Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining inactivity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear support that there should be set rules in place to define admin inactivity. In this discussion, the following were agreed:
  1. The policy covers only administrators, bureaucrats, and oversighters. Translation administrators are explicitly outside of the scope of this policy.
  2. In order to be defined as active, an admin, bureaucrat or oversighter will have to perform ten or more admin/crat actions, all within a six month period.
  3. Reprieves will not be given.
  4. Inactivity should be checked every month, looking at the past 6 months.
  5. The English versions of Wikidata:Administrators, Wikidata:Bureaucrats and Wikidata:Oversight have been updated to reflect these changes. They need translating into other languages.

Side note: There may be some appetite for leniency in the case of extended absence reported well in advance. Though this will need to be discussed further before becoming accepted policy. Del♉sion23 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

Category:Closed requests for comment#Defining%20inactivity

Per Wikidata:Administrators this RFC should be closed after July 22, 2013.

Scope

Default

The same inactivity policy applies to administrators, bureaucrats, and oversighters. This does not prevent removal of the CU/OS flags under any global inactivity policy for those rights. When an admin is removed for inactivity, the other listed flags should be as well. Until the creation of a WMDE staff right, WMDE accounts are exempt from this.[1]

Translation admins

The same inactivity policy applies to translation administrators also.

  • Not necessary, in my opinion. Vogone talk 00:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Per Vogone. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think its necessary either. TA is a weird right where its more important that you know the technical details of what you're doing rather than knowing policies. There are a few users here who have TA but they aren't "active" here, but they can assist if asked on IRC or on their talk page. Legoktm (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that this isn't necessary.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not necessary unless the user holding translation admin is inaction and not reachable through contact channels. John F. Lewis (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I also think It's not necessary.--DangSunM (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Develop a separate policy if necessary.--Jasper Deng (alternate) (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not necessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Levels (choose ONE option)

What is required to be "active"? Note that other options can be added.

1 admin/crat action over 6 months

5 admin/crat actions over 6 months

10 admin/crat actions over 6 months

  •  Support Seeing as Wikidata has an almost perpetual backlog of relatively simple merge-deletion requests at RfD, even 10 admin actions represents less than 15 mins admin work in a 6 month period, but seems more reasonable than 50. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support this one, per Delusion. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - You can make 10 actions in a matter of minutes at any given time clearing out RfD, so I'd say that this is a reasonable expectation for admins here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The difference between 5 and 10 is really arbitrary, and I don't think either makes a difference realistically. Legoktm (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Reasonable. Vogone talk 03:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rschen7754 03:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support This is more than reasonable.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support In principle it's nearly the same if it's 5 or 10, but I think this is little bit better. --Stryn (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --ValterVB (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support also think 5 or 10. I support 10 actions per above (and 10 admin action takes only 10 minutes). --DangSunM (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. IW 12:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ·addshore· talk to me! 19:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support per Delusion23.--Jasper Deng (alternate) (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support TCN7JM 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems reasonable now. Few month/years later when mass deletion/merge will be unnecessary, we will perhaps renegotiate it. --Nouill (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

50 admin/crat actions over 6 months

1 edit or action over 6 months

5 edits or actions over 6 months

10 edits or actions over 6 months

50 edits or actions over 6 months

  •  Support Someone active n editing shouldn't lose the mop due to a handfull of admin actions not being done. Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The section headings specify "admin" actions. If I flag 10 bots but don't delete 10 items, do I lose my admin, and then crat flags? This should be clarified somehow. Legoktm (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If we consider user right management in general as an admin task (which I do, as this is only possible for users with at least sysop access), then you wouldn't lose your access. Though, I don't know how others think about this. Vogone talk 03:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, would we count CU/OS too? That would be harder to verify. --Rschen7754 03:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Anyone with access to the Toolserver can look at OS logs (very limited data), and it would be easy to have any steward to peek at the CU logs. Legoktm (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd say no to CU (as this is an completely independent tool and not even subject of this RFC) and yes to OS. But as you already noticed, the logs are hidden and could only be observed by other users with the same permission. Anyway, I think such a situation is rather hypothetical than realistic. Vogone talk 04:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily, this happens at Commons too. --Rschen7754 09:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to propose adding crat and OS to the above list, since stewards can verify both of them before removal of appropriate flags. If memory serves me right CU won't be verifiable that way, but we can deal with that then. :) Any objections? --Rschen7754 08:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I added crat to that list. OS seems rather pointless to me as there can be 6 months with less than 10 OS requests. Vogone talk 18:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reprieve

Extended absence

1) If an administrator posts on the administrator noticeboard that they will be away for an extended period of time, then then no action should be taken until 30 days after their intended return date.

