Wikidata

Wikidata talk:Administrators

Latest comment: 1 year ago by QDJ22 in topic Item Discussion

Proposals for administrator policy edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago94 comments37 people in discussion

Note that each proposal is intended to be treated as separate from the others.

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.

Yes, I know that people aren't supposed to close their own proposals as successful, however in this case I'm going to consider that since the Stewards adopted it in setting temporary adminship for the people appointed thus far, that this was de facto closed by them a few days ago. Therefore this is closed as successful. If anyone wants to question my closing, feel free to do so, I'm not against discussing this further. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reconfirmation for initial wave of admins edit

I propose that any user who is elected to the role of administrator before December 31, 2012 should stand for re-confirmation, automatically, three months from the date of their appointment.

I have put this forth with the recognition that the admins that are running now, myself included, have no long term track record with the project, and are standing on their credentials from other projects. Additionally, the community has not entirely developed a set of criteria, either formal or informal, for selecting admins. By having this one-time re-confirmation in place, it will allow the community to decide whether the initially selected admins meet the community's desire in an admin candidate, while still allowing the project to have a robust admin corps early in.

Users who support this proposal edit

Users who oppose this proposal edit

Comments edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Adopt the Commons De-adminship policy (with one modification) edit

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.

Consensus to adapt the commons policy sans inactivity part - more discussion will follow in six months, per discussion on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the Commons de-adminship policy is an effective, sensible system, and that it would work on Wikidata. I also believe that it would be better do decide on this now, and have it agreed upon and in place, rather than wait until something causes us to want/need a de-adminship policy.

The one modification that needs to be made is that, until such a time where the community decides to appoint Bureaucrats, any role that the Commons policy delegates to a Bureaucrat must be preformed by a Steward.

Users who support this proposal edit

As proposer, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Users who oppose this proposal edit

  • I'm going to have to be the lone wolf and oppose this particular idea. We just don't know how many logged actions are going to be required here, and until we do, I'd much rather see a standard based on edits rather than lines in the admin log. At Commons, five deletions is two minutes of work; will there even be five deletions a day long term here? Five a week? We don't know, yet, and the project is unique enough yet that any answer will just be pure guesswork. Courcelles (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It's during phases two and three that the administrative work will begin in earnest, which will nicely tie in with when the deletion work from phase one starts to tail off. —WFC— 00:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe, maybe not. For now, I think Meta's policy would be better, as that allows edits to count as activity. Will the next phases actually produce logged actions? Yeah, they could, but they might not, and I don't think an inactivity policy should de-admin folks because there aren't enough needed logged actions to go around. Commons policy works because there are always a few hundred things to sort through and delete at commons:CAT:SD; an admin that cares about meeting the activity standards can do it without much effort, though some is required. Until we know what this place will be like in terms of admin workload, I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Potentially, but under the Commons policy we have a year to find out, and amend the policy if necessary (six months of insufficient actions, another six months from the date of response with insufficient actions). By not introducing this now, we may end up in the situation we have on en.wiki, where reform of adminship is patently needed, but cannot be implemented because current admins are unwilling to see the goalposts moved. By contrast, if we start off with this system, and you are correct, any necessary reform would involve making it easier for admins in good standing to retain the tools, which could be passed relatively easily. —WFC— 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Well said WFC. Truth be told, I was thinking about Courcelles' concern when I was building the proposal, however I ultimately came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be an issue. There were over a dozen deletions today alone, and admin actions also include editing MediaWiki namespace pages, applying page protections, blocking, and assigning user rights. If it's a problem, we can reassess. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want hat collectors who pop in from time to time, or whether we want moderately active admins. —WFC— 02:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It averages out to less than one admin action a month, so it's not as much a measure of activity as a measure of 'is the person still showing up'. I wouldn't be opposed to setting an edits threshold as an additional option to satisfy the 'is the person still showing up' check, however I would want that number to be 60, or 10 edits a month average over 6 months. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I also think that it would be better to count any edits, not only "admin actions", because the admins number should be limited only by doubts of misuse. Drbug (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Although the proposal would still likely pass as is (13/16 is 81%), since all of the opposition is to the type of edit, rather than that there's a requirement in the first place, I think there's room to negotiate. Five admin actions over six months is, at Commons, utterly trivial. However active users (especially users that are mainly active on other projects) still let the six months slip because they no longer see enough value in having the mop to justify heading over to Commons and spending 37 seconds deleting empty categories (always a source of admin actions at Commons). I'm not saying that the retention barrier should be high, indeed it's best if it's not high, but I'd like to see it require some sort of (minimal) commitment. I could see "must have 60 edits within the last six months", which I proposed above, as a good requirement. I'd think that 10 edits a month, on average, is enough to make sure that the person is still coming onto the site, without being an undue burden. If this number is acceptable to the three of you, I'd be willing to start another proposal and ask people to designate "first choice v. second choice" on the two. My one concern is that makes closing the discussions more complicated, so I'd like to see some sort of buy in from the people that have already participated if we're going to set up a competing proposal. Does 60 edits over 6 months work? If not, what's a good number? Either way, does the regular edits replace or just serve as an alternative for the five admin actions? Sorry for the wall of text, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Per Courcelles. We don't yet really know how many admin actions will actually be necessary, so it's reasonably likely that this won't be a good standard for inactivity. --Yair rand (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  •   Oppose per Courcelles. -- Jdforrester (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  •   Oppose While it's too late for me to simply withdraw this, as it has considerable support, in light of the high level of opposition to the type of edit needed, I'm withdrawing my support for this in favor of the one below. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

