Meta talk:Administrators/Removal (inactivity)/October 2025
Add topicLatest comment: 8 months ago by MF-Warburg
Draft (based on https://xtools.wmcloud.org/adminstats/meta.wikimedia.org/2025-04-01/2025-09-30 ):
- Automatic removal
- ----
None currently
- Proposed removal
- Shizhao (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
- Beetstra (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
Please check and modify if needed --M/ (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @M7: Note that per User:Krd/inactive_admins, Melos (4 edits) and Lustiger seth (5 edits) should be automatically removed, and Kaganer, MusikAnimal and Uncitoyen should be listed for proposed removal. Others on that list seem to meet the requirements or they are only limited admins which are not covered by the policy. EPIC (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also, if MusikAnimal's rights are removed, the rights of MusikBot II should also be removed per the conditions at Meta:Requests for adminship/MusikBot II. EPIC (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Lustiger seth is not subject to automatic removal but required to sign every October, see Meta talk:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth4. I agree that Melos has been hit by the automatic removal rule. -- MF-W 13:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @MF-Warburg: Is this still the case? Lustiger seth is a regular admin since his RFA in 2023. Count Count (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not a crat, but I agree with Count Count that the 2023 RFA overwrote the special inactivity rules in the 2016 RfA, so lustiger seth should lose their admin rights without being given a chance to sign. * Pppery * it has begun 19:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @MF-Warburg Automatic, with 15 logged actions? Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: According to policy at least 10 edits are required in the preceding six months regardless of the number of admin actions. I don't think that this is a good policy but that is what we have right now. Count Count (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Count Count Now this is a part of the policy that I missed. Absurd clause. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Yep, I think this is because some actions could be the result of other flags (GRN/stew for example), and are actually not local actions, so the user could be not active as meta-wiki sysop (so local edits are required). Nothing serious, they both can re-apply at any time, but I understand the concerns (this happens also other times, e.g. I remember User:Base being deflagged, even if they had a lot of logged actions, and then they immediately opened a new RfA). Maybe we could improve the policy by speeding up the reassignment of permissions to users who recently lost them due to inactivity? Superpes15 (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the removal criteria itself needs work if this is happening often. BRP ever 14:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the policy can always be improved. There have been several discussions over the years (the last one dates back to 2023 and was archived as unsuccessful in 2025), but it's always difficult to find a unanimous consensus. Superpes15 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- You would then have to see if the other flags' actions would still be allowed without this flag.
It could be as simple as combining the first two criteria, and have a week sign-off in any case. That one week instead of fully automated is not going to make much of a difference on an otherwise inactive admin. Last time, when I rightfully lost my bits, I only heard it when they were removed, with as only way back to do a fresh RfA. Also then I said that a discussion would have been welcome. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- You would then have to see if the other flags' actions would still be allowed without this flag.
- Yes, the policy can always be improved. There have been several discussions over the years (the last one dates back to 2023 and was archived as unsuccessful in 2025), but it's always difficult to find a unanimous consensus. Superpes15 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the removal criteria itself needs work if this is happening often. BRP ever 14:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Yep, I think this is because some actions could be the result of other flags (GRN/stew for example), and are actually not local actions, so the user could be not active as meta-wiki sysop (so local edits are required). Nothing serious, they both can re-apply at any time, but I understand the concerns (this happens also other times, e.g. I remember User:Base being deflagged, even if they had a lot of logged actions, and then they immediately opened a new RfA). Maybe we could improve the policy by speeding up the reassignment of permissions to users who recently lost them due to inactivity? Superpes15 (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the criteria seem unnecessarily complicated for something as straightforward as inactivity. Perhaps we should consider re-evaluating it. BRP ever 13:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Count Count Now this is a part of the policy that I missed. Absurd clause. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: According to policy at least 10 edits are required in the preceding six months regardless of the number of admin actions. I don't think that this is a good policy but that is what we have right now. Count Count (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @MF-Warburg: Is this still the case? Lustiger seth is a regular admin since his RFA in 2023. Count Count (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Lustiger seth is not subject to automatic removal but required to sign every October, see Meta talk:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth4. I agree that Melos has been hit by the automatic removal rule. -- MF-W 13:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also, if MusikAnimal's rights are removed, the rights of MusikBot II should also be removed per the conditions at Meta:Requests for adminship/MusikBot II. EPIC (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is the same over and over. You do not check properly what people are doing, what people use the bit for, and the counts are incorrect (it is 19). Last time this was automatically removed because I was away for holidays (or something), leaving me with being unable to do stuff I need an admin bit for.