  •  Oppose not a good idea. --Rschen7754 00:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can you expand on why you think that please? Legoktm (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Largely because it could be easily gamed. --Rschen7754 03:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Don't you think we have a bigger problem if we've got a gaming administrator?... --Izno (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support ~ I don't see why it's not a good idea. If we get a note that an admin will be deployed (as with a military unit), then why go through the extra bureaucracy of another request for the rights when he returns? Obviously, the admin cares to have his rights if we receive such a forewarning. --Izno (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - As an officer in the RCN I do have some periods of extended no-internet or little activity (more the latter thankfully), so something like this would be useful. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unless some sort of limit would be added to this date of return. ·addshore· talk to me! 19:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    I do believe it says "30 days after their intended return date"... Unless your concern is the "he could say don't desysop me until 2015"? --Izno (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ajraddatz but only really if a limit is added. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support with a limit so no gaming can occur. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 6 months are enough time to be active. If a user is inactive for 5 months and leaves then completely, that's his own fault. I don't see what the big deal in making 10 sysop actions in a half year is. Vogone talk 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Let me posit you the same question as I did in general: What about (for example) someone says "I'm being deployed". Why should we remove their rights when I would imagine that such a person has a quite legitimate reason for not being able to make 10 actions in 6 months? --Izno (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Because a user who does not make 10 actions in 6 months clearly does not need the tools. That's the reason why we even remove admin tools. To avoid having too many inactive users listed on Special:ListAdmins. Vogone talk 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sometimes serving personnel might have different things that they want to spend their limited internet access doing, while still being trusted and able to serve as an admin here when they get back. Keep in mind that (in Canada anyway) the average deployment time is six months, with lots of likewise internet-free time before that spent preparing. But, of course it is the person in question's "own fault" for choosing that career path, choosing to be deployed, and then choosing to spend limited time on the internet communicating with their friends and family instead of clearing out RfD. You are also correct, a navigation officer on a frigate has no need of the sysop tools on Wikidata while so employed. This RfC does not have a section on what happens if previous admins whose tools were removed from inactivity come back and want them again - do they need to go through the vote? If we do not make this provision for people with a good reason to be without access to this site, then we should make a clear system of regaining the tools after such a situation. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    If somebody leaves he does not need the tools. It doesn't really matter for which reason. If he needs them again he can reapply. 7 days are really no long waiting period. Vogone talk 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    The issue then becomes that admins who have allegedly abused their tools only require 50% support to retain them. Admins who were deployed or working for six months need the usual 70% to get them back. So, the admin who is active but isn't trusted by enough people to start the desysop procedure can retain the tools with 20% less support than an admin who is still fully trusted but put life as a priority over work on Wikidata. No, I think we do need some sort of system for regaining the tools in this case. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Rschen7754 and Vogone; let the extended-leave admin decide for him/herself whether he/she should hand in the mop earlier than 6 months.--Jasper Deng (alternate) (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated reprieves

2) If a user has made the same number of edits as the number of actions required in the "Levels" section above, but have not made that many actions requiring any of the administrator/crat/CU/OS flags (or translationadmin status if #2 from Scope passes) they may request to keep their admin status within a week of the official notification by talk page and email.

Only one reprieve

3) If a user has made the same number of edits as the number of actions required in the "Levels" section above, but have not made that many actions requiring any of the administrator/crat/CU/OS flags (or translationadmin status if #2 from Scope passes) they may request to keep their admin status within a week of the official notification by talk page and email. However, if during the last inactivity cycle they have already done this, they may not do so again.

No reprieves

4) There is no reprieve, and any administrator not meeting the inactivity standard should lose all flags under the scope of this policy, upon request to stewards (or to local crats if applicable).

  • No need for unnecessary bureaucracy. 6 months is enough time to be active. Vogone talk 00:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rschen7754 00:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no need for added complications. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Vogone and Delusion23 put it best. Legoktm (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Stryn (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support--DangSunM (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. IW 12:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jasper Deng (alternate) (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support TCN7JM 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Nouill (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Cycles

6 months

1) Inactivity should be checked every 6 months.

Gets the job done on Commons and Meta, without the process being a constant source of work. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Every month

2) Inactivity should be checked every month, looking at the past 6 months.

  • Should be sufficient. Vogone talk 00:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support This seems reasonable on both the checkers and the admin being checked. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rschen7754 02:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support this or the below. --Izno (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Monthly reviews sound good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure. Legoktm (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Napoleon.tan (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
* Support --Stryn (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --ValterVB (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support--DangSunM (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support as the person who will probably be doing this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support But when in the month?--Jasper Deng (alternate) (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I think close date is looks good. For example, this RFC closed July 25th, than we should check every 25th. --DangSunM (talk)03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I disagree that we should define a specific day. Checking once a month when anyone is around to check the activity should be sufficient. Vogone talk 10:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Why not... I'm also fine with irregular check (with continual limit or not continual limit). --Nouill (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Pegging it to the end of each month makes it simpler. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Always

3) Inactivity should be checked on a continual basis.

  •  Support. IW 12:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Stryn (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --DangSunM (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support TCN7JM 08:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. ↑ Already enacted per Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining bureaucrats and Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining oversighters, and Wikidata:Contact the development team.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Category:Closed requests for comment