Meta talk:Administrators

Archives Archive index

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)