Wikipedia talk:Administrators

External videos
Wheel warring

Inactive admins

I suggest that when an admin is appointed, he or she is told to resign their position if they cease to be active on wikipedia. It should be part of the responsability of being an admin. I resigned as an admin as at 82 I thought I was too old to be relied on. I still do a few edits. Admins make an effort ot become one. They should take to responablity to cease being one. --Bduke (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bduke, your behavior is admirable. I think a lot of administrators simply wander away and think they'll eventually be back. I think most probably don't stop because they come to the conclusion they don't want to or shouldn't be adminning any more. They have kids, their interests change, whatever. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior is definitely admirable, but I think the reason many administrators don't resign when they are inactive is usually because of one of two reasons: 1: They are too inactive to care about resigning ( Admins who only edit a few times a year). 2: They want to hold onto adminship in case they want to use the tools again in the future without an RFA. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ra Ra Rasputin

Is it just me or is this the first thing that popped in my mind when I saw the short link for this? (the short link is WP:RAAA) 123e443 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Mop" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Mop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#Wikipedia:Mop until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Floater for simple inactively policy change

The current inactivity policy requires that administrators go 12 months without both administrative actions and edits, which leads to the scenario where administrators who have not performed an administrative action for over five years retaining their tools past the 5 year limit for requesting adminship at WP:BN. I would like to propose to replace the first sentence of WP:INACTIVITY with the following: Administrators who have made no edits for at least 12 months may be desysopped. Additionally, administrators who have not made an administrative action for 5 years may be desysopped. I know that inactivity policy changes usually fail to gain consensus, but I hope that this one would be simple enough to achieve consensus. I am open to feedback on tweaks in the wording, and feedback on whether this may have consensus or if it has a WP:SNOWballs chance at passing. This is NOT a final proposal for voting at this time; this is a floater to generate feedback. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• This would affect 168 admins, as a first approximation.
  If your assumption is that they're all gaming the inactivity requirements by making a couple edits a year, then this will not do a thing to fix it. They'll just create and delete a sandbox in their userspace or something similar instead. —Cryptic 22:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't really meant as a proposal to fix all gaming of inactivity requirements, that would take a much broader RFC, this is really just supposed to be a relatively simple proposal to get rid of the discrepancy between the five year rule and the desysopping for inactivity rules. Currently, you can be failing the five year rule for multiple years and still retain the admin tools based on edits. ( I definitely don't want it to be a gotcha to suddenly desysop all 168 at once with no warning, there should of course be a notification and a waiting period before it goes into effect.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barring any other change, we'd just include it in the standard monthly warning cycle where we chase down admins with listing on the report, 2 talk page notices and 2 emails. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Jackattack1597: Please note: administrative actions is not strongly defined - so to implement this it really would need to be unambiguously defined. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Out of curiosity, how is it currently defined in the desysop reports at WP:BN? Since rollback isn't logged, it doesn't count. How about moving files and suppressing redirects (rights that have been undbundled to dedicated groups)? Or deleting pages via G6 (a right granted in a limited fashion to extended confirmed editors)? Sdrqaz (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: at WP:INACTIVE it is any non-edit action that generates a log entry. In the notes on BN that I typically do, it is only if there is a publicly logged action that is only available to admins. But here's the catch, that is a note and not absolute - the can is kicked down the road and would only be debated if a resysop request was made about what else could arguable be a sysop action. For example: Is editing through protection a sysop action? Is performing an action that not everyone can do, but more then sysops can do (e.g. sending a mass message) a sysop action? While these are "deal with it later" problems currently, if actual desysoping is going to hinge on it - it shouldn't be a guess. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Interesting (I was asking more about with regards to the five-year rule, rather than the inactivity that leads to the actual desysop). I suppose consensus will be hashed out among the bureaucrats if/when that situation ever comes to a head, or a bureaucrat could theoretically do it unilaterally if others are unwilling to do so (like a pocket veto), but they've historically had a limited remit so it would be a particularly bold action. It's a pretty rare occurrence when an inactive former administrator comes back to RfA anyways – I can currently only think of Regalis and Jack, but more might come to mind if I dig further. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have something like this drafted in my sandbox,requiring a logged action that requires admin tools, and eliminating the notifications entirely in these cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would fully support that proposal, and I hope you propose it soon, as yours seems to be better crafted with much better reasoning and you successfully proposed the five year rule in the first place. I'll gladly abandon this proposal if you plan on proposing yours in the near future. Eliminating notifications makes sense, as it would take away the gaming opportunity somewhat.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  What is a sitewide announcement? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Probably a watchlist notice paired with announcements at WP:AN and this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support some change to involve logged actions, but I don't think you'll get it to pass. Both voicing my support and my skepticism on whether having an RfC at this time will do much. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would suggest broadening the meaning of "administrative actions" beyond logged actions to include editing fully protected pages and closing discussions which are usually closed by admins. An active admin who spends their time doing something like maintaining the Main Page could otherwise be desysopped for inactivity. Hut 8.5 07:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Based on past discussions on the matter, I'd agree that an "administrative actions" requirement will only pass if it encompasses all administrative actions (e.g edits to protected pages, XfD closes, refusing to carry out an administrative action etc.) rather than only logged actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Logged actions is a much easier thing to check, especially when an editor could have made thousands of edits during those five years. But I'd agree, going for logged actions only would potentially desyop an admin who did useful admin work. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