This is not working, and I have explained this at least since 2015. Please remove me from any AUTOMATIC removal lists, I don't want to have to do this every 6 months. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)- @Dirk Beetstra I am really sorry. Still you could intervene in talk Meta_talk:Administrators/Removal_(inactivity), where also your nick appears. --M/ (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @M7 I know, this time. I am more active now, but there should not be any reason to intervene, especially not when data is wrong. It is now just back to 2015, where it went wrong and I had to sign 2 or 3 times in a row because of blind execution and not properly looking at the data (and it was properly documented 10 years ago). By the way, I expect that User:Lustiger seth, who got their admin rights with a similar discussion as mine, might want to have a notification too, even though they are up for the fully automatic removal (but at least one edit showing intention to do an action, they just got beat to it by another admin). I just don't think that the automatic removal should be without first notifying an editor at all.
As per the note below, it would be nice if this could be reviewed longer. The draft is wrong .. you missed nearly 95% of the (at least: my) data. There is not an issue if an admin stays an admin for a couple of days longer. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)- @Dirk BeetstraThe page at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/adminstats/meta.wikimedia.org/2025-04-01/2025-09-30 lists just 1 (one) deletion. Could you please exactly list what I am missing enumerating your local admin actions? Also, the 19 number at Krs's page doesn't seem to be exactly what you expect, did you check it, clicking on the link and actually counting the actions listed? --M/ (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- No, I counted the 19 myself, it is including the one page deletion that is listed on the wmcloud.org (coincidental that I am the 19th external link on Krs' page). What you are missing is written in the policy (added after the 2-3 of these messages in 2015), not all things are logged in the log .. we admins also edit through page protections, there are possibly edit filters that exclude admin rights, it is not a simple 'log' count. That also results in a wrong message that is left on talk pages: 'because you have made fewer than ten (10) logged administrator actions over the past six (6) months' is not what the policy says. Policy says "fewer than ten actions requiring admin privileges (remember, this includes edits to protected pages, etc.)" (my bolding). I have 7 edits to protected bot settings pages (the reason I asked for the admin bit in the first place), and I have 11 edits to the Spam blacklist, edits that require admin privileges (also mentioned in my RfA, but not the main reason).
This whole thing is just overly bureaucratic, especially the automatic removal. I don't see the problem with just asking people regardless if they really make a few edits/actions. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 14:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- No, I counted the 19 myself, it is including the one page deletion that is listed on the wmcloud.org (coincidental that I am the 19th external link on Krs' page). What you are missing is written in the policy (added after the 2-3 of these messages in 2015), not all things are logged in the log .. we admins also edit through page protections, there are possibly edit filters that exclude admin rights, it is not a simple 'log' count. That also results in a wrong message that is left on talk pages: 'because you have made fewer than ten (10) logged administrator actions over the past six (6) months' is not what the policy says. Policy says "fewer than ten actions requiring admin privileges (remember, this includes edits to protected pages, etc.)" (my bolding). I have 7 edits to protected bot settings pages (the reason I asked for the admin bit in the first place), and I have 11 edits to the Spam blacklist, edits that require admin privileges (also mentioned in my RfA, but not the main reason).
- @Dirk BeetstraThe page at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/adminstats/meta.wikimedia.org/2025-04-01/2025-09-30 lists just 1 (one) deletion. Could you please exactly list what I am missing enumerating your local admin actions? Also, the 19 number at Krs's page doesn't seem to be exactly what you expect, did you check it, clicking on the link and actually counting the actions listed? --M/ (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @M7 I know, this time. I am more active now, but there should not be any reason to intervene, especially not when data is wrong. It is now just back to 2015, where it went wrong and I had to sign 2 or 3 times in a row because of blind execution and not properly looking at the data (and it was properly documented 10 years ago). By the way, I expect that User:Lustiger seth, who got their admin rights with a similar discussion as mine, might want to have a notification too, even though they are up for the fully automatic removal (but at least one edit showing intention to do an action, they just got beat to it by another admin). I just don't think that the automatic removal should be without first notifying an editor at all.
- @Dirk Beetstra I am really sorry. Still you could intervene in talk Meta_talk:Administrators/Removal_(inactivity), where also your nick appears. --M/ (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
If you post a draft to check and modify if needed, it would be great to wait for more than one hour with the start of sending notices to people, so that the draft could actually be checked. --MF-W 11:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- There's also to look at EPIC's note, with special regard to automatic removal checks. --M/ (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a godawful mess. Meta:Administrators contradicts Meta:Administrators/Removal (inactivity) on what the criteria for proposed removal are, one saying logged actions, and the other saying uses of the tools. And /Removal (inactivity)'s definition is incoherent too because, by a literal reading, all stewards who are also admins have to sign every six-month period (since no action technically requires the use of admin tools; they would still have access to the same buttons if they were desysopped). So what does count against proposed removal for stewards? Do we have to manually analyze the context of every button push to say "would this have been acceptable under Meta:MSR if they weren't a local admin too"? (almost certainly not what is intended, and unworkable, but how I would interpret the Removal (inactivity) guidance as written)? Do global blocks with the "also block locally" checkbox count? (I would think "no").
