Wikidata talk:Administrators

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposals for administrator policy[edit]

Note that each proposal is intended to be treated as separate from the others.

Adopt the Commons De-adminship policy (with one modification)[edit]

Adopt the Commons De-adminship policy (with two modifications, incl redefinition of inactivity)[edit]

User pages[edit]

Like in Commons user pages of administrators at least should show in which languages they are able to communicate. This is important for a multi-lingual project. A redirect to another project seems to be a bad idea for administrators. NNW (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[]

Languages should be required - same thing on meta. A redirect to another project should be fine, though, but I don't really have a preference. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[]
A redirect for a user page I'd say is fine, I don't really give a damn about them anyhow, but a local talk page should be active for admins, as some users who need to communicate here about local matters may be blocked elsewhere. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[]
Sure, administrators should have an babel box. If the redirected page has an babel box, then that is ok too, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[]
It is not a bad idea to suggest that admins consider placing a {{#babel:}}. It is not that onerous and provides helpful info for folks seeking help (ie: looking for an admin that speaks my language, etc...) Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[]
To help with identifying administrators {{User admin}} and {{User admin (temp)}} (or use {{User admin|temporary=yes}}) have been created to aid in identifying administrators. (the admin logo is being re-designed) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[]
Riley Huntley, I'd do away with the temporary adminship one. Every admin is temporary right now, and temporary adminship is itself temporary. On an unrelated note, I like those templates, but would love one in babel form, like my Commons one is. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[]
While I disagree on removing the temporary one (permanent ones will come eventually), yes I would like internationalization of these, but I don't know how to implement it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[]
Steal it from Commons, of course. No need to reinvent the wheel. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[]
I'm a bit lost on how Commons' implementation works, still; what would we need to change about these templates as they are?--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[]
A good idea and I'm support it so that my personal page will be fixed soon. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[]

New administrators[edit]

I'm now an administrator. Thank you.

So, how can I help? Do we have a task list, and/or an introductory page for new admins? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[]

There is Wikidata:Requests for deletions or Wikidata:Requests for permissions#Requests for autopatrol flag. Tasks can be found here but for these you don't have to be sysop. NNW (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[]

What to do after December 31, 2012[edit]

With December 31, 2012 coming up, we have to decide if we want new admins after that date to be temporary, or start making them permanent. Any thoughts? Techman224Talk 21:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[]

I'd say keep making them temporary until the first batch of permanent admins is through. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[]
The agreement above doesn't give any concrete indication of what should be done. I personally am of the thinking that admins elected after that date should be permanent admins, as the entire reason why I wanted the trial period was that I was worried that the incoming batch of admins had no real experience on the project, and so couldn't be judged by on-project activity. My opinion on the matter isn't terribly strong, however, so if a good argument is made in the other direction, I might flip on the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[]
From my perspective, the main point of temporary adminship was that we hadn't really defined the go/no go areas for admins. Given that we still haven't, I can't see any argument for suddenly electing permanent admins, especially people who have not previously been sysops here. —WFC— 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[]
Watchlist bump. —WFC— 13:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[]
I think that still temporary is better. I don't have a strong opinion about that. --Stryn (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[]
As far as I can see the first batch of admins is allready through and users are more experienced with Wikidata then they where one month ago. When Wikidata started those who had followed the progress on Wikidata, made test edits on the demo repo and/or translated the interface knew more about Wikidata than the others. Looking at the discussion on Project chat, that has changed as others have gained experience with Wikidata.
However, I understand that there are conserns that there are not that many admin rules here and so, I am willing to comprimise. My comprimise is to extend the temporary adminship by one month, with the requirement that discussion on admin rules will start within 5 days.--Snaevar (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]
Yes the time of temporary admins should be extended. --Sk!d (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]

A thought: Wikidata will be constantly expanding and changing, the next major change coming in January. For each change, we'll really need to redefine the role of an admin. For now, I'll be starting an RfC on the roles of admins within Phase I when I get back home tomorrow. When Phase II roles out, we can do another RfC if common sense doesn't clearly define the role of an admin within that.

