Meta talk:Administrators/Removal (inactivity)/October 2018

Please fix

Neither of the people who lost their rights automatically should have been removed. They both have over 10 logged actions in the last six months, and are not inactive. We shouldn't be ridiculous bureaucrats about this policy - they've both made logged actions within the last week even. Please reinstate their permissions. Thanks. I can't tell if Courcelles made his logged actions after the cut-off, but I don't really care honestly. He's still here, let him stay on. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This constant whining is even more ridiculous. If the policy is soooo bad, why do all attempts to change it fail? --MF-W 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(As a disclosure, I have opposed Danny B.'s RFA). I personally believe that the criteria should stay as is, because of concerns about community involvement. I don't hold strongly to that view, but that is what my opinion is. --Rschen7754 18:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Arg, there are too many discussions happening on this in too many places. At first reading, it wasn't clear to me that the policy wasn't referring to both log actions and edits since the page said both. But I see where the concern/confusion is now. I suppose the correct action here is to implement what Matiia did and then continue the discussion on Meta talk:Administrators about changing the policy... again. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what I said elsewhere at [1]. If the user has failed to make 10 edits, the user gets removed even if they have the highest log action count in the whole wiki. This is a non-debatable, highly clear requirement of our current policy. Is it dumb? Maybe. Could it be fixed? Perhaps. Is this the right place to do so? Absolutely not. Rights should be removed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not a highly clear requirement of our current policy. The current policy clearly states ""Inactivity" is normally defined as fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months". That's non negotiable. The removal criteria doesn't match the inactivity policy (though there was consensus to change that in a discussion that was shamefully ignored several months ago) but as neither of these users meet the definition of 'inactive', none of that section applies to them, removal criteria included. Nick (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Meta:Administrators/Removal is the only policy for this, and is very clear to me, and apparently for my fellow bureaucrats as well. We may not like it and we may want to change it. That's good, let's do it. For now let's apply what we have. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It was changed months ago. Nihlus 19:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was. The only reason nothing was implemented was because the bureaucrats did nothing. Discussions here have a tendency to be archived into oblivion, so it's not the community's fault. Let me remind you what Meta:Bureaucrats says: "They are expected to be capable judges of consensus." Nihlus 20:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If it was "changed" as you claim, what was it "changed" to? I can hardly see any obvious consensus in that discussion you linked, some users even suggested different changes to the policy than what Xaosflux proposed initially, others opposed. I fear our "capable judges of consensus" simply did not see a clear consensus in that unstructured discussion, rather than refusing to implement an alleged "change" to policy. --Vogone (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I will say though that the part where it has to be made in the 6 months prior did not account for the bureaucrats performing the removal a month late. I think that part of the policy could be improved. --Rschen7754 00:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm aware that this technically is following policy, but this appears to be the pet policy of one person. The discussion was very clear the last time this went through with Hoo man that the community thought the practice was ridiculous. No one bothered to make the change. Just update the policy to reflect actual consensus. Don't make us get an Act of Congress to go fix this.

The number of people who are actually involved in this super-behind-the-scenes aspect of an already behind the scenes project can be counted on your fingers, and if not, well, add your toes and you're good, and that talk page discussion after the last purge likely accounted for a majority or close to it of the people who would participate in any RfC. This quite frankly, is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and I endorse everything that Nihlus has said above. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

After confused

After confused in Steward_requests/Permissions#Courcelles@meta.wikimedia (permalink), we should haves discussion here.

• My opinion: Matiia as local bureaucrat is decided to remove as per current policy. In this time is I've support his decision because past consensus Meta_talk:Administrators/Archives/2018#Inactivity_tweak is not implemented as policy.

