Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

RFC about reconfirmation procedures

SNOW close by proposer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2018 (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.

All right, since the point has been raised (in relation to

WP:RFA#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

.

If an administrator files a request for adminship (commonly known as reconfirmation) without resigning the administrator user right first, the RFA should proceed as if it was any other request. When determining consensus, the closing bureaucrat should review it as if the admin had resigned before the RFA for the purposes of determining community support. If the closing bureaucrat determines that the request has ~~failed~~not succeeded, they are authorized to consider this as a self-request for removal of permissions and proceed as specified in the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats policy. If they determine that the request has succeeded, it shall be considered a successful request for adminship.

If the administrator withdraws from the RFA before the bureaucrat begins the closing process, then regardless of the current state of the discussion, it shall be closed with no further action taken.

I think this will resolve most of the issues short of howdareyouwasteourtimedoingthis. I'm not happy with allowing withdrawing before close, but I don't see any good way to handle it short of major rewriting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This should be an entirely separate process from RfA and should not permit any form of withdrawal, as that takes any authority out of the reconfirmation process, thereby making it useless. Additionally, there needs to be a process for the community to initiate a reconfirmation under certain circumstances. Either give the bureaucrats the right based on community input or give the community a way to petition for reconfirmation. Either take it all the way or don't bother at all. Nihlus 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose any attempt at a community based desysop process, which this basically is. The ArbCom model still has issues, but it is the least-bad method I can think of. I think that an admin who has lost the confidence of the community because of violations should resign and stand for a new RfA, but oppose situations where good administrators who are following policy could be pressured into a situation where they have to choose between a hypothetical case request and a reRfA. I would support a policy that required admins to resign before standing for a reRfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I simply don’t think this is enough of a problem to bother with a policy for it. A simpler approach might be to just say we don’t do these if you don’t give up the bits first, thus making it an actual RFA.
talk
)
Support as written. This gives the 'crats needed community guidance, which is important because the whole point of being a 'crat is to have great power that is exercised only in support of policies that the community has approved. I would also support a version with the final "If the administrator withdraws from the RFA before the bureaucrat begins the closing process" paragraph removed. While I do support it as written, removing this loophole would be even better and would discourage frivolous reconfirmation RfAs. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Struck !vote in favor of new "Alternative proposal: requiring resignation before a new RfA" question. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to say, I think the simplest and cleanest solution here is to require resignation of the tools prior to starting a reconfirmation RfA. In other words, all candidates at RfA should not currently hold sysop rights. If a reconfirmation RfA is then unsuccessful (be it through withdrawal or lack of consensus), the candidate would lose their ability to resysop automatically at
WP:BN. Mz7 (talk
) 06:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I'd prefer Mz7's solution. If an admin wishes to stand for reconfirmation they should resign the tools first. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Support a restriction that only non-admins can stand for RfA. I think the proposed wording is more bureaucratic than it needs to be, while a simpler wording like what Mz7 put forward would resolve this problem. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
When you oppose a proposal in an RfC, starting your !vote with a bold Support is just asking to get your !vote miscounted. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
But I do support the proposal, in concept. There is just an easier way of implementing it than the originally proposed wording. What ever happened to the process of building consensus, and of not being a rigid bureaucracy? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Support But per Mz7's more lucid wording; before standing for reRfA, an adminstrator must relinquish their tools as the process is meant to determine whether the tools should be returned or not. But the paragraph allowing withdrawing after sensing imminent failure doesn't make sense. Withdrawal should be treated same as resigning (read: withdrawal) under cloud, because withdrawal are naturally effort to curtail impending failed RfA closure. People don't withdraw when there's clear chance of passing. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The only reason "this process is only open to non-admins" isn't already a formal instruction at RFA is that nobody ever anticipated that some admins would try to hijack the process and turn it into
Iridescent
08:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I also prefer
Iredescent. If an admin wants community reconfirmation rather than an ego massage they should first resign the tools unequivocally. Leaky Caldron
08:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose A RfA from someone who is already a sysop is a Request for Appreciation, not a Request for Adminship. A failed RfA should effect a consolation kitten on their talk page or something, not affect the sysop bit. Κσυπ Cyp 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - The clause allowing for withdrawal without action neutralizes the entire rest of the proposal in any case other than an unexpectedly timed snow close of unsuccessful, which is unlikely to happen for any admin, and any who carry any risk of it would likely never stand for reconfirmation in the first place. Support making the process unavailable to anyone who already has the bit. Otherwise you're either going to get 1) no one looking seriously into your contributions because there's no real point, or 2) people looking seriously into your contributions when there's no real point. Either is a waste of effort. GMG ^talk 13:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I considered commenting at Harrias' reconfirmation RfA, but declined to do so as I felt the message had already been delivered by others and I felt my comments would be abstract and thus in the wrong venue. To this proposal specifically; I have to agree with others' comments that this is adding bureaucratic language where it isn't necessary. I did a cursory search to find other reconfirmation RfAs when I saw Harrias', and found just one other. There might be others, but adding so much language to handle a vanishingly rare case suffers from a number of problems. You don't know what the average case will look like since the set is so small, and you can't adequately predict how reconfirmations will evolve (if they become more common). A solution written now will virtually by definition be wholly inadequate. To the abstract I'm quite concerned that while we could discount Harrias' reconfirmation as an isolated event, and quietly go on about our business, this proposal edges us closer and closer to the idea that we'll implement reconfirmation as a requirement for all admins. This is purposeless. Even if we assumed a grandiose figure of 20% of admins being bad and should lose their admin bits, that's still 80% of admins who shouldn't be facing required reconfirmation. We have ~540 administrators active this week. Assuming a two year reconfirmation period, that's still 10 reconfirmations a week, with 8 of them being a waste of everyone's time. If we view reconfirmation as an involuntary process requested by the community only for the bad apples, we run into a whole host of problems that fall squarely into the territory of why all these proposals failed. Further, RfA isn't designed for this; Using RfA to analyze the performance of an administrator means all contributors should be able see what an administrator has done with the tools. The problem is that non-admin contributors to the discussion can not see what an administrator has deleted to help evaluate if their deletions were proper. They also can not view page revision hiding/deletion to see if their actions there have been within norms. I.e., administrators have a far more complete view of an administrator's performance than non-admins at RfA. The non-admins are handicapped in their ability to evaluate an administrator's performance, and thus have a less than full understanding of their performance. This creates a less informed viewpoint. In sum: RfA has one purpose; to grant administrator tools to those who succeed at RfA. Reconfirmations should be actively discouraged, as this is using the process for something it is not designed for and something it is not capable of handling. I would support adding wording that actively discouraged reconfirmation RfAs until such time as the community figures out a way to handle that thorny issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - I find this proposal quite
WP:CREEPy. So far, to my knowledge, we have seen EXACTLY ~~ONE~~ TWO (as per Hammersoft) "reconfirmation RFA", and there do not seem to be any more coming down the pipeline. There is no reason to expand any policy because of one exceptional instance. If this becomes some sort of trend, we can and should revisit the issue.--Aervanath (talk
) 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, per SarekOfVulcan's excellent find at Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations, there have been 11 since 2003, including Harrias'. The most recent one before Harrias' was from 2010. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose if the candidate for reconfirmation withdraws, he or she should lose the tools. Mz7's proposal would have my support, but it would likely be shot down given the community's resistance to change, good or bad. I'm disappointed by the self-styled mind readers who presume to know the motives of anyone who might file a reconfirmation RfA. Whatever happened to assuming good faith?
Lepricavark (talk
) 04:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Here's a better idea - Ban all reconfirmation RFAs, If you want to see if editors are still happy with you being an admin than go to AN, If that AN thread's closed as I dunno "Not happy" then give them some advice and leave it at that, Desysopping and all that is just unnecessary. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - wow, we sure have wasted a lot of bytes on this good-faith and entirely symbolic gesture to fulfill a campaign promise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Threaded discussion

Among the support and oppose !votes there was a suggestion to instead require the admin to resign before the RfA. My first question is, should we close this RfC and open a new one with two questions? I am leaning towards supporting that, but I want to see where this discussion goes before deciding.