Honestly, I'd be happy to see us never elect permanent admins. I think that lots of the problems on enwiki especially come from a lack of accountability with admins, and a perception of admins as some kind of super-user. If this becomes a problem here as well, perhaps some twice-a-year admin confirmations would be good. Just one week events, where any user could start a request for review on an admin. This way, only people who have been causing a fuss would be reviewed. Then again, I'm not sure what good that would do either. Not a proposal - just a thought. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]

The problem on enwp (where I am an admin) is that there is no de-adminship process outside of the Arbitration Committee. I would support the Commons solution, where editors can start a request for desysop, and it's basically another RFA (with the level of support at 50%). Frivolous requests can be closed early. --Rschen7754 07:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]
No enwp policy over here, Commons-policy is better, and I think that many other Wikipedia's use also it. --Stryn (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]
I think it should be easy to give adminship and easy to lose it, but harder to get additional rights. Don't turn admins into superusers, make then something people can become if they behave. Jeblad (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]
I think that there might be more wrong on enwiki than just that ;) - I'd support using the commons policy. The ideal situation to my mind would be for adminship to be easy to get, so that there are enough admins for how much other projects will use this one, but to also be easily able to remove it. From my experience elsewhere, without a confirmation process it is a lot harder to pass a request for de-adminship, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn't be desysopping over a couple of small mistakes anyways. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[]
In the commons policy, in order for an admin to be desysopped, it has to be for serious offences and there has to be prior discussion before someone can open a de-adminship request . If one is opened without prior discussion of the admin's actions, it can be closed as out of process. I think we should have something like that here. Techman224Talk 00:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[]
I think the whole -vote to vote to remove adminship- thing is a bit silly, but if it works on Commons, it could work here. See the section on the defining admins RfC. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Defining administrators[edit]

See Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Counting neutrals[edit]

Do we want to more explicitly state how neutrals are counted on RfAs? On Commons, they include neutrals into the total; 5 supports; 3 neutrals, 2 opposes → 50% support. Apparently, on Wikidata we haven't. Saying nothing about this may be confusing, given Wikidata's similarity to and adaptations from Commons in other areas. Current numbering of votes with ordered lists also gives me the impression that neutrals are getting counted. --whym (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[]

Neutral is neutral, not oppose. Neutrals are good to fulfill the requested quorum of total votes, but should not be counted as oppose. Think the way -1, 0, 1. Minimum number of votes required, SUM( positives ) >= SUM( negatives ) * 3 (or 4 or whatever ratio is set) required. The only concern should be in case when the number of neutrals is bigger than number of positives. That would be the only condition I would add. So in total: minimum amount required, # of positives to # of negatives in given ratio, # of neutrals is not bigger than # of positives.
Danny B. 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[]
Ok, I went ahead and added words to clarify in the document: a 75% margin of support from those who voted support or oppose. Does this look ok? --whym (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I guess I'll leave another point raised by Danny B., about the case of more neutrals than supports, for further discussion. I personally think it makes sense. --whym (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[]

Reconfirmation - WMDE[edit]

What about with these users? Most of them are inactive in project and have small or don't have logged admin or crat actions. Rzuwig 21:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[]

They are WMDE staff and will have admin/crat access for the duration of their contracts. --Rschen7754 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[]

Global sysops[edit]

Given that Hahc closed his RFC, I'd like to bring the comments made about what GSs can do (at WD:Requests for comment/Opting out of Global sysops#Non-bureaucratic proposal) here.

Global sysops and stewards are allowed to use their admin tools for

  • blocking accounts and IP addresses in cases of vandalism, spam or long-term abuse
  • performing rollbacks according to Wikidata's rollback guideline and marking edits as patrolled
  • deletions of vandalism or spam
  • non-controversial housekeeping within the MediaWiki namespace

They are not allowed to revert or overrule any actions that are performed by a local administrator. If a global sysop misuses their rights, any local user in good standing may ask them to stop.

In my opinion there is no need to go into further detail here, as global rollbackers/global sysops generally know what they're doing, so I think they're very unlikely to abuse their tools. Any feedback or improvements are welcome. Regards --Iste (D) 20:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe they should engage in the deletion of duplicate items, which can be more subtle than one might think. Before deletion, it must be verified that what's going to be deleted is a duplicate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jasper. Let's strike the "[…] or duplicated items" part, if they are reported on e. g. WD:RFD. But I do not mind if a GS deletes some by himself merged items (e. g. like SPQRobin does). Regards, Vogone talk 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
They shouldn't perform routine deletions, since local administrators are always on hand, and surely more skilled for those tasks (except for special cases). --Ricordisamoa 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Their purpose is handling spam and vandalism. I see no reason why that would be taken from them. Do you consider those routine? --Izno (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Chanced to remove duplicate items per consensus above. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I could support this. --Stryn (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
What about stewards who have just done a CU and need to do some blocks? --Rschen7754 09:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid for this case we need a policy to be discussed separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a good place to start talking about it anyway. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added long-term abuse to the cases where stewards or GS should be allowed to perform blocks, as I think this is one of the major issues they often deal with and are experienced with. This would also include CU blocks. Regards --Iste (D) 12:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Should we allow them to perform CUs here, IAW either our local policy or the global policy? --Izno (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I know GS can not CU, only stewards can.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As long as we don't have local checkusers, I don't see any other possibility than allowing stewards to perform CU. Of course global sysops don't have the technical ability to do so. Regards --Iste (D) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Any local admin may ask them to stop" -- Shouldn't this be anyone excepting bad-faith editors (who may be asking for it because they don't want to be reverted)? --Izno (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problems if non-admins in good standing are allowed to ask them to stop. I just wrote "any local admin" in my proposal because in some other projects which have policies about global rights usage only admins are allowed to do so. Regards --Iste (D) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. --Izno (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Continue discussion, if any, below this signature --Izno (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[]

