Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Change to sysop activity requirements

Please edit this proposal

The draft {{tls|Reconfirmation of Adminship template}} is currently at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Change to sysop activity requirements/Reconfirmation of Adminship template.

current activity policy is summarized at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#Criteria

Ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Proposals for best practices are helpful and welcome.

Idea B

The text of the policy at Wikipedia:Administrators should be changed as follows:

−

=== Procedural removal for inactive administrators === {{see|Wikipedia:Inactive administrators}} {{policy shortcut|WP:INACTIVITY}} Administrators who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins]], June 2011</ref> This desysopping is reversible in some cases (see [[#Restoration of adminship]]) and never considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools. The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month before the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping goes into effect. Desysopping on inactivity grounds should be handled by English Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]]. The summary in the user rights log should make it clear that the desysopping is purely procedural. If necessary, the user's userpage should be edited to clarify the status — particularly if any categorization is involved. For example, the userbox {{tlx|User wikipedia/Administrator}} should be replaced with {{tlx|1=User wikipedia/Former administrator|2=inactive=yes}}. === Voluntary removal === Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]].

+

=== Procedural removal for inactive administrators === {{see|Wikipedia:Inactive administrators}} {{policy shortcut|WP:INACTIVITY}} Administrators are expected to remain reasonably active as editors so that they keep in touch with changes in community policy. Those with prolonged or frequent inactivity may have their administrative tools removed. Administrators who have made neither edits nor logged administrative actions in the last 12 consecutive months may be desysopped.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins]], June 2011</ref> Chronic inactivity may also lead to a desysop if an administrator has totaled 24 or more calendar months without an edit or logged action over the last 5 years of adminship or since their last RfA (whichever is shorter). Desysopping for inactivity is reversible in some cases (see [[#Restoration of adminship]]) and never considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools. The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if enabled) at least one month before the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping goes into effect. Desysopping on inactivity grounds should be handled by English Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|bureaucrats]]. The summary in the user rights log should make it clear that the desysopping is purely procedural. If necessary, the user's userpage should be edited to clarify the status — particularly if any categorization is involved. For example, the userbox {{tlx|User wikipedia/Administrator}} should be replaced with {{tlx|1=User wikipedia/Former administrator|2=inactive=yes}}. === Voluntary removal === Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]]. Administrators who have been, or know they will be, inactive for longer than 6 months should voluntarily request desysop to minimize the risk of compromised administrator accounts causing damage (see [[#Security]]).

Frequently Asked Questions

• What will happen to administrators who become inactive under this new definition?

  This is undecided. Current proposals for how to handle these cases are:

  1. Desysop them if they are still inactive after following the standard notification periods
  2. Notify them of the policy change, and provide a 3(?) month grace period for them to become active before requesting a desysop
  3. Feel free to add other ideas

• How many administrators will be affected by this definition change?

  The answer is currently unknown.

• Could administrators still game these new inactivity requirements?

  Yes, but it will be more difficult and time consuming. Under the current inactivity policy, administrators only need to make one edit per year and may retain their administrator tools if they do that indefinitely. Under the proposed policy, an administrator can only do that twice as they would accumulate 22 inactive months using that strategy. If they do not make another edit the next month, they go up to 23 inactive months. From this point on, they need to make at least one edit every month for the next three years to retain the tools. If they become inactive again within those three years, then they are liable to be desysoped. So while it can still be gamed, the process becomes harder the more it is gamed.

• What if an administrator returns to activity after 23 months of inactivity, but then goes on vacation for a month resulting in them hitting the 24 month limit? Would they be desysoped?

  Maybe, but the potential for currently active administrators to be desysoped is low. The proposed policy allows but does not require bureaucrats to remove administrator tools. If notified beforehand, they may decline to desysop based on their own judgment. Even if bureaucrats do desysop the administrator, the potential damage is limited to roughly 24 hours without the tools after they return. Under the proposal, Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship would still apply, specifically: Former administrators may request restoration of administrator status by placing a request at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard....Before restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. If the administrator had in fact returned to activity prior to the absence, then policy allows them to be resysoped after a 24 hour hold. Common sense applies, so if an administrator is truly active, they should not be desysoped on a technicality.

---

After a total of N (non-consecutive) calendar months of inactivity (no edits or logged actions), an admin must hold and pass a reconfirmation RfA or the tools will be removed for inactivity. reset counter after M consecutive months of activity?

what's a reconfirmation rfa and how does it differ from a regular rfa?

New standard questions, otherwise something that looks the same as a current RFA.

Montanabw has suggested a kind of continuing education for admins. Reconfirmation questions could be tailored to recent policy changes to incentivize or demonstrate having "read up" on the most recent norms

No standard questions initially, to be determined by an RFC after the community has experience with RoAs.

The discretionary zone is between 50% and 60% "retain".

What should we propose as N?

36, 24

How many notices should be given?

One notice by talk page and (if enabled) email, when an editor is 3 months away from the limit.