--rxy (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved from Steward requests/Permissions (Special:PermaLink/18548709#Courcelles@meta.wikimedia)--rxy (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove admin and OS access. Thanks. Matiia (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• This seems a bit strange to me, given Matiia has 1) not counted edits made in October, despite running the process in November, 2) I've made more than ten logged actions, which is the requirement to not even have to sign the page, and 3) I've made 15 suppressions in the last six months, a log invisible to Matiia. Courcelles 02:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • See my comment here. Matiia (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be easier just to let Courcelles do meta RfA again, which he is very likely to pass, and then do the technical log removal and switch back on like was done for Hoo man the last meta admin purge? This especially seems the case since he has a fair number of suppressions, and losing him as an OS and making him run that again in addition to the RfA when he's actually active on it seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • He is more than welcome to do so, however, unless a new RfOS is passed, it will have to be removed regardless of the result of the new RfA. Matiia (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Matiia: Why is the discussion at Meta_talk:Administrators/Archives/2018#Inactivity_tweak being ignored? Clearly there was consensus to change the policy you are now trying to enforce. Nihlus 07:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
        • That discussion obviously ended without a result, as can be seen from the fact that it is in the archive. --MF-W 14:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Just because someone didn't do their duty and actually summarize the results does not mean a new consensus was not reached. Nihlus 15:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Not done. The user has clearly made the required 10 log actions as required by policy; ""Inactivity" is normally defined as fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months". If the policy doesn't make sense (which it doesn't) then please participate in the discussion to clarify it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What a shameful abuse against the policy which not only requires actions, but also edits. --MF-W 16:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not abuse when there has been discussion and consensus to change it, MF-Warburg. Nihlus 16:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The policy was not changed, regardless of how much you claim that there was a "consensus" in that discussion. --MF-W 17:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Inaction of the bureaucrats to rightfully analyze growing change in policy and newly formed consensus is not Courcelles' fault. Consensus doesn't need to be reflected in actually editing a page to demonstrate that it was reached, nor does it need to be officially announced by someone closing the discussion, although it would have seemingly avoided this entire mess in the first place. Nihlus 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Policy must reflect current community consensus, the current community consensus in this case can be found at [2] so 'ten edits and/or logged actions in the six months' is the activity criteria that must now be applied. Nick (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
          • It's a long time since I heard such nonsense. That discussion there from May 2018 does not even have much participation, let alone consensus. And of course a result of a discussion needs to be written down and implemented into policy pages for it to apply. Otherwise there is just total chaos and everyone can point to some obscure discussion to claim that a certain policy shouldn't apply to him. --MF-W 17:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
            • That discussion concerns a small change to an existing policy, it is never going to attract several hundred editors (do any discussions on Meta ever attract such significant numbers these days - hell, did they ever ?) but there is clearly consensus for that change to have been made. It is disappointing to see that the consensus there has not been transferred into the policy and that the people responsible here on Meta (yourself included) have clearly failed the community by neglecting to close that discussion with an interpretation of consensus. Nick (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to the concerns that this particular point of the policy is dumb, but I fear that if we start ignoring one part of the policy, it opens the door to ignoring other parts of the policy (and concerns about fairness and all that). As it stands, I think stewards should reconsider how it was applied here: one editor got desysopped because the policy was applied, the other did not because it wasn't. That is Unfair. --Rschen7754 18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, Danny B should have their previous userrights re-instated. Policy should be interpreted fairly and consistently, but also in the way which helps Meta and the other WMF projects. There's no reason to believe Danny B or Courcelles cannot be trusted with their userrights, so when there's uncertainty about the way in which policy should apply, we should take the sensible approach and allow users to keep those userrights. Nick (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I think it should go the other way around, so I don't think we agree. --Rschen7754 18:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You will need to explain why you think it's beneficial for Meta to lose administrators (and in the case of Courcelles, an experienced oversighter). That's highly destructive behaviour which does not need to happen. Nick (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