There don't seem to be any objections, so I'm going to change the project page as proposed above in a few days if nobody opposes. Regards --Iste (D) 11:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[]

Admin criteria[edit]

This page should really mention what's expected of a user before applying for adminship. Please comment,

Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[]

There is very little if anything expected beyond some experience with Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[]
Yes, the only thing which is needed is experience with the project and integration in its community. Regards, Vogone talk 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[]
This project has (I believe intentionally) been keeping admission standards very light. A very large number of our active users are admins. If you've been active for more than a month or two and have an edit count in at least the four digits, unless you are an asshole show an inability to work collaboratively with others, or are suspected of some sort of foul play (canvassing or sockpuppeteering), or are a blatant hat collector, chances are very high that you'll get the mop. I don't see this as at all a bad thing. Thus far we've got a robust and healthy admin corp, and no admin-non admin community tension that I know of. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[]
Even three-digit edit counts sometimes succeed, but I'm seeing a trend to 4-digit counts like what Sven mentions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[]

List of former administrators[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to list all former administrators on this page. It unnecessarily increases the page size and there will be only few people who might be interested in such a list. Some of the former admins didn't even made a single log action. I would prefer to have a subpage for it. NNW (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]

I agree. Subpage is a good idea. --Stryn (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]
Maybe a timeline could be a good idea. Regards, Vogone talk 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]
 Support the subpage idea. Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]

With timeline I mean charts like m:Template:GlobalSysopsChart or m:Template:StewardsChart. Current and former admins would be combined then. Regards, Vogone talk 12:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]

I am not sure if such a timeline is good to handle with an increasing number of ex-admins. Perhaps a simple list with dates would be better (e.g. commons:Commons:List of former administrators), especially as it is possibly to search a name it in which isn't possible in a timeline. But I in the end I have no preference as long as the list vanishes from this page. :o) NNW (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]
I made the following page: Wikidata:Administrators/Timeline. Feel free to make it better. Just about 2 hours work :) --Stryn (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]
^^ User:Vogone/Template:AdminsChart Vogone talk 14:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]
There might be space enough for both pages. :o) NNW (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]

"Admin anthem"[edit]

I appreciate the sense of humor, but adding it to this page is too much. I would advise everyone to please restrict it to the userspace; this project page is intended for serious documentation of this right. Such a joke, while funny, paints a bad picture of us (our project as a whole). Please, no more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[]

I would have to concur - it makes us look unprofessional, especially at a time when the stewards are convinced that we are unprofessional, we don't need to make it worse. --Rschen7754 02:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[]
I agree, no more humor to project pages, or nobody don't take admins seriously. --Stryn (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[]
I also agree, It is policy. not for Chating. --DangSunM (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[]

Reprieve system?[edit]

What exactly means "There is currently no reprieve system in place"? Does it mean e.g. that if someone have done 9 admin actions in 6 months, we have to take off his admin rights, 'couse we don't give mercy? --Stryn (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[]

In Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining inactivity, three different models of a reprieve system have been discussed / have been for voting. The first would have allowed an inactive admin to state "I'll be back then and then", and he wouldn't have lost the sysop flag until then plus 30 days, and the other two basically allowed an inactive admin to simply state that he'd like to keep the rights, as long as he did at least enough non-sysop edits. None of these options have been accepted by the community. So the 9 action guy would have to be desysopped. He could, however, prevent this by just doing one sysop action. And I guess if he loses the flag and re-applies for them some time later, it usually won't be much of a challenge to get re-elected as an admin. --YMS (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[]
  • These proposals were not about regaining sysopship. They were about exceptions to the inactivity policy and said nothing about how an admin could regain access. I strongly support an admin's ability to re-request adminship if they were desysopped under this policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[]

De-administration of an administrator[edit]