I agree with WFC. It is difficult to say which way this project goes. Handling interwiki data might be quite uncomplicated compared to the problems that might come when other data will be brought to Wikidata. No one knows if there will be editwars about data (political status of areas, members of religions etc.), so no one knows what will be the tasks thats admins have to handle. Whatever rules may find a majority now, they all should be reviewed in at least a year. NNW (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
That exactly what I wanted to say initially. We want to count "admin actions" for withdraw admin rights, but we don't know yet what actions are expected. -Zanka (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Adopt the Commons De-adminship policy (with two modifications, incl redefinition of inactivity) edit

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.

Consensus to adapt the commons policy sans inactivity part - more discussion will follow in six months, per discussion on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the light of the opposition to the original proposal, which focused on the definition of inactivity, for your consideration is the below, revised proposal:

I believe that the Commons de-adminship policy is an effective, sensible system, and that it would work on Wikidata. I also believe that it would be better do decide on this now, and have it agreed upon and in place, rather than wait until something causes us to want/need a de-adminship policy.

I propose that the document be accepted as Wikidata policy with the following two changes:

  • Until Wikidata elects its own Bureaucrats, any responsibilities delegated to Bureaucrats in the Commons policy are to be handled by Stewards here.
  • The definition of inactive is changed from "one who has made fewer than 5 admin actions on [Wikidata] in the past 6 months" to "one who has made fewer than 60 edits or 6 admin actions on [Wikidata] in the past 6 months". (Note that meeting either metric satisfies the requirement for activity, both are not required.)

Users who support this proposal edit

Users who oppose this proposal edit

  •   Oppose If we're dead set on doing this, I recognise that a threshold of 60 edits strikes a good balance between being a low barrier to entry and ensuring that those who hold the tools are contributing to the project in some way.

    My opposition is to the principle itself – I want us to learn from the successes and failures of other projects. Adminship should be nothing other than a set of tools held by people in order to do specific tasks. By adopting this proposal, we are formally recognising that it is also a trophy handed out to popular and/or productive editors, a mistake that a large number of WMF wikis have inadvertently made over the years.

    The only reason I can see for considering this idea is a potential lack of admin work. There is no proof either way, but I can't imagine any circumstances under which five admin actions in 18 months (none in the first six month period, five in the six month period after responding to the notification, none in the following six month period), is unreasonable or unachievable. And in the unlikely event that I'm wrong, so what? That would mean that there's no work to do. Those due to be technically desysopped under Sven's proposal would not be barred from immediately seeking the community's approval to retain the tools. —WFC— 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

    • The reasoning behind this, for me, is that I don't want abandoned admin accounts sitting about. While the risk of an account being compromised is minimal, I view it as a problem when people go asking inactive users for help, and then don't get the help they were looking for because no one saw the message. I want people to be able to look at the current list of administrators, be able to pick one, leave them a message, and have a high chance of getting a response in a reasonable amount of time. I want, when people send an email to an administrator, for there to be a solid chance that the recipient is still checking that email, and isn't too detached from the community to be able to handle the situation (i.e. is in the loop about policy changes). I also want us to have some sort of de-sysop mechanism because, in keeping with your "learn from the successes and failures of other projects" theme, eventually there is going to be someone with the mop that has done something that warrants removal of the mop, and having a process in place will make that go smoother. This is also Sven Manguard 20:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • More than likely the list of admins will get large enough here that your vision of going to any one on the list and asking for help wouldn't work anyway. What if an admin was on vacation for two days? We can always leave notices on the inactive one's user/talk pages, and create centralized pages for requesting admin help. IMO that would be better than either of these two proposals, but people here seem to be bent on removing inactive admins. As to removal of tools for reasons other than inactivity, I don't see why that's an issue... this isn't enwiki, I think that we can use common sense. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Looking at our list of admins, the problem is that, overall, there is only a weak correlation between quality/quantity of Wikidata mainspace contributions, potential need for the tools on Wikidata, and who we are actually electing as admins. The danger is that if we continue in this fashion, we will perpetuate the lookie badge culture of other projects, most notably en.wp.

          I want to create a culture where people who contribute without causing trouble are no less respected than those who do precisely the same, whilst also making use of additional tools. In theory this is a founding principle of every project, in practise it's only true on some WMF wikis. The best way of ensuring such a culture is to follow the following points:

          a) to create a direct link between tool usage and tool retention.

          b) To ensure that there is no stigma or stress attached to holding, or not holding the tools. This can achieved in part through a), and in part by...

          c) Removing entirely the judicial element of adminship. How? By leaving admins to do the janatorial work, such as deletion, protection and vandal-fighting, and electing crats on the basis of whether we trust their judgement, entrusting them to close RfAs, RfCs and the like.

