Meta talk:Administrators/Archives/2018

Meta:Administrators#Policy for requesting adminship

I am improved terms for participation (actualize after migration to SUL). Maybe also delete commented text, if this unclear and unused? --Kaganer (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the current wording. Not your fault. I don't see why "active on any project" is right here. We should only allow active Meta-Wiki editors to vote for local right requests. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: this is from an early history, as far as I remember. See diff by Anthere. This was not disputed at that time. Apparently, it was assumed that the Meta is not "independent", that this is simply the center of coordination of work between the communities of "main" content projects.--Kaganer (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. But things have changed substantially over the time. I think we're no longer in the same situation Meta-Wiki was back in the days and I think we can safely say that we've got our own community now, which yes, usually are community members from other Wikimedia projects; but I think we have a substantial regular community base today so taking into count votes of people active on Meta-Wiki for local Meta-Wiki issues seems appropriate to me, and has been somewhat the practice in the last years. I guess it'd not hurt officializing it. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree ;) Need a poll, or you simple change this phrase? --Kaganer (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure... the sentence you are objecting to is All active editors at least on any Wikimedia project may participate and give their opinion on the candidate.. Right ? Yes, I think it is probably quite right to change it as it is probably the current practice anyway. When the policy was set up, the community here was quite light... This was meant to limit the damage caused by trolls and other types of annoying contributors who could easily outweigh the meta community back then. The only thing that I think should be preserved in spirit is that active editors from elsewhere should be allowed to vote even though they are not very active on meta itself (or at least welcome to comment). I would think it could make sense for smaller language communities. Anthere (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anthere: Dear Florence! I intentionally noted you in this thread ;) Very thanks for your point. Now the meta admins do not play the "political" role that was once in the past or was supposed to. But really it will be more correct to write it like this:

All active Meta-wiki editors may participate and give their opinion on the candidate. If your activity is outside Meta, but you have an opinion based on working with candidate in other Wikimedia projects, in support of or against the candidate, you are welcomed to submit it.

Looks perfect to me ! Thanks for refreshing the policy ! Anthere (talk)

--Kaganer (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"make sql queries" wow. --Base (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sysops of old times! Powerful old people! --Kaganer (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, back in the days sysops could run read-only SQL queries, (MW 1.4 and older) but it's been ages that was removed... [1]. This page needs a serious update :) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with the change, I support what Marco says, and I also think that that commented out clause is to be removed, I do not think it is being used (and it is not clear how anyway). --Base (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that Kaganer's version works fine. In general, Meta is its own community now. But it still has a strong coordinating function, so people active elsewhere who have interacted with the candidate on other projects deserve a chance for a comment, at least. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Works for me as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: There were no objections > updated. May be marked for translations? --Kaganer (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaganer: After all this time I found a minor copyedit (bold word above). StevenJ81 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: "Be bold!" English grammar is not my strong point ;) --Kaganer (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Already was, but didn't want not to tell you. ;) StevenJ81 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Inactivity tweak