Is there any system to get rid of administrators who are not up to the task? Where can I sign for de-administration of an administrator? --FA2010 (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Every admin will lose their adminship if they haven't done any admin actions for six months. I think correct place to start voting for de-adminship is Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator. But notice, that Before a request for de-adminship is started, the issue must have been brought up and discussed at the administrators' noticeboard. --Stryn (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Wouldn't it be at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal instead? The Anonymouse (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Sure, I didn't remember this exists (even though it was on my watchlist). --Stryn (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
By the way, where did we decide that there must be a discussion on AN first before somebody can open a discussion on WD:RFP/R? This seems to be completely redundant and unnecessary to me as the WD:RFP/R is already a discussion itself. This additional requirement just makes desysoping harder than sysoping which shouldn't be the case, in my opinion. Vogone talk 06:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Here, apparently. The Anonymouse (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Just some numbers, no hard statement: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal currently is watched by 17 users. That's not extraordinary low, but still way less than the 62 that watch Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator. So a removal request probably wouldn't go unnoticed if not previously discussed in a more public place, but probably some people regularly discussing sysop requests would not get aware of a desysop request. --YMS (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
As far as I am aware of, we advertise any request which goes to another request page than WD:RFOR on the watchlist notice. So you don't even need to watch /Removal to get informed about the discussion. Furthermore, administrators are in no way representative for the whole community's will. Why should they get informed on their noticeboard and discuss a matter only with themselves while the whole community's input is needed and relevant? This makes no sense, in my opinion. Vogone talk 13:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
I agree — why discuss beforehand on a noticeboard that is mostly seen by admins? Why not just start at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal and discuss it there, where everyone will see it (since it will be posted on the watchlist notice)? The Anonymouse (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
The idea is to avoid bad-faith desysopping requests that just serve to waste the community's time (since the request has to be run for a week and only a 'crat can close it, while anyone can close an AN discussion) - for example, requests with the rationale "he unfairly blocked me!" (when the reporter was rightly blocked for chronic edit warring the previous day).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Firstly, it makes no difference whether a user makes a bad faith request on WD:RFP/R or on WD:AN. The intention would stay the same. Secondly, we need no 'crat for closing any ordinary RFP. It already happened more than once that a non-crat did it and per our policies, crats are only responsible for closing requests for access to private data, the flood flag and requests for translation adminship. The rest can be closed by anyone, like an AN discussion. As far as I see, this "Before a request for de-adminship is started, the issue must have been brought up and discussed at the administrators' noticeboard." stuff was imported from Wikimedia Commons, which has other policies/standards than Wikidata, anyway. It might be senseful over there, but it definitely isn't here in my opinion. Greetings, Vogone talk 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Other accounts with administrative access[edit]

... section says non-controversial housekeeping within the MediaWiki namespace. Is editing the blacklists (SBL, TBL) within this? --Glaisher [talk] 06:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Probably not, as "non-controversial housekeeping" usually means things like typos.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[]
If not under that point, it could fall under blocking accounts and IP addresses in cases of vandalism, spam or long-term abuse though as blacklists do nothing else than preventing accounts/IP addresses from spamming. Correct me if I am mistaken. Vogone talk 10:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[]
Fore sure this is not completely wrong. But there's a difference between blocking an account that has made concrete edits that are spam and preventing all accounts from making any edits containing a certain link suggesting those could be spam edits. However, that difference still persists if a local admin does this SBL entry. Maybe they have a better overview over the specific circumstances that would allow/forbid putting a certain link somewhere, though I don't know if this ever is relevant in practice. In any case, a local admin could revert a SBL entry made by a global sysop immediately or as soon as there are complaints, so I don't see a problem with such actions. --YMS (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[]

majority of 50%[edit]

WD:Administrators#Losing adminship says: "Administrator access can also be removed after a community vote at Wikidata:Requests for permissions, with a simple majority of 50% of users supporting the removal."

This sentence is factually wrong as 50% does not represent a "majority". Has someone suggestions how to adjust that sentence? Regards, Vogone (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[]

It seems like Hahc21 found an acceptable solution. Thanks for that! Vogone (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Administration of administrator list[edit]

If an administrator loses the sysop flag, he/she has to be removed from here (Wikidata:Administrators), from Template:CurrentAdmins, from Wikidata:Administrators by language/Table and from MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js, updated in Template:AdminsChart and added to Template:FormerAdmins (not talking of external lists like en:Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans, which might need an update, too). Often one or several of these are forgotten by whoever takes care of this. Isn't there a way to reduce the number of edits that are needed to be done in such a case? Or should we just collect these links somewhere (where?), so one hasn't to recollect them all every time? --YMS (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC) PS: Of course, the same pages have to be edited when someone gains the administratorship. Didn't think of that because then usually our bureaucrats do a good job in updating the lists, as far as I can tell (and they often don't do it in case of rights removal because this is not their job, as the rights removal is requested and done on meta). --YMS (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[]