          This could well lead to a situation where some users are crats but not admins; frankly I see that as a good thing. If a good user decides that one element of what they have been doing is no longer enjoyable, I'd prefer them to feel that they can pursue something different and still be highly respected for it, rather than feel a compulsion to leave completely. All too often en.wp admins retire for this reason. —WFC— 10:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

This happened a while ago... Sven Manguard Wha? 15:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Voting system edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago39 comments13 people in discussion

There are two de-adminship proposals above but still nothing about voting system. Commons (commons:Commons:Administrators#The public discussion and vote uses following:

  • nominations remain open for at least seven days
  • at least 75% in favour
  • a minimum of 8 support votes
  • votes from unregistered users are not numerically counted

Should we use the same policy or change something? I'm not sure about 75% in ruwiki we use 66.7% and about 7 days cause I couldn't predict level of activity. Zanka (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Stewards typically look for at the bare minimum 70%, and optimally at least 80%, with a fair number of !votes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Zanka's proposal seems to be good if we use the ratio suggested by Jasper Deng, i.e. we can have something like this:
  • nominations remain open for at least seven days
  • minimum 70% of consensu, and optimally at least 80%
  • a minimum of 8 support votes
  • only votes from registered users are counted
How do you think about this? Restu20 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
So that would leave the 70-80 range up to the discretion of the Stewards? There are pros and cons to both leaving it to steward discretion and using a hard and fast cutoff. The biggest con to the range is that it creates the situation where a steward decides someone with 71% is in but someone with 79% doesn't make it, for reasons that many people might disagree with. The biggest con of the hard cutoff is that if someone discovers something last minute and opposes because of it, and other people, had they seen it, also might oppose, the candidate might still get in because of bad timing of the oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
(and in the future, bureaucrats). This is just like any other request for permissions. If the opposes are mainly by users with 1 edit each, then 70% passes. If they are all by existing experienced editors, 80% probably passes. My general idea here is that this should not be a true vote - in fact, Commons's adminship process seems to be the only such process that is treated as a bare vote.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'd support the modified proposal then. I would say though that we need to handle unregistered users better. Whether Ice1993 was driven away by curt messages and strikethroughs or whether he was never going to be a productive editor is something that we can't ever know, but thus far we're batting 0 for 1 in treating IPs in the RfA space with an optimal level of kindness/respect. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I believe that in the boundary cases steward/bureaucrats could extend voting time period. Maybe we could make it more straightforward. For example, if it is in 70-75% range and/or number of support votes = 7 (one less than minimum) than continue voting one more week (or day). Agree with a point about unregistered users. But how to do it? Zanka (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I thought about that too, but in most projects, the 'crats will do that anyways even if it's not in policy. I don't want to get too rules heavy. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I hate rules around voting, but think that these are good guidelines. ~75% support and a minimum of ~8 people voting is good. Both of those numbers can be modified as common sense dictates in a situation. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I saw this discussion and I think I can weight in and offer the views of how we handle things at Meta :) -- I personally would preferr a clear voting system. Those "between 70 and 80 percent of approval" clauses do only increase unfairness and headaches sometimes. As such I would preferr to see a fixed percentage of approval. Stewards don't really like going and deciding about percentages. If I were asked to decide over such 70/80% I'd probably reject the request and tell the local wiki to formally close it then come back to us. Having a fixed percentaje is also fair for everybody and easy for meta stewards to handle. Please also set a fixed number of required voters for a request to pass (if you're going to set such requirements) for the same reasons. I personally would suggest the system I knew over eswiki which is, for RfAs, as follows: the user can selfnom or be nominated, the request runs for 7 days (15 days over eswiki, but I think it's too much). At the time of the closure the user had to get at least 75% of approval to be promoted. We cast votes, we don't discuss (although discussion is allowed at the talk page of the RfA/comments section). To prevent issues, only users that are one month-old and have made at least 100 edits before the RfA started may cast a vote. It is not probably the best system, but it worked quite well in such a big wiki like eswiki. Hope that it helps. Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Who could vote? Any registered or auto-confirmed or with X edits within last Y days or something else? Zanka (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    To make it easy, all the registered users can vote. If we want to be more selective, we can make a limit of 500 edit in the 30 (or 60) days preceding the proposal. Restu20 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    No. No X number of edits over Y period. If someone is going to sock, they're going to meet those barriers because they want to sock. Meanwhile setting high barriers disenfranchises legitimate users. Stewards have enough experience and common sense to see socking and discount the votes of people that do it. We don't need to institutionalize artificial barriers to voting. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Not even auto-confirmed? Zanka (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I see no reason to require auto-confirmed. Like Sven said, if people wanted to sock they could do it anyways. If someone has something valuable to contribute, let them do it. Bureaucrats can always use common sense when closing these requests... Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I think at the moment that all the registered users can take part in this discussion; if there is sockpuppeting problems with this decision we will modify the requirement for the partecipation to adminship discussion. Restu20 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Some people may not like to contribute to this project, but are respected users (or even admins/bcts) elsewhere. We have SUL, so via that it's easily checkable if such vote has or has not enough weight.
    — Danny B. 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'd adopt the eswiki policy and therefore suggest that only registered users that have are at least one month old and have made at least 100 namespace edits before the vote started may cast a vote. That'd prevent users just comming here to vote as it happens at other projects. Everybody should be allowed to comment in the talk page/comments section though. Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Some of the RfAs do have supports from people that have no edits outside of the RfA process, but I'm not sure I myself could support a barrier like that at this time. If comes 2013 we're still seeing drive-by cross-project supports, than yes, I might think that such a barrier is reasonable. This is also Sven Manguard 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Like I've said before, if someone has a valid idea, why would we want to prevent them from saying it? What if the user voting is trusted on the candidate's home wiki, and informs us of bad behaviour there? Let everyone vote, and let bureaucrats use common sense after. I do understand the need for this project to develop as its own, though, and the current RfAs already show a large number of people voting for users on their home wiki with no other rational. If the 100 edits/1 month rule did go through, I think that an uncounted comments section would be a good addition. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Nigh on 100% of supports at RfA thus far have been in the form of "I like them elsewhere, give them tools here". It's not for me to pass judgement on this practise, but that's where we are at this moment in time. —WFC— 08:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've seen this also. One example: ShinePhantom got 10-11 support votes, 9 of them are Russian users. And second example (about me), I'm the only active user here from the Finnish Wikipedia, and therefore, no votes from there to me. --Stryn (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, is 8 minimum support votes enough? I think so. Marco has been using 10, but 8 seems plenty when used with a support/oppose ratio. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It would be good if you could finally confirm which percentage and number of support votes do a user need to become an admin so we can process some more requests. Is 8 supports and 75% of approval the final rule, then? Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'd say so. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
+1. (With the commons sense of the bureaucrats. It seems to be tradition to inform the Polish community about any RfA of a Polish wikipedian, so lots of Polish users start to vote, see at Commons right now.) NNW (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Support MarcoAurelio's proposal. Restu20 20:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Support This, that and the other (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Support Zanka's proposal, partially reiterated above by MarcoAurelio Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Support Zanka (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Support Zanka´s prposal.--Snaevar (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, given the opinions above and the straw poll right above this I think the requirements for adminship are set as follows (Zanka's proposal):