Hello all, regarding our "ten edits in the six months" clause, would changing to "ten edits and/or logged actions in the six months" be better? Looks like we are in the middle of desysoping a steward who only made 9 "edits", but had logged local actions. (See Special:PermaLink/18000630#Hoo_man@meta.wikimedia). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be a sensible change. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I was also considering to propose a modification of our policy due to cases like this (user is active making admin actions (according to policy), but they didn't make 10 edits), however, if the policy changes, it has to be taken into account on the next process of inactivity, not in this. Matiia (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, it should not be retroactive. I'd prefer some sort of counter (and 10 edits+logs is quite low) as opposed to it being a judgement call as to what "active" is. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I support making this change going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. For the sake of simplicity I'd change the whole policy to use the commons inactivity one which is quite simple and straightforward, adapting it to our customs and needs (we can decide to increase the threshold to 10 admin actions instead of just 5 per 6 months, etc.). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like commons' has a lot of moving parts (not "simple") - including required warnings, monitoring during a warning period, action depending on a reporting tool, sabbaticals with extensions - seems like overkill here, primarily because on meta obtaining +sysop has been kept very simple and "easy" already. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Xaos, the Commons system is pretty complex looking. I'd personally prefer a system like Wikidata with a set standard - 5 admin actions in 6 months, or even something like 10 edits and/or log actions. Just enough to show that admins are still stopping by here from time to time. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't see the commons policy that different from ours except from a couple of parts. Required warnings are also a must here for administrators whose removal has been proposed (although we wait 7 days and not 30 which is something we can customize). Measuring activity explicitly using <https://xtools.wmflabs.org/adminstats/meta.wikimedia.org> is an advantage taking into count what we have to do now (check the edit count of *every* administrator to see if they qualify for automatic removal, then check the admin stats to see if they qualify for not-so-automatic removal). And as for monitoring within periods, not big deal as it's just making sure that people who was marked as inactive in the last round is now active. This is something that I proposed in 2016 with mixed reactions. In any case, yes, let's go with something simpler that can be easily checked, please. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally am in opposition to this. Ten edits is straightforward. And damn it is 10. Not 100 or 1000. It is not a big deal to catch up with the half a year activity requirement in 5 minutes. On the other hand logged actions is an obscure parameter which does not always make sense, for example thanks are logged actions but they have about nothing to do with activity. --Base (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "logged actions" is a very ambiguous wording. However, that could be fixed by writing "logged administrator actions" instead which would exclude "thanks" etc. provided that this is deemed to be a better administrator activity measurement than mere edits. --Vogone (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sending 10 thanks could be at least as useful as updating your own sandbox 10 times. But really, the point seems to be "are you around and alive" - so what gets counted shouldn't be a big deal. Currently, an admin that responds to 50 speedy deletion requests is kicked out if they don't also make "edits", while one that just edits their own sandbox and does nothing else is kept. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I  Support the proposal as originally worded at the top. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Which is to say, xaosflux's change. Killiondude (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose measuring only on edits. Admin tools are to use them. If you don't use them you don't need them. That has been always our philosophy. Measuring activity on administrative logged actions looks much more simpler and fair to me. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am also im favor of measuring activity based on logged actions rather than on edits. Users should keep the toolkit if they need it. Simply as that. RadiX∞ 03:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes per RadiX, And, if user need toolkit, it should be keept, if already get it. Murbaut (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with RadiX. I'd add: "Edits" per se are probably not as important on Meta as on "content" projects. There are plenty of people here who are busy helping to manage various parts of the WMF world who don't need to change content on Meta. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

First designs for Special:Block with Granular blocks

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) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-RfA Question

I'm lazy and can't be arsed looking this up myself, but could someone who might know this or have done the research recently post up a list of admins who have lost their +sysop permission through inactivity but who have then gone through re-RfA - how many were successful and how many were unsuccessful ? I'm interested in whether it is actually worth having an activity policy at all if all that happens is a succession of re-RfAs which are largely or entirely successful. Nick (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• The data isn't clear. It's possible I may have missed one, but this is from the last few years:
  • Meta:Requests for adminship/Jusjih 2 - was successful
  • Meta:Requests for adminship/Pmlineditor 3 - successful but there was a break of several months in between desysop and resysop
  • Meta:Requests for adminship/Dschwen 5 - successful but this is a bit of a strange case as all adminships were limited
  • Meta:Requests for adminship/Hoo man 2 - successful
  • Meta:Requests for adminship/Mardetanha 2 - was not successful

Rschen7754 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm one - I really was inactive from meta for quite some time and completely agree with my access removal while I was gone, once I came back I took a little time to familiarize my self with changes and the second RfA was NoBigDeal. (Meta:Requests for adminship/Xaosflux 2). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• In my view, part of the reason to have a policy is that if an account is going to be dormant for a while, it's better for security for the rights to be pulled. It doesn't necessarily mean the sysop himself/herself is no longer trustworthy. Ideally, a sysop who knows s/he will be inactive for a while will ask for the rights to be pulled, knowing that if/when s/he comes back s/he can have them again, but improving security meanwhile. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)