What is to be done with admins who are currently inactive?

As-written, they will be immediately be subject to desysopping.

Grandfather/grace-period?

3 months from implementation to request removal or launch an RoA (hopefully after becoming active), otherwise desysop

Idea C

Add the following text to Wikipedia:Administrators#Security

Administrator who have been, or know they will be, inactive for longer than 6 months should voluntarily request desysop on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. This allows Wikipedia to minimize the risk of compromised administrator accounts causing damage (see privilege bracketing). Administrators who voluntarily relinquished their tools within the last two years may have their tools restored on request at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Administrators inactive for longer than six months who do not make such a request will be viewed as not having followed best account security practices. If best security practices were not followed and you are subject to a level 1 desysop, Bureaucrats may decline to resysop and instead require a new request for adminship.

Idea A

after N consecutive inactivity notifications we require a reconfirmation RfA (idk, maybe N=2 or N=3 since if I remember right that would put it around 4 to 6 years of 1 admin action per year). Having watched BN for a while, this seems like it would result in a handful of discussion per month (spreading out the start-up cost) and makes the criteria hard to game since you've essentially got to return after a half-decade absence or give the community a good reason not to yank the tools.

see also c:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship for a similar schema

Chatter

Please edit this proposal (no, seriously) — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

After 36 (non-consecutive) calendar months of inactivity (no edits whatsoever), an admin must have a reconfirmation RfA or the tools will be removed for inactivity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The non-consecutive part sounds like a pain to keep track of, but I think "reconfirm after N cumulative, non-consecutive months inactive since last RfA" is a clever idea. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I picked that metric since it's on the XTools edit count tracker, so it should be understandable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone will keep track. :) But that 36 months should be within a limited timeframe. 36 months of inactivity in 48 months is one thing. 36 months of inactivity within 1200 or 2400 months is another. Many experienced editors with decades of service could have 36 months where they were inactive. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's actually what I thought was clever about it: having a total "vacation time" pool allows us to have term limits. As an admin's tenure increases, their pool of vacation months decreases, and at some point every admin would need reconfirmed (unless they literally never take a month-long break). Meanwhile, those who are here less frequently will need reconfirmed more often. I see it as an elegant way of applying term limits on an as-needed basis, which I think was part of the tension in Worm's 10 year plan. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Okay, if that's the idea, I'm cool with it! —valereee (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Although waitaminnit...I think I need reconfirmation already...:D —valereee (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not possible. You only have your flag since July 2019, which is about 18 months ago. You could not have had 36 months of total inactivity.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we only count from when I've been an admin. :) I've been editing since 2006, though. Many months of inactivity, especially since I often edited logged out :) —valereee (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, any special reason why 3 years? Seems to me quite long, I would suggest 24 months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I remembered a proposal where people would be de-sysopped after their third 1-year inactivity warning (three strikes and you're out). If people like some other number, that's fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, well, currently it is one year ... Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators#Criteria and IMHO thats ok. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Some number of consecutive months of activity should reset the count to zero, to prevent anomalies when an admin takes a break for 35 months, returns to active editing, and then (potentially years later) happens to make no edits for a month. Aside from that, I like this proposal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this as long as it's a very significant amount; this should be a substantial return to activity and not just an effort to reset a counter. My first suggestion is 1000 logged actions (admin or not); for context my last 1000 logged actions goes to September 2020. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm ... having a flat "5 years" (now 8 years) time is certainly much simpler than my "since their most 1000 recent logged actions" suggestion. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thought. I'm worried it's still too convoluted though (a point of contention in Tony's proposal). Also, I'd rather we lower the number of inactive months to 24 than raise the evaluation range to 8 years. That way we keep the relative ratio, while making it more likely that it applies to admins who recently got inactivity warnings without disrupting admins who recently returned. So for example, say an admin got the bit in 2010. They took a break from 2015 to 2018 but are active right now. Under the 24-in-5 policy, they wouldn't need to reconfirm as long as they stay active every month. But under 36-in-8 policy, they'd need to hold an RoA. I worry that could result in a lot of RoAs outright, but also a lot that are essentially foregone conclusions, which was a significant opposition to Worm's proposal. tl;dr The two major consensus blockers I expect are complexity of the policy and the number of reconfirmations at startup. Revising with those in mind would probably be most productive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm convinced; I've switched it to 24-in-5. One wording concern: The administrator should initiate a reconfirmation of adminship discussion feels wrong. If an admin is inactive, "expecting" them to do anything seems impolite. I'd prefer a wording which notes they can start a RoA early, but if they don't they can do so (at any time?) after they are procedurally de-sysopped. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear, Isaacl, and Thryduulf: you expressed interest in a follow-up RFC to "confirm that reconfirmation RfAs are permitted", which this currently does. Thoughts? 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of this specific proposal I personally think it will struggle to get consensus, but I have no objections to it. In regard to the "reconfirmation RfAs are permitted", if that's being linked in, rather than a distinct proposal (which I still intend on creating) it would need something more like: "Reconfirmation RfAs are specifically permitted at the request of the Admin (for any reason), as well as such other reasons as may be specified by the Community in future RfCs. Should an Administrator trigger a Reconfirmation RfA then its outcome is binding and a desysop enacted should a successful reconfirmation not be received." The proposal needs further discussion for things like whether the same thresholds will be used etc. I wouldn't suggest binding it into this proposal as reconfirmation RfAs being triggered under specific circumstances doesn't inherently make them permitted (and binding) if called by the admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• As distinct from the above comment, I think we'll have issues with admins dropping in monthly to keep up, but I think the issue will be less problematic than the annual equivalent. I would suggest specifically noting in any proposal that the possibility is specifically recognised but viewed as a limited issue, otherwise people will assume it's not been considered. I think the 50-60% is not unreasonable for its use here. I do think it may come with issues as setting a default for any reconfirmation proposals which will make it even harder for non-inactivity/voluntary ones in the future, but that's not inherently a reason to oppose this proposal. I would like to know (before progressing) how many admins would currently not meet this requirement - and of those, how many are currently active. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Are you talking about idea B, A, or something else? These ideas sound like a new framework for requiring reconfirmation discussions. That's something different than an administrator running a voluntary RfA to reconfirm community trust based on their own personal recall criteria, which was the sticking point in some of the objections to earlier reconfirmation RfAs. Obviously a community-approved mandatory framework wouldn't have an issue with being permitted.
  • The first comment is on what got discussed on the recall page - it is very distinct to the proposals here, and as I noted, shouldn't really be merged. The second comment is on the main proposal that's showing the "before and after" phrasing Nosebagbear (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