  • Nominations remain open for at least a full week
  • To pass, the user needs:
    • at least 8 support votes, and
    • at least 75% of support or higher in pro/con voting
  • Only registered users can vote. Unregistered users can leave comments in the comments section.

I'll copy them to WD:RfP shortly. Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Em, it took Zanka and Hydriz longer than a week to get eight supports. With these rules and the retroactivity they would have to be de-admined. And there are several users listed at Meta with enough support now but they don't fulfill the one week rule, either. NNW (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I guess I did a typo: should say "remain open for at least a full week" as Zanka's proposal above. Although, until then an RfA can be opened? I guess that we should think about a minimum of one week and a maximum of two weeks... But for now it's "at least one week" as it was the proposal. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Retroactivity edit

To make things simple here and at Meta, I suggest that this requirements be set as retroactive so they apply not only for the RfAs opened after this, but also to the RfAs opened before any policy like this existed. Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User pages edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Like in Commons user pages of administrators at least should show in which languages they are able to communicate. This is important for a multi-lingual project. A redirect to another project seems to be a bad idea for administrators. NNW (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Languages should be required - same thing on meta. A redirect to another project should be fine, though, but I don't really have a preference. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
A redirect for a user page I'd say is fine, I don't really give a damn about them anyhow, but a local talk page should be active for admins, as some users who need to communicate here about local matters may be blocked elsewhere. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sure, administrators should have an babel box. If the redirected page has an babel box, then that is ok too, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is not a bad idea to suggest that admins consider placing a {{#babel:}}. It is not that onerous and provides helpful info for folks seeking help (ie: looking for an admin that speaks my language, etc...) Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
To help with identifying administrators {{User admin}} and {{User admin (temp)}} (or use {{User admin|temporary=yes}}) have been created to aid in identifying administrators. (the admin logo is being re-designed) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Riley Huntley, I'd do away with the temporary adminship one. Every admin is temporary right now, and temporary adminship is itself temporary. On an unrelated note, I like those templates, but would love one in babel form, like my Commons one is. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
While I disagree on removing the temporary one (permanent ones will come eventually), yes I would like internationalization of these, but I don't know how to implement it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Steal it from Commons, of course. No need to reinvent the wheel. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit lost on how Commons' implementation works, still; what would we need to change about these templates as they are?--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
A good idea and I'm support it so that my personal page will be fixed soon. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

New administrators edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm now an administrator. Thank you.

