In October 2019 the first part of a two part Request for Comment was closed with a community consensus in favour of developing a stricter criteria for restoration of administrator status after a desysop for inactivity.
The first RfC stipulated that if it closed with a consensus for a stricter criteria there would be a second RfC. This RfC will follow the endorsement of statements model, with users being able to put forward multiple proposals to be considered by the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Statements #1 and #3 have been added to both WP:ADMIN and WP:RESYSOP.[1][2] In addition, the inactivity threshold has been amended from three years to two years, according to Statement #7.[3][4] — JFG talk 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor.
impossibly vague, arbitrary and subjective—comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly disagree with the wording as written. It should say, "...return to activity as an editor." Adminship is not a big deal, and we shouldn't judge peoples' trustworthiness by how often they plan on pushing the block or delete buttons. Even an admin who only makes one "admin action" per month is still reducing the overall admin workload by 12 actions per year. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
A couple of things I'd like to hear thoughts on (they don't necessarily need to be written into this change):
a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced- what if there's a disagreement among bureaucrats? Are we expecting consensus among them (cratsensus?), or is convincing one sufficient?
I'm not really expecting either of these to be huge issues if this change is implemented, but I'd like to think these things through before the policy is changed. creffett (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see some kind of requirement for demonstrated activity (say 30 days or so) rather than simply "convinced" but I'm okay with giving the 'crats discretion here. CThomas3 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user retains the trust of the community to serve as an administrator.
a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user retains the trust of the communitybefore restoring the bit. By definition, in order to assess "the trust of the community", we need a community discussion, so that would be RfA time. Ergo, this proposal solves nothing. — JFG talk 23:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an asymmetry if bureaucrats are empowered to examine if an administrator who has relinquished their privileges has retained the trust of the community, but are not empowered to make this determination for administrators who continue to hold their privileges. The net effect is to discourage administrators from giving up their privileges when not in use, as they would face extra scrutiny in return for following best security practices. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added in WP:RESYSOP concerning restoration of permissions procedure after point 4 To allow time for requests to be checked thoroughly...
:
Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of Admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a Crat Chat.
Seeking only to explicitly codify that a Resysop is put on hold until the request has been discussed and the Crats have established if a consensus exists to resysop. Hasteur (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred on the Bureaucrats Noticeboard to establish that there is consensus to restore. This has some precedent too: in 2018 there was an "informal crat chat" on the BN before Ymblanter's bit was restored and I think a similar process would be appropriate for future edge cases. As the statement currently reads, it's not clear if crats in this "Crat Chat" are discussing whether there is community consesus to restore or if they are deciding whether there is consensus among crats to restore. If the former, that's more similar to the Ymblanter situation than an actual Crat Chat; if the latter, that's not a crat chat but an RfA in which only crats can participate (which is something I'd be very opposed to). Wug·a·po·des 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)and a consensus established through a Crat Chat.
With respect to the xeno (Wugapodes—Levivich) I am trying to explicitly codify what is an informal unwritten policy that has been both invoked to great benefit and to which I think I recall a few cases in which the promoting bureaucrat was repeatedly poked to promote when there was outstanding concerns that were not yet resolved. I invision this as 2 seperate but linked discussion: A actual debate/discussion on the merits of the proposed resysop and if need be a discussion by burecrats as to if either side has sufficently sustatined their side has sustained the argument. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of Admin permissionsdoesn't do much because the criteria for restoration are fairly clear-cut, and, as with elsewhere on the wiki, if there is disagreement because it is not clear-cut (possible cloud, etc.) the bureaucrats already discuss it. Crats may
feel their hands are tied by policy when an absurd resysopbut this doesn't change the suitability of a given resysop. If one of the other vague proposals here is agreed-upon so that there is discretion or room for doubt, then perhaps this would be warranted, but it's also already done and implied by current policies. The main difference is expanding the use of the term "Crat Chat." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
why do crats feel their hands are tied by policy when an absurd resysop request comes up?I don't like this question. The "hands are tied" part implies the bureaucrat(s) doesn't want to do something but is required to and the "absurd resysop" part is completely subjective. Feels like a loaded question. Useight (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
As part of the request for resysop, the returning administrator should indicate what actions they intend to do with the permissions. Bureaucrats shall be empowered to consider the assertion and any previous assertions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
Adminship will not be restored after 5 years for those who resigned without a new RfA. (this is in addition to the 3 year inactivity rule) .(To clarify "For someone who has resigned five or more years ago, adminship can only be reinstated through a new RfA.)