I've always wanted this to be updated by bot. In fact I might suggest a Lua script might even do the trick.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Inactivity resysoppings[edit]

@Ajraddatz, Vogone: Since when was there consensus for that line? No RfC has ever ratified it. Technically it needs consensus (any granting of adminship must result at least indirectly from community consensus). I think the burden is on whomever added it (@John F. Lewis:) to get consensus for it, not me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]

I think that it is a logical extension of the inactivity policy, based on what is done elsewhere (from what I've seen through global work anyway). I also don't think it is appropriate to remove something which has been in the policy for over a year without any notice, so thanks for posting this here. Either way I support it being in there. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]
It never was policy. Plain and simple. Other wikis which do this usually have it ratified separately. However I do intend this to be a constructive discussion: we need a better system in my opinion, since one who resigns under controversy shouldn't be allowed to invoke that. It also technically contradicts the "there is currently no reprieve" sentence if the inactivity policy is supposed to be invoked on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]
The "no reprieve" clearly refers to inactivity desysopping. I've also clarified the part about voluntary removal to keep it in-line with the inactivity policy. Look good? Ajraddatz (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]
It was included in the original RFC (and I wrote the RFC)... [1] --Rschen7754 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[]
@Ajraddatz: Thanks. @Rschen7754: In my memory had read other discussion (on this talk page) about whether admins could be resysopped, but the discussion was about inactivity only, now that I remember correctly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Inactivity policy[edit]

I'm not really a big fan of the inactivity policy here on Wikidata. My own admin rights were removed back in April because I had not had any admin actions for six months. I'm not disagreeing with the removal at all, it was completely according to policy, but I think the policy should be changed. In my case I had not had any admin actions for six months, but I had more than 15,000 edits in that timespan, so I was clearly not absent, and would have been able to help out where needed if called upon, and I think that could be the case for several other formor admins as well.

So I would propose to make some changes to the policy. If we want to make a simple change, I would simply propose that instead of removing the bit automatically after six months' (admin) inactivity (same definition as now, less than five admin actions), a user should get a reminder after six months. Then, if there is no further activity (again, same definition as now, five admin actions) in the next six months, the bit should be removed. I think this is a more reasonable policy. Comments? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[]

I'm against any reminders. If an admin don't remember to use his/her tools there is no need for the tools. They can always ask them back. Stryn (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[]
Ditto. --Rschen7754 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[]
@Stryn: I can't speak for anyone else, but for me my areas of activity come in waves. One month I'll be busy doing menial stuff like add Norwegian transcriptions of Russian names, or (like I am currently) adding first name and last name statements – then the next I might become pretty inactive in Wikidata because I found something to do in Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons or Translatewiki, but then I come back to Wikidata and find another task that I can focus on. One of the niche things I did as an admin was to delete thousands of items for categories/templates/etc. that had been deleted in various projects, but that's a niche I can't help out with anymore. The fact that I'm not focusing on that every month doesn't necessarily mean I don't need the admin tools, and I certainly know when to use them (and not) even if I haven't been active with that sort of task for a few months. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[]
I certainly get that, but <5 actions in a 6 month period leans more towards not being active in any month. --Rschen7754 00:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[]
That's true, it's a very small amount. Which is why I think a reminder is in order – to let the users in question know they need to pick up speed if they intend to continue. It's the sudden removal without warning that feels a bit unwelcoming. I think it would also be fine if we keep the limit at six months as it is, but give users a reminder after three or four months of no/low activity. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[]
The problem with that is that we then get users faking activity in order to maintain rights, or making just the minimum number of actions to keep the rights as a sort of status symbol (i.e. Meta, Commons). --Rschen7754 00:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[]
If they are familiar with the rules and know when to use the tools, I don't really see why that's a problem. It's not like there's a cap for how many admins there can be. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[]
I support this change. Admins are volunteers, and I think it's important to treat volunteers with some dignity. I've never understood the push to get rid of people if they haven't met some arbitrary line of activity. We should be finding ways to re-engaged inactive people, not trying to show them the door as quickly as possible. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[]
@Ajraddatz: Yes, this exactly! You phrased it much better than I was able to. Face-smile.svg Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[]
I do not have a strong opinion either way, but admins who are really afraid to lose track of the number of theor actions must add this page to their watchlist, it is pretty accurate and up-to-date.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[]
That's a very useful page indeed! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[]

First designs for Special:Block with Granular blocks[edit]

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) 19:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[]