So, how can I help? Do we have a task list, and/or an introductory page for new admins? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is Wikidata:Requests for deletions or Wikidata:Requests for permissions#Requests for autopatrol flag. Tasks can be found here but for these you don't have to be sysop. NNW (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

What to do after December 31, 2012 edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

With December 31, 2012 coming up, we have to decide if we want new admins after that date to be temporary, or start making them permanent. Any thoughts? Techman224Talk 21:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd say keep making them temporary until the first batch of permanent admins is through. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
The agreement above doesn't give any concrete indication of what should be done. I personally am of the thinking that admins elected after that date should be permanent admins, as the entire reason why I wanted the trial period was that I was worried that the incoming batch of admins had no real experience on the project, and so couldn't be judged by on-project activity. My opinion on the matter isn't terribly strong, however, so if a good argument is made in the other direction, I might flip on the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
From my perspective, the main point of temporary adminship was that we hadn't really defined the go/no go areas for admins. Given that we still haven't, I can't see any argument for suddenly electing permanent admins, especially people who have not previously been sysops here. —WFC— 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Watchlist bump. —WFC— 13:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think that still temporary is better. I don't have a strong opinion about that. --Stryn (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can see the first batch of admins is allready through and users are more experienced with Wikidata then they where one month ago. When Wikidata started those who had followed the progress on Wikidata, made test edits on the demo repo and/or translated the interface knew more about Wikidata than the others. Looking at the discussion on Project chat, that has changed as others have gained experience with Wikidata.
However, I understand that there are conserns that there are not that many admin rules here and so, I am willing to comprimise. My comprimise is to extend the temporary adminship by one month, with the requirement that discussion on admin rules will start within 5 days.--Snaevar (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes the time of temporary admins should be extended. --Sk!d (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

A thought: Wikidata will be constantly expanding and changing, the next major change coming in January. For each change, we'll really need to redefine the role of an admin. For now, I'll be starting an RfC on the roles of admins within Phase I when I get back home tomorrow. When Phase II roles out, we can do another RfC if common sense doesn't clearly define the role of an admin within that.

Honestly, I'd be happy to see us never elect permanent admins. I think that lots of the problems on enwiki especially come from a lack of accountability with admins, and a perception of admins as some kind of super-user. If this becomes a problem here as well, perhaps some twice-a-year admin confirmations would be good. Just one week events, where any user could start a request for review on an admin. This way, only people who have been causing a fuss would be reviewed. Then again, I'm not sure what good that would do either. Not a proposal - just a thought. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The problem on enwp (where I am an admin) is that there is no de-adminship process outside of the Arbitration Committee. I would support the Commons solution, where editors can start a request for desysop, and it's basically another RFA (with the level of support at 50%). Frivolous requests can be closed early. --Rschen7754 07:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
No enwp policy over here, Commons-policy is better, and I think that many other Wikipedia's use also it. --Stryn (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be easy to give adminship and easy to lose it, but harder to get additional rights. Don't turn admins into superusers, make then something people can become if they behave. Jeblad (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think that there might be more wrong on enwiki than just that ;) - I'd support using the commons policy. The ideal situation to my mind would be for adminship to be easy to get, so that there are enough admins for how much other projects will use this one, but to also be easily able to remove it. From my experience elsewhere, without a confirmation process it is a lot harder to pass a request for de-adminship, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn't be desysopping over a couple of small mistakes anyways. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
In the commons policy, in order for an admin to be desysopped, it has to be for serious offences and there has to be prior discussion before someone can open a de-adminship request . If one is opened without prior discussion of the admin's actions, it can be closed as out of process. I think we should have something like that here. Techman224Talk 00:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think the whole -vote to vote to remove adminship- thing is a bit silly, but if it works on Commons, it could work here. See the section on the defining admins RfC. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Defining administrators edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Counting neutrals edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Do we want to more explicitly state how neutrals are counted on RfAs? On Commons, they include neutrals into the total; 5 supports; 3 neutrals, 2 opposes → 50% support. Apparently, on Wikidata we haven't. Saying nothing about this may be confusing, given Wikidata's similarity to and adaptations from Commons in other areas. Current numbering of votes with ordered lists also gives me the impression that neutrals are getting counted. --whym (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neutral is neutral, not oppose. Neutrals are good to fulfill the requested quorum of total votes, but should not be counted as oppose. Think the way -1, 0, 1. Minimum number of votes required, SUM( positives ) >= SUM( negatives ) * 3 (or 4 or whatever ratio is set) required. The only concern should be in case when the number of neutrals is bigger than number of positives. That would be the only condition I would add. So in total: minimum amount required, # of positives to # of negatives in given ratio, # of neutrals is not bigger than # of positives.
— Danny B. 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I went ahead and added words to clarify in the document: a 75% margin of support from those who voted support or oppose. Does this look ok? --whym (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I guess I'll leave another point raised by Danny B., about the case of more neutrals than supports, for further discussion. I personally think it makes sense. --whym (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reconfirmation - WMDE edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What about with these users? Most of them are inactive in project and have small or don't have logged admin or crat actions. Rzuwig► 21:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

They are WMDE staff and will have admin/crat access for the duration of their contracts. --Rschen7754 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Global sysops edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given that Hahc closed his RFC, I'd like to bring the comments made about what GSs can do (at WD:Requests for comment/Opting out of Global sysops#Non-bureaucratic proposal) here.

Global sysops and stewards are allowed to use their admin tools for

  • blocking accounts and IP addresses in cases of vandalism, spam or long-term abuse
  • performing rollbacks according to Wikidata's rollback guideline and marking edits as patrolled
  • deletions of vandalism or spam
  • non-controversial housekeeping within the MediaWiki namespace

They are not allowed to revert or overrule any actions that are performed by a local administrator. If a global sysop misuses their rights, any local user in good standing may ask them to stop.