    Just an fyi: I was responding to power~enwiki. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm referring to the "Reconfirmation of Adminship" (ROA) section in "Idea B" (in the diff-formatted area). I think if there's going to be an RFC about a general ROA proposal, that should happen with or before an activity proposal that relies on an ROA process. I don't see anything reason why that discussion couldn't be separated and occur first (other than the annoyance of a six-week RFC cycle). 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leaving that aside: even with the bookkeeping being automated, I think a significant number of people will find it more complex than they like, and that it imposes a greater demand than desirable on volunteers. So while it's creative, I'm dubious about it being able to get consensus support.
• My personal feeling is that the community likes to feel its admins are "one of us", and so some degree of engagement helps them feel assured of this. (Often people talk about policy and community norm knowledge, but it can be hard to gain agreement on how to map that to a level of activity.) From this perspective, it might be more fruitful to propose having administrative privileges suspended temporarily when activity falls below a threshold, and then reactivated after a period of re-engagement. But I suspect this would fail too, with people asking for evidence that this would have stopped specific problems in the past.
• The current notion I'm toying with is using fixed terms for new admins to encourage more people to help out. Of course that wouldn't change anything with existing admins, but based on the attrition numbers cited by Worm That Turned, that's going to be less and less of a problem over time anyway. isaacl (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that would struggle with the new admins being reticent to go into areas that would hinder a second term. Proposals like this also struggle because they rely on the Community having a zeitgeist change and becoming more permissive for new admins (now being easier to remove/wait out). This probably would happen but I would expect it to take a long time (probably 2 years or so) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

    It's OK if new admins don't sign up for a second term. The community can continue to be selective; I think a key issue is that administrative tasks are basically chores and so it's hard to find volunteers to do them. I feel it may be easier to attract people to help out if they can do it for a fixed term, and then move on (if they want) to other things. (As I said in the comment I linked to, of course they can do this now, but I think the psychology is different when you know at the start that you've volunteered for a fixed period of time.) isaacl (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• My thoughts are pretty similar to Nosebagbear's. This should not be conflated with voluntary reconfirmations, which are an entirely separate thing. As for the details of the proposal - the principle that admins are expected to stay in touch with the community is going to be uncontroversial, but the mechanics sound overly complicated and so will get opposition from several sides. Given the pushback the current proposals are getting, I think it will be most fruitful to take baby steps. First get consensus to add the principle about keeping in touch to policy - nothing else, just the principle. Then get consensus for voluntary reconfirmation and only after that introduce mandatory ones. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "First get consensus to add the principle about keeping in touch to policy" - I'm not wasting my time with a month-long "sense of the editing community" RFC that won't do anything. I would consider just BOLD-ly adding that: will anyone seriously argue that admins should be out of touch with policy? 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

    Idea B doesn't mention keeping in touch with policy, though. It says Administrators are expected to remain reasonably active as editors, and those with prolonged or frequent inactivity may be desysopped or asked to reconfirm consensus for continued access to the tools. I think there will be disagreement about whether "reasonably active" is required to remain in touch with policy, and questions asked if any previous problems would have been solved, and what would be deemed reasonable (if this were to be added without more details). isaacl (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)