---

•  On hold - Please discuss in Meta talk:Administrators/Removal/October 2018 --rxy (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks Rxy. It wasn't clear to me what the policy did or did not require, since it indeed says different things in different places. Regardless, I think that this is something we should discuss rather than take action on, so I was just coming to remove the "not done" but see you beat me to it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  "Users who have made fewer than ten edits in the six months immediately prior to the designated removal date (April 1 or October 1) are desysopped without notice" is very clear to me. If the user hasn't made the required ten edits it does not matter whether he's made 5,000 log actions, rights are removed. Period. It is dumb, but it is what we have. Stewards are not to decide here. We're free to discuss and change the policy for future inactivity runs, but as things stand now I'm in fully agreement with MF-W. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  And "Any sysop inactive on Meta will be desysopped. "Inactivity" is normally defined as fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months." is clear to me, which is where the problem lies (that and a previous consensus changing policy). Nihlus 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  I only see the "Removal criteria" at Meta:Administrators#Removal_criteria, the only rules we've been applying ever since this process started. Now that the three of us, Meta-Wiki bureaucrats, unanimously demand that this be done; would a fellow steward be so kind to make this happen? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  It's a subheading of Inactivity. It helps to look at the entire picture instead of parsing a few words and ignoring consensus that the editors of Meta-Wiki have reached. Nihlus 19:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Please post a comments to Meta talk:Administrators/Removal/October 2018 instead of here. Thanks. --rxy (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  @MarcoAurelio: What requires the urgency. The policy is ambigious and unclear. It clearly states ""Inactivity" is normally defined as fewer than 10 logged actions in the past six months" so neither of these two users are inactive per that part of the inactivity policy, and as there was consensus to fix the conflict (but it was never enacted, which is shameful) the Removal criteria should also state "fewer than ten edits or ten logged actions". This should be fixed but Courcelles and Danny B should not be desysopped, I don't understand why we're so hell bent on damaging the project by removing administrators who are clearly active (and active under our own criteria, in that they've made more than ten logged actions) but have failed to make ten edits. Administrators that are active will generate logged actions, they may not generate edits. Utter, utter fucking stupidity. Nick (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  Or the nerve to "demand" something of a steward. The fact that the bureaucrats a) ignored a discussion to change policy, b) continue to ignore it when brought to their attention, and c) thought throwing their weight around would somehow invalidate the previous discussion is all sorts of ludicrous. Nihlus 19:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  "The policy is ambigious and unclear." It is very clear; I just don't think you like the outcome. --Rschen7754 00:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  So because no one bother to click save on the policy page, which would never have been contested if implemented, and if it was would clearly have passed in an RfC, we have to deal with what is clearly a negative for meta? Yeah, I get meta doesn't have IAR, but between May's discussion and this discussion, we probably have everyone who would comment on any perspective RfC on this topic. Are we really so into the rules of the most inside baseball part of the entire Wikimedia movement that we're going to remove bits and force someone to go through a show RfA and RfOS that would likely get approved because no one hit save? The community here who cares about this sort of stuff is beyond minuscule. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  The problem is that bureaucrats are elected to enforce the rules, and if we start making exceptions for one or two users, it opens the door for more exceptions to be made. We don't want to selectively enforce rules about inactivity, lest we become hr.wikipedia or ka.wikipedia. --Rschen7754 01:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I get that, but in actuality, everyone who is active in this area knows one another and knows who is active and isn’t, and other than the meta crats, no one actually seems to think this is a good idea (and even then, I’m not even sure they support the policy they are elected to enforce.) in both of these cases, were trying to desysop active sysops who have no risk of account compromise and one of whom has advanced rights he actually uses. This literally makes no sense even in the most arcane of wikimedia “rules are rules” world that we’re in. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure that it's such a bad idea to require admins to still be involved in the Meta community rather than just using their tools in a sort of detached way, separate from the community. Is it a view I hold to strongly? Probably not, but I've always thought it weird when admins don't make actual edits. --Rschen7754 04:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Although the current policy is dumb, it's *very clear* to me, whether I like it or not (and I personally don't like it). So, the removals are in line with policy. As Rschen7754 said, ignoring it would be unfair with those who were previously affected by the rules. We just can’t change the rules in the middle of a game. RadiX∞ 01:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)