Now for the practical aspects; right now an admin cam resign and unresign as many times as he wishes with the knowledge that nether the resignation or the unresignation will ever be denied. An exception is when he resigns "under a cloud": See Wikipedia:Under a cloud. (Does anyone have a link to the actual policy that the essay I just linked to explains?)

Unless we change the system so that resigning, posting a reconfirmation RfA and then failing to get sufficient community support is considered to be resigning under a cloud (or some other less accusatory term that means the same thing) then there is zero difference between resigning before the RfA and not resigning before the RfA. If the admin resigns before posting the RfA he can request to be reinstated after failing the RfA and the 'crats must reinstate him. If he doesn't resign before the RfA he can simply not resign after the failed RfA. Either way he ends up as an admin in the end.

And again we have the case where the admin sees that he is losing and withdraws the RfA to game the system -- something that in my opinion the original question that started this RfC handles poorly.

So, may I humbly suggest that we propose various wordings for two or more questions, then when most of us like a particular wording, post a new RfC with the new questions? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as necessary. All that's needed is the slight reword of Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators to Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides which non-administrators will become administrators, to expressly bar current admins from using the process as a means of requesting attaboys without actually resigning the tools. Yes, it leaves open the theoretical possibility that someone could resign, fail their reconfirmation RFA and then request the bit back anyway, but anyone doing such a thing would be putting their every future action under so much scrutiny they'd be de facto desysopped anyway. ‑

Iridescent

08:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Iridescent. There will no doubt be drama at some point in the future after a former admin fails a reRFA and requests the tools back anyway, but that can be dealt with as needed. We don't need to make formal rules for every hypothetical situation, just address what has actually happened. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No need at all to make a mountain out of a molehill with multiple options generating even more heat than light. This should have been marked as an invalid RFA from the start instead of acquiescing to the "candidate's" request and then perpetuating the belief that this is ok by closing the folly as a "successful" RFA. Resign first / RfA second - simple. Leaky Caldron 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree that resigning first is the optimum solution - that's why I did it before RFA2. I'm just not convinced it's the only reasonable way to do it. It does reduce the possibilities for gaming, though. I suspect this doesn't need to run very long - shall we give it a week to see if there's any consensus for this wording before going with Mz7's much more straightforward version? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I’m reading

Iridescent correctly above in saying we don’t need an RfC to make this clear (pinging to be corrected if I’m reading him wrong.) Community consensus is already that RfAs are for non-admins to become admins (it’s why ‘crats refuse to close reRfAs.) Adjusting the wording here to reflect that shouldn’t require a full RfC. TonyBallioni (talk

) 14:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that community consensus is already that RfAs are for non-admins to become admins? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that for the last two that ran bureaucrats explicitly refused to close them for that reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

So now the actions of the bureaucrats define community consensus? I was under the impression that the actions of the bureaucrats were supposed to follow community consensus. Can you name the time and the place where the actual community had a discussion and came to the consensus that you claim exists? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is what we do just as much as what is written. We don't need discussions to document what everyone agrees is the status quo. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What, we the community have done is support the RfA of a sitting admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Everyone agrees"? Bullshit. TonyBallioni. please stop claiming a consensus where no evidence of such a consensus exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the policy is: Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship. As I mentioned above, I'd prefer the language there to be made more clear. –xeno^talk 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Is "failed" meant to be "NOT SUCCEED" or is a determination of failure needed? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure the distinction needs to be made, but adjusted wording for good measure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The difference would be if there is clearly an objection consensus or simply a lack of support consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

More than two, actually -- Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations. See also User:NoSeptember/Desysop. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Excellent find, Sarek! I added Harrias' reconfirmation to that list. Since that list goes basically back to the beginning of when RfAs were handled on project rather than through email, the scale of the issue should be compared against, perhaps, successful RfAs in the same time period. That's somewhere in the vicinity of 2,120 RfAs. 11 reconfirmations against 2,120 successful RfAs is 0.5%. Reconfirmations are, I think, a rare issue. At the current typical rate of RfAs per year it may be four or five years before we see another reconfirmation attempt. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Given that it has been 7 years between this reconfirmation and the last one, I don't think we're looking at a trend of any sort.--Aervanath (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just realized that I made the same argument as iridescent when the last one happened Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 19#Reconfirmation RFAs. –xeno^talk 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've sat back and watched a lot of the conversation caused by my reconfirmation RfA (or whatever you want to call it). I really didn't realise what a can of worms I was opening! For my part, having looked through the comments in various places, my support would be for

