Meta talk:Administrators/Removal (inactivity)/Archives/2014

Rewrite removal criteria

Hi. I'd like to change the removal criteria. Instead of six months, I'd like to switch to two years. As I get older, two years doesn't seem very long. There are comments I see from myself from 2012 that seem like only yesterday. :-) Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that, or even a threshold of 1 action/edit within the past 6 months as the standard instead of 10. That said, you don't need to be an administrator on meta to engage in discussions here, and overall I am happy with how the process removes those that do not actively participate any more. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I still feel young. --MF-W 01:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Six months is an interesting time period, and it isn't as though we have backlogs, which makes it harder for some people to achieve admin tasks. I would say push the time period out to a year, and leave the parameters as they are. Alternatively, just do the review once a year, then the criteria for deadmin will be 6-12 months of inactivity.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. 6 months for 10 logged actions is a sufficient and acceptable period. Alan ^(talk) 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alan, et al.: What about getting rid of the "sign here" process altogether and switching to a rolling "no actions/edits in the past year" window? This seems like a reasonable compromise as it reduces bureaucracy, removes truly inactive users automatically, and seems to appropriately incorporate the suggestions of Ajraddatz and billinghurst, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • For me not worth an user as sysop who has not activity and sign "I'm still here." This is a clear example of inactivity and "hat collecting". (In a good way, be caution with local meanings). Alan ^(talk) 13:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, looking at this previous discussion, it seems Walter made basically the same suggestion ("Only look of that user is still around or not. If a user has not been seen in X years remove all rights. That is all."), with Lar and Daniel supporting. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Since you pointed to a discussion I was heavily involved in 5 years ago, I stand by my comments, hehe..2 years is a bit too long but i would agree with 1 year provided the user is active 'somewhere' on wikimedia, even if he/she is not directly active on meta...honestly, not much to do on meta as an admin as its been looked after by multiple groups including the stewards and the SWMT.... needless to say, we can't expect an editor be forced to make 10 edits on meta every 6 months just so that he could keep his/her rights. We now have the tools necessary to find out if certain users have been active anywhere on wikimedia for the last 6-12 months so in the future, lets vote along that line...not everyone gets adminship on meta for their work directly to this wiki, most get it via their work across wikimedia as meta has always been sort of like the control panel of wikimedia, some would say the United Nations of wikimedia..hehe..can we all agree on something along that line?..its pointless to discuss this every 5 years otherwise.. --Stemoc 13:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I kind of like the current policy. There is, however, one thing in it I personally don't really like and which resulted in some people losing rights while they were a bit active with the tools just not actively editing. I would support a rewording of the current policy as follows:

1. Users who have made fewer than ten logged actions in the six months immediately prior to the designated removal date (April 1 or October 1) are desysopped without notice.
2. Users who have made more than ten edits but fewer than ten actions requiring admin privileges in the same period are given a week to indicate they would like to retain their access. Users in this category are to be notified on the first day, and adminship is removed without notice on the seventh day if there is no response.

• I think it is only the first paragraph that needs to be changed. With logged actions I mean all kind of edits, protections, deletions etc, just everything that leaves a record in any log. As of now an admin having deleted 100 pages in six months but less than 10 edits will be removed immediately without any notice. That is actually what I don't really like about our current policy. I understand that for some people two years isn't that much, but two years on a project like this is really a lot, even one year is a fairly long time for wikiprojects. With that change, the half yearly removal round will turn pretty much into a "please sign to show you are still alive". It keeps our access list clean and only people who are still around will keep their tools. -Barras talk 14:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that Meta-Wiki moves slower than many wikis and it can be easy to not edit here regularly, particularly if you're not involved in permissions requests. What do you think about this draft? It removes the "sign to prove you're alive" requirement and simplifies the overhaul process. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That works for me. Thanks for trying to do something about this. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I personally think that this would simplify the process too much. I see no real harm in having people to sign that they still need the tools from time to time. There are sadly enough people who simply stick to rights they never ever use just for having them and that's personally something I don't really like. A nice reminder all few months to say "hey, you have still rights here, please don't forget about that wiki". When changing it to a one year period, we should also double the number of actions needed, imo. -Barras talk 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• I like the idea of just throwing the net out to a year; there is no reason for us to be doing this paperwork every six months. Make it ten interactions (edits plus log actions) in a year, full stop. Courcelles 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The paper work isn't that hard actually. As I said above, when we make it a one year period, we should also at least double the numbers. -Barras talk 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • What's the logic in doubling, or otherwise increasing the amount irrespective of the wiki's state? (i.e. enwiki only required one edit a year despite it being the most edited, whereas meta is only used for coordination... I mean, by all means, if someone or a couple really active can handle everything.) -- Mentifisto 03:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We need a threshold of some kind - and there will always be people who 'don't do enough'. I could agree however to a longer period of time / lower number of actions (and in addition, a better detection method of what has required the admin-bit over that period of time). I don't have that much time anymore, and mainly focus on en.wikipedia, only coming over to meta if I see that the problem is bigger than en.wikipedia. That simply results in less actions on meta, though I still use the bit regularly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not counting everything that is an admin action

I do think that the detection should be appropriate. Not all admins on meta are using the block-tool or the page-protection-tool or the page deletion tool (indeed, only 4 'logged' actions), but editing protected pages also falls under the admin tools and these were (at least in this round) not detected (Spam blacklist - around 15 and protected pages in userspace - 3). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 06:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read this c:Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section/Feb-Mar_2015#Confirm_your_adminship_here same thing happen to krinkle, long time ago the tools count edit on MediaWiki namespace and fully protected pages as logged action, but today the tools no longer count it as logged action, I want somebody to make a change to the tools and start counting the MW edit as logged action.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if the tools aren't counting it, we should be upon looking at the specific case. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)