"Over five years since administrative tools were last used. For any former administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request."I agree with Jbhunley in that a 2–3 year time frame would be more effective for keeping administrators aware of new policy and guideline changes. — Newslinger talk 11:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the second bullet of the Restoration of adminship section of WP:ADMIN, change three years (1+2) to two years (1+1), such that the item would thus read:
- Over two years with no edits. If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to instead request through the WP:RFA process. In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity, only one year of continued uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) from the removal due to inactivity is required before a new WP:RFA is necessary.
The RfC closed in favo(u)r of a stricter requirement, so here's a simple tightening of one of the criteria. Would clearly supersede the currently-referenced 2012 consensus, namely Wiki_talk:Administrators/Archive_13#1.2B2 and Wiki_talk:Administrators/Archive_13#3_years_of_inactivity. Implies a corresponding change to item #5 of WP:RESYSOP. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple proposals may gain consensus, provided that they are not essentially incompatible.
No proposal in this RfC shall be considered to have gained consensus unless it has a clear consensus among all those editors who have commented on this RfC in any way, including those who only commented on a single proposal.[disputed ]
a potentially major change, and should have clear consensus to be implemented.~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not convinced we need any change at all, but if we must change something, I think the change should address the unease that some people feel when long-term inactive admins ask for the bit back with their first edit after desysopping
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
Any former admin who has been inactive for more than two years will be re-sysopped on request after a period of normal editing proportional to their length of inactivity. If N years have passed since desysopping, the former admin should edit for N months, making 50 non-stupid (i.e., constructive edits that are not clearly made to inflate edit count only) edits each month. After the N months have passed, they will be re-granted admin status by request on WP:BN (subject to the normal exclusions).
If long-term inactive admins are out of touch, this should help them reconnect with the community, hopefully avoiding the assumptions of bad faith that we sometimes see at WP:BN. —Kusma (t·c) 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
Users requesting restoration of sysop flag after being desysoped for inactivity will be requested to state the frequncy of admin actions which they intend to take if the tools are restored to them. If the stated anticipated level is not significant, or if the Bureaucrats do not find the statement credible in view of past history, they may decline the request. Ihe request is declined a user may repeat the request after a period of editing, or may seek appointment via a new RfA.
Users who endorse statement 10
Users who oppose statement 10
Discussion of statement 10I like the principle... anything to get rid of 'squatter' admins. Jbh Talk 07:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement should be added to WP:ADMIN in the section concerning restoration of permissions:
Admins making clearly minimal edits to keep their advanced permissions and Users that have been desysopped through lack of activity and have their permissions returned under the conditions of WP:RESYSOP by the WP:CRATS and then continue to have no or minimal activity can be subject to a community discussion and removal of those permissions if such a consensus arises. If removal occurs any further request for resysop would require a WP:RFA. Any Admin supported in the discussion would restart the clock as far as WP:RESYSOP is concerned.
Agree with User:DESiegel that who may start it, how is it to be started, who judges consensus and by what standard are all points to be resolved. I also think that if a clause like this was added it would make the users in question actually ask themselves, am I going to use and do I really need the permissions. It would also allow for very experienced admins sitting on their hands that are supported by the community, I would not expect these users to be challenged, to be differentiated from accounts whose lack of edits would cause more concerns to users. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Instead of trying to find ways of restricting people from keeping the sysop bit, the focus should be on figuring out how to get more (competent) people to apply for and pass RfAs.
Text here
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that non-admin users, including some of the community's most respected, voted 39-8 that our resysopping policy needs tightening, we recognize the RfC results represent an actual problem the community needs to find consensus to address.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wiki should not be in the business of writing processes to avoid the stupid thing Bob did once. Any proposed solution must first require credible evidence of both a problem that it would have fixed, and the absence of any simpler or more efficient way of fixing that problem. Guy (help!) 22:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
the absence of any simpler or more efficient way of fixing that problem. — JFG talk 00:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
"and the absence of any simpler or more efficient way of fixing that problem"– if a viable proposal is presented, the burden of proof falls on the opposers of the proposal to show that better alternatives exist. — Newslinger talk 00:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Guy, of course WP shouldn't be in the business of writing processes to fix the stupid thing Bob did once. But that's not what this is in my opinion, so I can't vote either way. And of course any solution must first require credible evidence of a problem that it would have fixed. But in my opinion the credible evidence of a problem is the fact non-admins voted nearly 5-1 that they believe there's a problem, so again I can't vote either way. And if you have a simpler or more efficient way of solving this problem, I'd love to vote for it, but without a suggestion I again can't vote either way. --valereee (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Add to WP:RESYSOP conditions that:
Whether the need for tools is established would be left to the discretion of the BN crats, per proposal #1. Users who endorse statement 17
Users who oppose statement 17
Discussion of statement 17
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following statement is a proposal regarding the mechanism of this RfC, rather than a specific suggested addition to WP:ADMIN
Proposals that receive some form of net support in this RfC should be taken to a workshop/dedicated stage (where they will be the only proposals being considered) to refine details and consensus, unless they already possess clarity, don't contradicti other proposals, and have a clear consensus for straight implementation.
