Meta talk:Administrators/Removal (inactivity)/Archives/2016

Changing 7 day threshold

This year the 1-week renewal window fell at exactly the same time as the Wikimedia Hackathon in Jerusalem when many people were traveling or quite busy with other projects. It does not seem reasonable to expect that meta admins will always be available within 1 week's notice. They may be in the hospital or traveling or having a baby, who knows. Can we please at least extend the period to 2 weeks, which would be more reasonable? The original discussion doesn't seem to mention a particular time limit, so I think we can be flexible here. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering meta admins have six months to perform 10 logged actions, a week sounds reasonable to me. Matiia (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We're volunteers, we don't work on a schedule. I might do 50 admin actions in 1 half of the year and only 5 the next half. Is that a good reason to de-admin someone? Regardless, what's the harm in changing the signature period to 2 weeks? Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm... according to our policies, I'd say yes, it is. If the problem is that this is a voluntary work and it shouldn't have an inactivity policy, extending it to 2 weeks is not the right thing to change. Matiia (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Matiia, one week is imho enough, i see no need to extend the existing deadline. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There are projects where adminship will be removed without any notifications. Notifying users 1 week before the possible removal is enough. --Stryn (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two weeks sounds reasonable. I also think we should get rid of this process and lower the activity standard. We're all volunteers after all, if people want to stay on contributing little then that's no problem for me. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think removal of adminship reduces the ability to contribute to this project. I have done so myself for years. --Vogone (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sysop access is required for some forms of contribution (sbl, etc). Meta shouldn't be the home-wiki for many, so I have less expectation of consistent activity here than elsewhere. But I don't plan on fighting particularly hard for changing the inactivity structure here :p Ajraddatz (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think 1 week is enough. --MF-W 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Policy update proposal

I'd like to propose that we implement some provisions of the c:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. In particular I'd like to add:

3. If the administrator responds to the notice as required but then fails to make ten (10) administrative actions within the period of six (6) months starting at the time of the notice, their permissions will be removed without further notice in the next inactivity run.

to avoid inactive admins to keep their adminship with simply signing but doing nothing else later but to make 10 edits. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 16:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be correct to replace the word "Administrator" there to be "Administrative" on this sentence "then fails to make ten (10) administrator actions".--AldNonymous^Bicara? 16:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, my bad. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. --Krd 16:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. -Barras talk 17:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose too complicated. I'd prefer to have a simple requirement like 1 action in the last 6 months to retain the bit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  It is not that complicated to check if the user signed in the past run and is still inactive. Two admin actions a year is way too low. —MarcoAurelio 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Ajraddatz. Stryn (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support as proposer. —MarcoAurelio 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't yet made up my mind about this change. But do I understand it correctly that a different description would be "An administrator who was listed in a 'run' and then at the next run should be listed again according to the lack of actions, will be removed in that run immediately, instead of being listed again"? --MF-W 01:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Recently we had an admin on commons abusing the policy by randomly making 10 admin actions every 6 or so months to keep his right, it was brought up on the AN board after i enquired about this abuse after another admin brought it up on IRC and a de-sysop/de-crat was set in place and the user did apparently lose both rights because he was trying to game the system, unfortunately i had hope it would set up a precedent in the near future on commons, It did not. I know other wikis have their own set of laws regarding 'de-sysoppings' but I think a similar law on meta would be very useful, not only in regards to what Mafk mentioned above but overtime we could have a global policy on this (obviously governed by the stewards). Meta does have many admins but only a handful are active and some claim that they will be active at every 'de-sysop' we have every 6 months but they never keep their promise. Adminship is not a 'right' :/. I think we should look at admins who were added to the inactivity list 2 or 3 times in a row and check to see if they have made a substantial (20 admin actions or atleast edits) in the past two years or so, and if not, their rights should be removed straight away with a notice placed on their talk page and they can get their rights back through a proper RfA procedure, we should not follow the enwiki format where inactive admins retire their right only to get it back a year or so later and yet, still remain inactive, its a poor policy..--Stemoc 02:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would like to see greater reasoning to why this is advantageous rather than an administrative proposal for change. So people keep their bits? So what?  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  Comment apart from the proposal itself, I am still to hear the advantages of this proposal. I would hope that there would be an expected outcome and how the proposal meets that expected outcome.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Let me just say this now, Commons don't have a fluent Indonesian admins and they have hundreds of Indonesian copyvio files, some have proficiency of id-3 but are they active? Nope! But do desysoping them helps? Nope! I am currently leaning to oppose because it seems . In meta I saw quite many out of scope and spam pages in Indonesian and malaysian, some are even in Chinese. Do further desysoping helps? Hmm.. Nah... Seems no merit to do so. Some of these people are gone with reason. If anything, just count this commentary as Oppose.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 10:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't understand why one should impose higher activity standards on users merely because they have held the user rights for a longer time (still meeting the activity requirements). This looks like some highly bureaucratic construction with basically 0 gain to me. --Vogone (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support because there are too many inactive admins today. --Rschen7754 03:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose, bad --Shizhao (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as of 20170119 we have s = 54; b = 3; c = 5; o = 4; where b/c/o are subsets of s and the tools show a count of 27 being "active", noting of that list numbers are (WMF) accounts  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Measure of activity (20160101) for all with rights at Meta and where active https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=meta.wikimedia.org&begin=2016-01-01&end=
  • Stewardry https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stewardry/metawiki?sysop=1
  • Noting that these tools do not consider work on some of the global settings that are non-steward