Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inactive admin

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
  • Warning: Looking at consensus, ~58%. There is no consensus for making this policy. The wording of the question is 'should we inform them' and not 'should we make it policy to inform them' therefore, I am going to close this part as; there is no requirement to inform users, and the community does not seem to be strong either way. Therefore; we do not have to inform users.
  • Proposal 1: No consensus.
  • Alternative proposal (Prop 2): No consensus.
  • CUOS Inactivity: No consensus for both.
  • CUOS will follow normal administrator inactivity rules.
  • No consensus for small rights inactivity.
John F. Lewis (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]
  • Before desysoping, we should inform inactive admins that their adminship will expire due to inactivity.

Yes

[edit]
  • As standard procedure, but not twenty-four hours prior to the desysopping. Lets do it 30 days earlier so that they get the chance to go back. I am not a supporter of gaming, but I neither support being desysopped without notice. — ΛΧΣ21 00:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a warning would be nice. I am guilty of kind of forgetting about Wikidata in between everything else I have going on in my life, and I don't really keep track of the count of my actions. It seems like a courtesy notification, perhaps with a 7-day lead time, would be a good thing, especially in cases where someone has been doing content work and is still active on the wiki, but for whatever reason hasn't been doing anything with the admin bit. Six months is really not long enough of a time period to say someone has completely given up on the project and will never be back again. It is easy to get distracted by things on other projects, especially if you are active on three or four wikis like some people are. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too believe people should be notified, but in all honesty a 24-hour notice is just as useful as no notice because not everybody is on the wiki every day. However, I'm not sure exactly how much time beforehand I'd like to see somebody notified. TCN7JM 11:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone is ready to notify the admins then a little friendly message wouldn't hurt. Otherwise nothing should be mandatory. (i.e. must be notified before or after xx days or months.) By doing this there may be some cases where more then one person will notify concerned party and there may be are some cases where nobody will notify that is the ambiguous part but it will not put further responsibility on anyone. As far as gaming the system is concerned then admin in the dock once gets away with a few quick actions should not be notified second time if s/he is in a spot that is also a way.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the least IMHO. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely, per reasons that I've raised many times before. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the opinion of ΛΧΣ above because many users aren't logging here everyday. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same opinion as Scott5114. --Sk!d (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should of course be notified, just like how English Wikipedia does it. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, it is a matter of courtesy, we're not trying to play "gotcha" when we're desysopping for inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]

We should notify at least 24 hrs before?

[edit]
The point of this discussion in case anyone missed it, was because I asked 분당선M to give a little more warning than 24 hours to someone we are desysopping. One of the two he mentioned was fairly active (but not active all the time) and he was warned that in 24 hours he was going to be desysopped and he was 1 action short. Luckily they came back and made a few. 24 hours is not enough, however, and if someone gets caught up doing something offline and they are a couple actions short, it's not particularly fair if they just can't make it to a computer within 24 hours. And with no way to regain adminship other than RFA again, it makes it all the worse. We just need to extend good faith to our less than active administrators that they come back and do something with an earlier warning. The point of inactivity policies is to desysop administrators who are no longer here, not to get rid of administrators who are here but fall short of our standards by pushing them out the door forcibly. Regards, — Moe (A) Epsilon 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(modified comment by user:Moe Epsilon from WD:AN#Inactive admin)

Further comments

[edit]
  • If we do this (what I oppose) then we should warn enough time beforehand. I like the idea which was brought up in a previous discussion by YMS (warning 3 months in advance). Vogone talk 22:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of inactivity

[edit]

In my opinion is the choise to not delete, block, protect, oversight and CU, as much an administrative act as one who can be found in the log. I therefor propose a revision of the definition of inactivity. A policy who encourage active search for something to block/delete/protect/oversight/CU in the last minute looks very strange to me. Actually, I often appreciate the use of {{Not done}} more than the use of {{Done}}.