In my opinion there is no need to go into further detail here, as global rollbackers/global sysops generally know what they're doing, so I think they're very unlikely to abuse their tools. Any feedback or improvements are welcome. Regards --Iste (D) 20:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe they should engage in the deletion of duplicate items, which can be more subtle than one might think. Before deletion, it must be verified that what's going to be deleted is a duplicate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jasper. Let's strike the "[…] or duplicated items" part, if they are reported on e. g. WD:RFD. But I do not mind if a GS deletes some by himself merged items (e. g. like SPQRobin does). Regards, Vogone talk 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
They shouldn't perform routine deletions, since local administrators are always on hand, and surely more skilled for those tasks (except for special cases). --Ricordisamoa 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Their purpose is handling spam and vandalism. I see no reason why that would be taken from them. Do you consider those routine? --Izno (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Chanced to remove duplicate items per consensus above. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I could support this. --Stryn (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
What about stewards who have just done a CU and need to do some blocks? --Rschen7754 09:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid for this case we need a policy to be discussed separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a good place to start talking about it anyway. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added long-term abuse to the cases where stewards or GS should be allowed to perform blocks, as I think this is one of the major issues they often deal with and are experienced with. This would also include CU blocks. Regards --Iste (D) 12:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we allow them to perform CUs here, IAW either our local policy or the global policy? --Izno (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I know GS can not CU, only stewards can.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As long as we don't have local checkusers, I don't see any other possibility than allowing stewards to perform CU. Of course global sysops don't have the technical ability to do so. Regards --Iste (D) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Any local admin may ask them to stop" -- Shouldn't this be anyone excepting bad-faith editors (who may be asking for it because they don't want to be reverted)? --Izno (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problems if non-admins in good standing are allowed to ask them to stop. I just wrote "any local admin" in my proposal because in some other projects which have policies about global rights usage only admins are allowed to do so. Regards --Iste (D) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. --Izno (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Continue discussion, if any, below this signature --Izno (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

There don't seem to be any objections, so I'm going to change the project page as proposed above in a few days if nobody opposes. Regards --Iste (D) 11:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Admin criteria edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This page should really mention what's expected of a user before applying for adminship. Please comment,

Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is very little if anything expected beyond some experience with Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the only thing which is needed is experience with the project and integration in its community. Regards, Vogone talk 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
This project has (I believe intentionally) been keeping admission standards very light. A very large number of our active users are admins. If you've been active for more than a month or two and have an edit count in at least the four digits, unless you are an asshole show an inability to work collaboratively with others, or are suspected of some sort of foul play (canvassing or sockpuppeteering), or are a blatant hat collector, chances are very high that you'll get the mop. I don't see this as at all a bad thing. Thus far we've got a robust and healthy admin corp, and no admin-non admin community tension that I know of. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Even three-digit edit counts sometimes succeed, but I'm seeing a trend to 4-digit counts like what Sven mentions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

List of former administrators edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think it's a good idea to list all former administrators on this page. It unnecessarily increases the page size and there will be only few people who might be interested in such a list. Some of the former admins didn't even made a single log action. I would prefer to have a subpage for it. NNW (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Subpage is a good idea. --Stryn (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a timeline could be a good idea. Regards, Vogone talk 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  Support the subpage idea. Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

With timeline I mean charts like m:Template:GlobalSysopsChart or m:Template:StewardsChart. Current and former admins would be combined then. Regards, Vogone talk 12:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if such a timeline is good to handle with an increasing number of ex-admins. Perhaps a simple list with dates would be better (e.g. commons:Commons:List of former administrators), especially as it is possibly to search a name it in which isn't possible in a timeline. But I in the end I have no preference as long as the list vanishes from this page. :o) NNW (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I made the following page: Wikidata:Administrators/Timeline. Feel free to make it better. Just about 2 hours work :) --Stryn (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
^^ User:Vogone/Template:AdminsChart Vogone talk 14:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
There might be space enough for both pages. :o) NNW (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Admin anthem" edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I appreciate the sense of humor, but adding it to this page is too much. I would advise everyone to please restrict it to the userspace; this project page is intended for serious documentation of this right. Such a joke, while funny, paints a bad picture of us (our project as a whole). Please, no more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would have to concur - it makes us look unprofessional, especially at a time when the stewards are convinced that we are unprofessional, we don't need to make it worse. --Rschen7754 02:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree, no more humor to project pages, or nobody don't take admins seriously. --Stryn (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I also agree, It is policy. not for Chating. --DangSunM (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reprieve system? edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What exactly means "There is currently no reprieve system in place"? Does it mean e.g. that if someone have done 9 admin actions in 6 months, we have to take off his admin rights, 'couse we don't give mercy? --Stryn (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining inactivity, three different models of a reprieve system have been discussed / have been for voting. The first would have allowed an inactive admin to state "I'll be back then and then", and he wouldn't have lost the sysop flag until then plus 30 days, and the other two basically allowed an inactive admin to simply state that he'd like to keep the rights, as long as he did at least enough non-sysop edits. None of these options have been accepted by the community. So the 9 action guy would have to be desysopped. He could, however, prevent this by just doing one sysop action. And I guess if he loses the flag and re-applies for them some time later, it usually won't be much of a challenge to get re-elected as an admin. --YMS (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • These proposals were not about regaining sysopship. They were about exceptions to the inactivity policy and said nothing about how an admin could regain access. I strongly support an admin's ability to re-request adminship if they were desysopped under this policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