NOBIGDEAL, then maybe it is fitting that an admin only really loses the bit if they royally screw up. Harrias ^talk

19:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A reconfirmation might be (or might not be) a waste of community's time, but we do need a channel for admins to get feedback. The admin review (or whatever it was called) has been closed since it was inactive for a long time. Going to AN, as suggested above - well, I am not sure if I open a thread how the community views me as an admin, the thread is not going to be speedy closed - likely also as a waste of communiy;s time.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It was not a 'waste of time' to most Wikipedians who participated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If an Admin. really feels the need for community assessment, the answer seems obvious -

WP:RFAP. Definitely not requesting something they already have and which cannot be removed regardless of the community "decision". Leaky Caldron

19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think admins qualify for

WP:RFAP.--Ymblanter (talk

) 19:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Like any editor, they can find a friendly editor they trust and ask for a review or a recommendation for someone (which is suggested on the RfA candidate poll page), or they can start a thread on their talk page and then post to some prominent locations asking for reviews. Historically, there just hasn't been a substantial group of editors who are willing to watch a review request page over the long term and respond in a timely manner (after all, most people will find combing through someone's edits a dry task versus writing content). I don't get why editors feel a need to create all kinds of shortcuts to the same page with different jumbles of letters. It's a tragedy of the commons: simplify your life by choosing a set of characters that you think you will remember, but complicate everyone else's by creating multiple synonyms to the same page. isaacl (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: requiring resignation before a new RfA

A good number of people above have expressed support for the alternative solution of requiring an administrator to resign their tools before standing at RfA again, so I thought it would be best to formally propose that in this section here.

All candidates at RfA should not currently hold administrator tools, and current administrators should resign before filing a new RFA. If a former administrator decides to file an RfA again, they would lose whatever right they had to have their tools automatically restored at the
bureaucrats' noticeboard
if the new RfA does not succeed (e.g. via withdrawal or lack of consensus at the new RfA).