Currently, after the strong consensus in favour of altering the rules, we've split a dozen+ ways, which is making demonstrating consensus tough. We also have contradicting methods, and proposals currently lacking clarity (or firm agreement that they should lack clarity).
If, when these are closed, we take the 5 or 6 with at least some net support (but not enough to show clear consensus) to a dedicated discussion, hopefully we can get better community agreement and iron out some of the issues.
Obviously it makes things a bit more bureaucratic and slower, but it should be less problematic than the current one and avoid an issue of a firm consensus for something but with nothing agreed being done. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor and retains the trust of the community to serve as an administrator.I trust, in the same way that we're able to close ACERFC that we'll be able to close this one OK without a third RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: The main problem that we actually have in this area is that there is a substantial and growing group of admins who can be characterized as follows:
Some of these editors -- around 5% a year I would guess under present policy -- will go on to pose problems for the project:
Most of this population makes enough edits that they never meet the inactivity threshold, and I think that's where attention should be focused. Nonetheless, tweaking the resysop criteria is a good start. UninvitedCompany 20:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Abandon this effort to find solutions until it is clear what the real problem is. The proliferation of proposals above are a strong indication that there is no consensus on what we are actually trying to fix. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Valereee has written an excellent summary of the issues just above.
Thus I think it would be helpful if people can say in a more general sense if they'd prefer various arbitrary requirements, written to cover the concerns, or indicating areas that 'Crats need to consider and make a more discretionary judgement or some mix of the two Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a current bureaucrat discussion behind had about how the crats interpret current policy, particularly around the scenario where a sysop resigns without a cloud and then later does actions that would create a cloud. This ties into some of the proposals here and thus might be of interest to participants of this RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
In line with the above link by Barkeep, the 'Crats are generally agreeing that in the case of an Administrator resigning not under a cloud, and then acting poorly "a new cloud", they do not have discretion to deny re-sysopping. Without regard to the specific re-sysopping that caused the discussion, I think this needs to be discussed in general. We don't want to make it too broad, but there must be some bright lines that we can give to 'Crats that if an individual has had certain sanctions placed on them, they would be counted as being under a cloud and require an RfA. This is substantively different from all proposals above, which are activity/purpose driven (and could be met while still being of community concerns).
Some potential thoughts are any sitebans and blocks above a certain length (whatever that might be) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Under the heading "Review and removal of adminship, don't you think calling Jimmy Wales "Jimbo" is a bit too informal for a wikipedia policy page? --Ghinga7 (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm out of town with ridiculously bad internet currently and can't edit more than a few seconds at a time, so since I can't do any useful editing... This is as far as I can tell the resysops-on-request after desysopping for inactivity since January 2017, leaving out a few that were too recent, to give us all an idea of how frequently resysops after lengthy inactivity do result in useful editors who will edit enough to at least regain/maintain understanding of changes. Of 18 resysops, several have returned to consistent editing, several are maintaining what I'd call at least minimum activity, and 9 probably want to keep the hat but don't really have time/inclination to actually contribute (reasons for that conclusion bolded). I didn't include usernames because I don't think this should be some sort of shaming exercise, but if someone wants to check my work I'm happy to email you the original. Note that this only includes those with a note "previously inactive" at Wiki: List of resysopped users; many entries from 2016 and earlier have no note and may be appropriate for inclusion here.
ETA: (3 very recent resysops intentionally left off this list, as it didn't seem fair/reasonable to assess after such a short time.)
--valereee (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion pretty much since the start, and I wanted to share some thoughts I had on admin (in)activity in general. If these belong in a more appropriate section, I have no issue with it being moved.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article 2019 Resysop Criteria (2), which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.