De-administration of an administrator edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Is there any system to get rid of administrators who are not up to the task? Where can I sign for de-administration of an administrator? --FA2010 (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Every admin will lose their adminship if they haven't done any admin actions for six months. I think correct place to start voting for de-adminship is Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator. But notice, that Before a request for de-adminship is started, the issue must have been brought up and discussed at the administrators' noticeboard. --Stryn (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't it be at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal instead? The Anonymouse (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I didn't remember this exists (even though it was on my watchlist). --Stryn (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
By the way, where did we decide that there must be a discussion on AN first before somebody can open a discussion on WD:RFP/R? This seems to be completely redundant and unnecessary to me as the WD:RFP/R is already a discussion itself. This additional requirement just makes desysoping harder than sysoping which shouldn't be the case, in my opinion. Vogone talk 06:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here, apparently. The Anonymouse (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just some numbers, no hard statement: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal currently is watched by 17 users. That's not extraordinary low, but still way less than the 62 that watch Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator. So a removal request probably wouldn't go unnoticed if not previously discussed in a more public place, but probably some people regularly discussing sysop requests would not get aware of a desysop request. --YMS (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
As far as I am aware of, we advertise any request which goes to another request page than WD:RFOR on the watchlist notice. So you don't even need to watch /Removal to get informed about the discussion. Furthermore, administrators are in no way representative for the whole community's will. Why should they get informed on their noticeboard and discuss a matter only with themselves while the whole community's input is needed and relevant? This makes no sense, in my opinion. Vogone talk 13:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree — why discuss beforehand on a noticeboard that is mostly seen by admins? Why not just start at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal and discuss it there, where everyone will see it (since it will be posted on the watchlist notice)? The Anonymouse (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
The idea is to avoid bad-faith desysopping requests that just serve to waste the community's time (since the request has to be run for a week and only a 'crat can close it, while anyone can close an AN discussion) - for example, requests with the rationale "he unfairly blocked me!" (when the reporter was rightly blocked for chronic edit warring the previous day).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, it makes no difference whether a user makes a bad faith request on WD:RFP/R or on WD:AN. The intention would stay the same. Secondly, we need no 'crat for closing any ordinary RFP. It already happened more than once that a non-crat did it and per our policies, crats are only responsible for closing requests for access to private data, the flood flag and requests for translation adminship. The rest can be closed by anyone, like an AN discussion. As far as I see, this "Before a request for de-adminship is started, the issue must have been brought up and discussed at the administrators' noticeboard." stuff was imported from Wikimedia Commons, which has other policies/standards than Wikidata, anyway. It might be senseful over there, but it definitely isn't here in my opinion. Greetings, Vogone talk 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Other accounts with administrative access edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

... section says non-controversial housekeeping within the MediaWiki namespace. Is editing the blacklists (SBL, TBL) within this? --Glaisher [talk] 06:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Probably not, as "non-controversial housekeeping" usually means things like typos.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
If not under that point, it could fall under blocking accounts and IP addresses in cases of vandalism, spam or long-term abuse though as blacklists do nothing else than preventing accounts/IP addresses from spamming. Correct me if I am mistaken. Vogone talk 10:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Fore sure this is not completely wrong. But there's a difference between blocking an account that has made concrete edits that are spam and preventing all accounts from making any edits containing a certain link suggesting those could be spam edits. However, that difference still persists if a local admin does this SBL entry. Maybe they have a better overview over the specific circumstances that would allow/forbid putting a certain link somewhere, though I don't know if this ever is relevant in practice. In any case, a local admin could revert a SBL entry made by a global sysop immediately or as soon as there are complaints, so I don't see a problem with such actions. --YMS (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

majority of 50% edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

WD:Administrators#Losing adminship says: "Administrator access can also be removed after a community vote at Wikidata:Requests for permissions, with a simple majority of 50% of users supporting the removal."