I propose that any "inactive admin" who has any kind of edit or loged action the last three months, can keep hir tools. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Arguments could be made for relaxing the standards, but this is too far. Also, CU/OS actions are not covered under the inactivity policy, though OS at least would be removed if adminship was removed for inactivity. --Rschen7754 08:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for crediting non-admin edits toward an activity threshhold—simple:Wikipedia:Inactive administrators says that on Simple English Wikipedia, 100 edits or admin actions (combined) are required in a calendar year. I think it makes sense to count edits as well, so as to allow people who are active in the project but who may have simply focused on adding data to the database for an extended period rather than focus on admin tasks the opportunity to perform admin actions in the future. (And, like Lavallen pointed out, declining an RFD is an admin action, it just isn't logged as one.) I would support the Wikidata equivalent, 50 edits or actions in a rolling six-month period, as an admin activity standard. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scott, 100%. It could be possible that people don't use the sysop bit in their everyday work on Wikidata, but rather would like to have the ability to use it whenever they see something that needs to be taken care of (say, a large batch of duplicates), and not have to create/enlarge backlogs. TCN7JM 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! At least 50 contributions (cumulative of edits and actions) for six months is more reasonable for me. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if some admin don't use his admin tools at all for many years he still can be an admin if he makes at least 50 edits every 6 months? --Stryn (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No! 50 contributions is cumulative of edits and actions, so at least 1 time must used of admin functions in the past 6 months. When only 50 regular edits, the admin right will be revoked. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

[edit]

Since there seems to be some support for this above, I propose that Wikidata:Administrators be altered to read:

Administrator access is removed from accounts which have been inactive for six months. Inactivity is defined as a combined total of less than fifty edits and administrator/bureaucrat actions over this six month period.

CU and OS inactivity

[edit]

CheckUsers

[edit]

CheckUsers must make at least one logged CheckUser action in a 12 month period. If they do not fulfill this requirement, a request should be made to stewards to remove the right.

  1.  Support This may seem premature, but I would rather have this put in place early on, rather than have problems with inactive CU/OS holders like English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, etc. --Rschen7754 10:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support--DangSunM (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --by Revi at 13:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (edit conflict)  Oppose Better not. This might end in CheckUsers checking more liberaly just to keep the access. Especially for CU and OS it depends on the vandals and sockmasters how often these tools must be used and there is always the possibilty that there is nothing to do at all for 612+ months. I think asking a really inactive CU/OS to resign voluntarily is the right way to go here. Vogone talk 13:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1 check a year though? I doubt this would happen... and a bad check can be addressed through other means anyway. --Rschen7754 20:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course a year, I've fixed my comment. Anyway, if a CU/OS is really inactive he will most likely also not use his admin bit and thus lose access automatically after only 6 months. I think this is enough. If not, WD:RFP/R is always open for hardship cases. The big problem with a bad check is that you can't make it unhappened subsequently. Vogone talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're really desperate, all they have to do is CU themselves. --Rschen7754 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No halfway intelligent person who is interested in a trusting community would do this, to be honest. I rather thought about situations in which a request is in a kind of grey area in which it should normally be declined but the processing CU does the check anyway just because there is something subconsciously reminding him of an inactivity policy. This doesn't even require a bad intention by the CU, but it is an influencing factor which can be avoided by not forcing functionaries to do a certain number of non-public data requests. Vogone talk 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, CUing oneself is a regular practice in order to learn how the tool works... With that being said, I'm not wedded to this proposal, as long as there is the understanding that those who do not use the tool on a regular basis are eligible for a rights removal request. --Rschen7754 03:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose as Vogone, but I would like to see some kind of inactivity policy, maybe related to admin actions or edits. --Stryn (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already the case. All CU/OS lose their access in case they get desysopped for inactivity (as our policy requires all CU/OS to be admins at the same time already). Vogone talk 14:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so the current policy is fine. --Stryn (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose There's already an inactivity policy which avoids potential bad actions like Vogone mentioned. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but there's quite a few Commons CU/OS who meet the inactivity policy, but still do not use their CU/OS tools. --Rschen7754 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't seem to have that problem now. If we end up with a lot of CU/OS dead weight then I'd be glad to revisit this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose--GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose--Vyom25 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose -- Per Vogone commented above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Neutral Would prefer that we held off on drafting a policy such as this until we have Wikidata CU/OS logs built up enough that we can accurately say how often a typical Wikidata functionary performs their function. It could well be that the demand for such actions is so low here, and spread across enough CUs, that even 1 action in 12 months is too high a bar. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Strong oppose Functionaries should not be forced to access private info if not necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighters

[edit]

Oversighters must make at least one logged suppression action in a 12 month period (that is, any action appearing on Special:Log/suppress). If they do not fulfill this requirement, a request should be made to stewards to remove the right.

  1.  Support Per above. --Rschen7754 10:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support--DangSunM (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --by Revi at 13:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose Per my comment in the section above this proposal. Vogone talk 13:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose as Vogone, but I would like to see some kind of inactivity policy, maybe related to admin actions or edits. --Stryn (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose--GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose--Vyom25 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Neutral per my neutral vote on the accompanying CU proposal. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

[edit]

CheckUsers and oversighters are subject to the normal inactivity proposal as administrators, with the CU and OS flags removed with the administrator flags. In addition to this, sustained inactivity with the CU/OS rights is a valid reason to initiate the community rights removal process.

