the system and doesn't need to re-run at RfA. TCN7JM 14:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. Like I mentioned above, I'm all for adminship being based on trust, but depending on how long the user was inactive, they may need to familiarize themselves with new/changed policies. Then again, one could assume they are trustworthy enough to do this before re-requesting the toolset...hm. I might have to think about this one a little while. TCN7JM 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if this is within one year after the admin is desysopped. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Nonsense, wikis develop quickly and there is really no reason why a former admin returning after e.g. 5 years of inactivity could not wait 7 more days (plus the time they need to get used to newly developed practices and the like) before the admin flag is reassigned. Vogone (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An admin should be allowed to take a break from wiki activity and come back when (s)he feels like being active again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They still can if they resign... besides, 6 months is an awfully long break. --Rschen7754 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong
Oppose Wikidata develops quickly. A new RFA isn't exactly hard... ·addshore· talk to me! 23:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it is still very, very easy to become an admin here. A week isn't long, and might as well let the community re-vet. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not automatic favour. If you want a favour ask the community with a RFA. --Nouill (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThen simply delete this requirement of minimum actions.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should adopt c:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.--GZWDer (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't. Vogone (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of the proposed 'levels' fit the bill. ·addshore· talk to me! 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So I added 50 mainspace edits & 5 admin/crat actions over 6 months :) ·addshore· talk to me! 23:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this page is a complete mess now. Why is everything between brackets? ;-) Multichill (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because people do not care about the "CHOOSE ONE OPTION", so every double vote was struck out. Vogone (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that it's a good way to run the RFC - we're looking at judging consensus, not counting votes. --Rschen7754 01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- *agrees with Rschen7754* ·addshore· talk to me! 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK it was you who started that RFC and implemented that rule. Anyway, the comments are still visible and can be used if there in the end is a close decision to be made between two of the options. Vogone (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I must retract, it was Jianhui67 who created this page. Vogone (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, one would just add a comment to the preferred section and state all the reasoning there (why this option would be better than any of the other options) instead of spamming all sections if the instructions clearly say otherwise. Though, I must admit I initially did that mistake myself. Vogone (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that it's a good way to run the RFC - we're looking at judging consensus, not counting votes. --Rschen7754 01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of administrator actions being done by administrators have been decreasing gradually, maybe we do not need so many adminstrators anymore and we do not need to afraid of desysopping due their inactivity. --Jklamo (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]