This sentence is factually wrong as 50% does not represent a "majority". Has someone suggestions how to adjust that sentence? Regards, Vogone (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems like Hahc21 found an acceptable solution. Thanks for that! Vogone (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Administration of administrator list edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If an administrator loses the sysop flag, he/she has to be removed from here (Wikidata:Administrators), from Template:CurrentAdmins, from Wikidata:Administrators by language/Table and from MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js, updated in Template:AdminsChart and added to Template:FormerAdmins (not talking of external lists like en:Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans, which might need an update, too). Often one or several of these are forgotten by whoever takes care of this. Isn't there a way to reduce the number of edits that are needed to be done in such a case? Or should we just collect these links somewhere (where?), so one hasn't to recollect them all every time? --YMS (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC) PS: Of course, the same pages have to be edited when someone gains the administratorship. Didn't think of that because then usually our bureaucrats do a good job in updating the lists, as far as I can tell (and they often don't do it in case of rights removal because this is not their job, as the rights removal is requested and done on meta). --YMS (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've always wanted this to be updated by bot. In fact I might suggest a Lua script might even do the trick.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Inactivity resysoppings edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@Ajraddatz, Vogone: Since when was there consensus for that line? No RfC has ever ratified it. Technically it needs consensus (any granting of adminship must result at least indirectly from community consensus). I think the burden is on whomever added it (@John F. Lewis:) to get consensus for it, not me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that it is a logical extension of the inactivity policy, based on what is done elsewhere (from what I've seen through global work anyway). I also don't think it is appropriate to remove something which has been in the policy for over a year without any notice, so thanks for posting this here. Either way I support it being in there. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
It never was policy. Plain and simple. Other wikis which do this usually have it ratified separately. However I do intend this to be a constructive discussion: we need a better system in my opinion, since one who resigns under controversy shouldn't be allowed to invoke that. It also technically contradicts the "there is currently no reprieve" sentence if the inactivity policy is supposed to be invoked on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
The "no reprieve" clearly refers to inactivity desysopping. I've also clarified the part about voluntary removal to keep it in-line with the inactivity policy. Look good? Ajraddatz (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
It was included in the original RFC (and I wrote the RFC)... [1] --Rschen7754 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Ajraddatz: Thanks. @Rschen7754: In my memory had read other discussion (on this talk page) about whether admins could be resysopped, but the discussion was about inactivity only, now that I remember correctly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Inactivity policy edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I'm not really a big fan of the inactivity policy here on Wikidata. My own admin rights were removed back in April because I had not had any admin actions for six months. I'm not disagreeing with the removal at all, it was completely according to policy, but I think the policy should be changed. In my case I had not had any admin actions for six months, but I had more than 15,000 edits in that timespan, so I was clearly not absent, and would have been able to help out where needed if called upon, and I think that could be the case for several other formor admins as well.

So I would propose to make some changes to the policy. If we want to make a simple change, I would simply propose that instead of removing the bit automatically after six months' (admin) inactivity (same definition as now, less than five admin actions), a user should get a reminder after six months. Then, if there is no further activity (again, same definition as now, five admin actions) in the next six months, the bit should be removed. I think this is a more reasonable policy. Comments? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm against any reminders. If an admin don't remember to use his/her tools there is no need for the tools. They can always ask them back. Stryn (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ditto. --Rschen7754 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Stryn: I can't speak for anyone else, but for me my areas of activity come in waves. One month I'll be busy doing menial stuff like add Norwegian transcriptions of Russian names, or (like I am currently) adding first name and last name statements – then the next I might become pretty inactive in Wikidata because I found something to do in Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons or Translatewiki, but then I come back to Wikidata and find another task that I can focus on. One of the niche things I did as an admin was to delete thousands of items for categories/templates/etc. that had been deleted in various projects, but that's a niche I can't help out with anymore. The fact that I'm not focusing on that every month doesn't necessarily mean I don't need the admin tools, and I certainly know when to use them (and not) even if I haven't been active with that sort of task for a few months. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
I certainly get that, but <5 actions in a 6 month period leans more towards not being active in any month. --Rschen7754 00:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's true, it's a very small amount. Which is why I think a reminder is in order – to let the users in question know they need to pick up speed if they intend to continue. It's the sudden removal without warning that feels a bit unwelcoming. I think it would also be fine if we keep the limit at six months as it is, but give users a reminder after three or four months of no/low activity. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
The problem with that is that we then get users faking activity in order to maintain rights, or making just the minimum number of actions to keep the rights as a sort of status symbol (i.e. Meta, Commons). --Rschen7754 00:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
If they are familiar with the rules and know when to use the tools, I don't really see why that's a problem. It's not like there's a cap for how many admins there can be. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
I support this change. Admins are volunteers, and I think it's important to treat volunteers with some dignity. I've never understood the push to get rid of people if they haven't met some arbitrary line of activity. We should be finding ways to re-engaged inactive people, not trying to show them the door as quickly as possible. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Ajraddatz: Yes, this exactly! You phrased it much better than I was able to.   Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
I do not have a strong opinion either way, but admins who are really afraid to lose track of the number of theor actions must add this page to their watchlist, it is pretty accurate and up-to-date.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's a very useful page indeed! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

First designs for Special:Block with Granular blocks edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Anti-Harassment Tools team enlisted the assistance of Alex Hollender, a User Experience designer at Wikimedia Foundation to create wireframe designs of the Special:Block with the Granular block feature included. Our first wireframes are based on the discussions on the Granular block talk page, Wishlist proposal, and Phabricator to date.

Because the Special:Block page is already at its limits with its current layout and we would like to propose a new organized layout for Special:Block. This will make it easier to add the granular blocking (page, category, namespace, etc) and whatever is to come in the future. All of the same functionality is available on this new layout, but in a more organized, step-by-step process.

Take a look at the wireframe and leave us your feedback. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Item Discussion edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Moved to Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

QDJ22 (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Administrators&oldid=2080134006"
Return to the project page "Administrators".