Also, Xtools adminstats is not a valid way to find people to list for removal, because it doesn't include edits to protected pages and (more importantly) doesn't list any admins with no admin actions at all.
On individual cases listed in the report today:
- Beetstra should not have been listed.
- Shizhao should also not have been listed, since mass message sends are admin actions (but they signed in any case)
- Kaganer should not have been listed either, since moves without redirects are admin actions
- MusikAnimal was rightly listed (but they signed in any case)
- Uncitoyen was rightly listed.
Moving on to Krd listings:
- Amire80 by my count has exactly 9 admin actions during the period (but not the same 9 as the bot found; content model changes don't count because those only require translation admin not admin, but message bundle deletions and moves without redirects to) so should have been added
- Barkeep49, Dbeef, Ghilt, and Ibrahim.ID are excluded because they have limited adminship
- Nux is an iadmin not an admin at all so follows different rules.
- Seddon has other rights that are not admin so isn't subject to these rules.
Central notice admins:
- Icem4k seems like they would qualify for removal, except they were only granted the rights this May (the one-term proviso seems to only apply to admin removal not other types)
- Itzike seems to qualify for removal.
- Soylacarli seems like they would qualify for removal, except they were only granted the rights this August.
(I didn't check translationadmin, because that's straightforward) * Pppery * it has begun 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Pppery For me, it is not a contradiction: all our edits are logged, just not in Special:Log. Fun addition, if a page is fully protected for 3 months somewhere in the period between April 1 and October 1 (but not on those dates), and an admin edits 10 times through that protection, it may not even be counted if you don't take care. Note that it has been standing since October 2010, when was noted that "I'm quite sure that there were no intention for active spam blacklist editors (we have many of them) to qualify for proposed desysop" (by VasilievVV)
(question: does the 'also block locally' work if you are not a local admin - it does seem from that list to be a choice that was made to block locally, they do not always do that, so maybe there was an intention to use the local bit?)
(@all) And stop with the damned 'but you can sign', the automatic removal is just executed without any regard for the person behind the bit, and 7 days is awfully short. I was away for 9 days just last week, I could have easily missed that. 'But you can always ask again for the rights'. Is it really so much of a deal that someone retains the rights (a bit longer)? Do we really have to bring this bureaucracy down to paper pushing, do we have KPIs to fulfill? Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)- I've done this edit to sort out the internal contradiction between the two pages about what the rules for inactivity are, since I think everyone agrees the controlling wording is actions requiring admin tools. "question: does the 'also block locally' work if you are not a local admin" - yes, trivially, since the Steward global group includes the "block" right. If hypothetically a steward did not have "block" rights, then looking at the code they wouldn't be able to block locally. The problem with protected pages could theoretically be solved by importing w:Special:AbuseFilter/942. And I'm deliberately not making any judgement on the wisdom of the current rules, merely attempting to enforce my understanding of them as written. Except for this: I strongly oppose making any special exceptions in this removal round - if we want to change the policy for the future it should only apply to future rounds. * Pppery * it has begun 04:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking exceptions, though the ambiguous way the policy is written vs. intention does leave a lot of room for error. I don't know if I agree with the user:MusikAnimal case, they are an admin because they run an approved admin bot, but because the admin themselves does not do enough adminning you intend to de-admin the admin and kill the approved bot (the bot did 10 admin actions in the last 2 months alone). If they miss the deadline (they did not, and probably should not because of running an adminbot, but hey, shit happens), they loose both, and have to go through the whole approval again while the bot is not doing it's job. It is again, plain bureaucratic counting, not looking at the situation. I am not against the policy, but hey, a bit of consideration goes a long way, it should not be 'you are not doing enough', it should be 'do you really still need it?'. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that 942 did not catch my edits through page protection, because I edited in the MediaWiki namespace, though I think it is different here. Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yep, we should reword the policy, so that everything is clearer. We also need to find a correct counting system! As you say, if a sysop edits a protected page, and after some weeks it's no longer protected, it might not be counted, and that's wrong. Superpes15 (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've done this edit to sort out the internal contradiction between the two pages about what the rules for inactivity are, since I think everyone agrees the controlling wording is actions requiring admin tools. "question: does the 'also block locally' work if you are not a local admin" - yes, trivially, since the Steward global group includes the "block" right. If hypothetically a steward did not have "block" rights, then looking at the code they wouldn't be able to block locally. The problem with protected pages could theoretically be solved by importing w:Special:AbuseFilter/942. And I'm deliberately not making any judgement on the wisdom of the current rules, merely attempting to enforce my understanding of them as written. Except for this: I strongly oppose making any special exceptions in this removal round - if we want to change the policy for the future it should only apply to future rounds. * Pppery * it has begun 04:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is easy to distinguish between steward actions and local admin actions. Steward actions are those only stewards can do, like global blocks, while local admin actions (done by users who also happen to be stewards) are ... local admin actions. The fact that the relevant button is available to them without being admins is irrelevant. --MF-W 12:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)