    Are there examples of useful admin work that doesn't result in a single logged action over the same 5 year period? I can think only of commenting on AE requests in the "administrator" section (but never actually implementing one). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

    • There have been examples of admins working exclusively at DYK and whose only admin actions were editing through full protection, which is not logged. P-K3 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      Any admin who works at the main page (so WP:ITN/C, WP:DYK, WP:POTD, WP:ERRORS etc) won't generate logged actions, and yes there are examples of admins who don't do any other admin work. Processing CAT:EP won't count either. Handling requests at CAT:RFU doesn't count unless you grant a request, so somebody who does that but doesn't do any other admin work would have to accept at least one request a year to keep their admin tools. I'm sure there are other similar cases. Yes, covering this stuff is harder, but we need to do it if we want this change to be effective. I'd much rather accept having some inactive admins around than desysop someone who is regularly doing good admin work just because they picked the wrong place to work. If someone is making thousands of edits then desysopping them for inactivity is probably a bad idea anyway. Hut 8.5 12:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      I would class editing through sysop protection as a logged action (a Quarry query can also handle it). If we add this to the definition, all of those areas seem to be covered (except denying requests at venues, but surely doing so would result in at least one acceptance). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      @ProcrastinatingReader: can it though? We have Special:AbuseFilter/942 though it misses pages that are only protected by virtue of being cascade protected (which won't necessarily be true at the time you are querying it in the future). See also phab:T216827. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      I can think of two solutions to the issue of tracking admin actions. 1: We add editing through full protection to the definition. 2: All desysops based on five years with no logged admin actions are announced on BN with a 7 day waiting period, and if there are any objections there is a full discussion with bureaucrats determining consensus. ( More work for the bureaucrats, but it would be easier to deal with exceptional cases that may come up later) Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• A solution in search of a problem. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wondering what the problem is. What harm is there with someone entrusted admin privileges by the community, not using them often? I feel it's better for them to have them and not use them, than need them and not have them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading Xeno's feedback, I am thinking that my proposal's definition of admin actions will be any logged action only available to administrators, any edits to pages that only administrators can edit, and closures of discussions or requests where non-admin closures are forbidden. Does anyone have further suggestions for refining that definition? (I want to make it as broad as reasonably possible.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jackattack1597: did you me mean? (Xeno and I do get confused a lot!) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And now you've discovered the Catch-22: many people who would oppose on "non-logged admin actions matter" are going to oppose this no matter how you phrase it. The oppose rationale if you go with all those non-logged actions will be Too complicated to implement. A solution in search of a problem.

I'd oppose the non-logged admin action standard for being too complicated, but would gladly support a logged action standard. I also disagree with the feedback above that non-logged actions should count has been the reason past proposals have failed. The only recent example we have is of the 5 year rule, and the "non-logged actions should count" was only brought up after it passed, and I believe by people who opposed the entire proposal.

If you want to propose this, go all in and go for logged actions. It likely will not pass, but its an actual reform that can easily be implemented vs. the "non-logged actions" bit, which will change exactly nothing from where we are today. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What if I proposed both options at an RFC? ( One ideal simple one based on logged actions , and one compromise complicated one based on all admin actions.) Also, do you think it would be better to keep current notifications for this inactivity criteria, or eliminate current notifications for this criteria? I don't want to have more than two or three options, because then it might get too complicated and nobody would bother.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)