  1.  Support --Rschen7754 03:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support That way CheckUsers/Oversighters don't feel required to use their tools just to "stay active". The Anonymouse (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is there any place which says that inactivity is no valid reason (does it even require a reason at all?) for the community rights removal process? If not, there is no need for changing any policy in my opinion. Vogone talk 10:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is to make it clear, so people can't say "Well policy doesn't say we can!" down the road. --Rschen7754 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as this clarification doesn't affect 'crats it is fine … :-P Vogone talk 10:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support--GZWDer (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Perfect. — ΛΧΣ21 12:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support This works for me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support--DangSunM (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin right inactivity

[edit]

In Chinese Wikipedia, rollbackers' and patrollers' right would be removed if they weren't to edit for 6 months, and bots for 1 year. Should we remove rights of inactive non-admin users?--GZWDer (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one could do that but a formal process for this would just unnecessarily waste our admin's time. Vogone talk 15:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page in Chinese Wikipedia used to request removal of permissions, included resigning (section 4) and abusing (section 1), with removal because of inactivity (section 2). This kind of page seems to exist only in Chinese Wikipedia.--GZWDer (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page this project has (WD:RFP/R) does not seem to exclude inactivity as a reason for a removal request. Whether an admin would fulfil such a request is another question, though. Anyway, I think inactivity removal is rather not needed for flags which don't have any impact on other users (all minor rights except TA and PC). Vogone talk 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2013-12-05, There're 10 inactive rollbackers (except alternate accounts):
  1. Dough4872 (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 20:18, 4 February 2013
  2. Espeso (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 03:43, 20 March 2013
  3. Haglaz (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 21:43, 12 March 2013
  4. IXavier (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 01:36, 4 June 2013
  5. Mediran (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 00:29, 5 April 2013
  6. Petrb (talk • contribs • logs) No edits (Except imported from wikipedia)
  7. Razr Nation (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 07:35, 10 April 2013
  8. TBrandley (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 18:37, 27 March 2013
  9. The Rambling Man (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 20:09, 28 February 2013
  10. Vacation9 (talk • contribs • logs) Last edit: 02:32, 27 April 2013

No inactive property creaters, and one inactive translate administrator: Iste Praetor (talk • contribs • logs), Last edit 02:32, 27 April 2013.

In Chinese Wikipedia, the rollbacker right is never for all trusted users, But ONLY for users with anti-vandalism experience, and often uses rollback tool. Therefore, rollbacker flag of any users who have no edits in 6 months should be removed.--GZWDer (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the accounts you listed are also alternate accounts, by the way. Regarding translation administrators, I already try to keep the list of users in this group clean and intended to remove all inactive TAs at the beginning of the next year. As for rollback, I am reluctant to remove any rights there as I don't see the point in doing it. Vogone talk 16:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a waste of time. --Rschen7754 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice from you. So you rather think all TAs should stay forever regardless of their activity? Vogone talk 10:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the parts about the TAs. --Rschen7754 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's waste of time, and not needed. --by Revi at 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in removing rollback from inactive accounts. TCN7JM 21:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing rollback from inactive accounts is redundant. Non-admin rights are not removed when one becomes inactive in English Wikipedia. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that Razr Nation is my alternate account, and therefore it should keep the flags as long as I'm active. No? — ΛΧΣ21 12:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think that Petrb must have their rollback flag removed. The account has no edits in here, and some experience is needed before holding such a right. I am considering removal myself on those grounds. — ΛΧΣ21 12:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong, our rollback guideline doesn't require local experience with countervandalism activity for the rollback flag. Anyway, if you don't trust Petrb not to break the wiki feel free to remove it. Vogone talk 12:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not that I don't trust him, it's that I feel he doesn't need such a flag in here. He hasn't edited once, not even to create a userpage. Giving him a right he won't use, and may never use, seems like something I wouldn't do. I believe that if we are going to apply a strong standard for inactivity, we shall do it for all rights, not just for the advanced ones. — ΛΧΣ21 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you agree with GZWDer that the rollback flag should be removed from inactive accounts? Vogone talk 12:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose These are rights which should be only removed if the user does not use them properly. Even if a user does not do any edit for 3 years he remains trusted wiki user with at least the same experience he had 3 years ago. --Sk!d (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it is not great deal--DangSunM (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Inactive_admin&oldid=1102557660"