Should the above text be added either to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process or perhaps to Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator? Feel free to tweak the wording as necessary. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. Tweaked wording, don't think I changed the meaning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, looks good. Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support and put it in Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator as that is the policy that governs 'crats and admins. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support, although change the first sentence to All candidates at RfA should not currently hold administrator tools, and current administrators should resign before filing a new RFA. (We'll cross the bridge of what we do when a 'crat fails reconfirmation, and whether they can keep the bureaucrat bit despite losing the admin bit, when we come to it. One would hope that none of the crats would be stupid enough, but long experience has taught me there's no action on Wikipedia so stupid that there won't be someone who tries it.) ‑
Iridescent
20:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've implemented the tweaked wording as suggested. Mz7 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support this formalises the process of RfA nicely in my opinion. Harrias ^talk 20:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There have been enough tweaks that I'm wary of doing more within an ongoing discussion. Should this proposal gain consensus, though, I think the second sentence should be made more concise, and possibly changed from a conditional tense to the present tense. Something like: Former administrators who initiate a new RfA relinquish the right to have administrative privileges restored solely by request and must abide by the result of the new RfA. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - knee-jerk changes to policy over what seems to be an entirely inconsequential thing that happens maybe twice in a decade are a recipe for trouble. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support - much needed, simple, straightforward clarification. Leaky Caldron 20:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Succinct and straightforward. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support: fixes all of my concerns with the first proposal, and makes it a lot harder to game the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Why are we doing this? i.e., oppose Come on. This is the first reconfirmation in SEVEN YEARS and suddenly we have to write a whole new bit about it? I concur with Ivanvector. I don't agree with reconfirmation RfAs, but if someone wants to do one, they should feel free. We don't need a new procedure to 'control' this. This is wholly unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- The last time a reconfirmation happened where the user did not resign their tools beforehand, we also wasted a good amount of bytes discussing how it should be resolved – see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 19#Herostratus' "recall" RfA, which is a link that Xeno provided above. I can understand where you're coming from, and I don't think it's a huge deal if this doesn't pass. However, I suspect that even if it takes years for another reconfirmation RfA to happen, if the user does not resign their tools beforehand then, the community will have another weeks-long discussion about it if we don't decide it today. I see this as a relatively simple procedure that would actively reduce drama moving forward. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per
WP:CREEP. This would generate unnecessary work, removing the rights and then reinstating them. Best to wait on the result of the reconfirmation. Andrew D. (talk
) 22:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I would be happy with either decision, but in my opinion, doing it your way would create more work, based on my observation of the shitstorm from editors complaining about the recent Harrias 2‎ RfA. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Ignore shitstorms, improve encyclopedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this change as it seems to imply that reconfirmation RFAs are legit rather than a humongous waste of community time. The most recent one involved !votes from well over a hundred editors for someone in effect seeking admin review after less than a thousand admin actions. Wouldn't it be better to bring back admin review in some shape or form? I'm sure there are people who would happily review something specific such as "I have just returned to AIV after a gap of a few years, would another admin please review my dozen blocks dished out today" Ϣere SpielChequers 22:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it just a simple and effective deterrent though? It seems unlikely anyone would actually risk losing their Admin. rights - and your idea is still available to anyone genuinely needing to have their actions reconsidered. Leaky Caldron 22:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If most of the !voters assess the candidate as if they weren't an admin then I'm not convinced that the risk would deter people unless the perception came about that reRFAs were being judged much more harshly than RFAs. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Should be something like If a current administrator (or a voluntarily resigned administrator) files a RfA, any Oppose sections shall be removed from the RfA, such that the RfA cannot fail regardless of voting outcome. All voters shall attempt to take it seriously., instead. This should eliminate any issues caused by failed RfAs of current administrators. Κσυπ Cyp 22:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support RFA is Request for Administrator rights and not RRFA, Re-Request For Administrator rights. It makes sense that if an editor is requesting for the rights, they don't actually have the rights already... Blackmane (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Support-ish. I'd prefer that any RfA for an active admin be speedily closed instead of the rights being automatically removed - it isn't clear from the current text what exactly would happen - and recommended to an editor review/admin review-like process, per WereSpielChequers; but if they really want to re-run, they'd have to resign first. Otherwise, reconfirmation RfAs really are a waste of time. ansh666 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I understand would happen if an administrator decided to ignore this advice and file an RfA without resigning first. The RfA would get speedily closed, but the rights would remain intact unless they explicitly declare resignation. Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Can we just stop with this? As I said above, Either take it all the way or don't bother at all. Get a new process and stop trying to change the RfA process. Nihlus 02:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Most the community was fine with the Harrias 2. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment If you look at Wikipedia:Standing_reconfirmations you'll notice that there is a very small group of people who are opposed to reconfirmation RFAs. The last reconfirmation RFA before this one was seven years ago. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Suppose In that I am still basically opposed to the idea that this is a big enough problem to warrant a new rule, but if the community believes we do need one, this is the one we should have as it is very straightforward and not open to interpretation or gaming.
talk
) 23:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see the issue here that we need to fix. It happens so rarely. Knee jerk new policy to fringe cases always leads to bad policy. -DJSasso (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Support the community should make up its collective mind. (I'm kidding, the community clearly does not have a collective mind.) When the re-RfA happened, people kept complaining that it was meaningless and toothless. So, let's give the reconfirmation process some teeth. Nah, we can't do that.
Lepricavark (talk
) 01:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose If someone want to subject themselves to that, more power to them. The current main criteria for being in the admin pool is "got in back when it was easy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) North8000 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose We should not waste any more ink on this triviality. (OK, I know that we don't actually use ink, but everyone should forget about this and move on). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yet more ink will inevitably be wasted the next time an active administrator decides to run for RfA without resigning first, ink that likely would have been saved if the admin had followed this relatively simple procedure. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Solution in search of a problem.--Aervanath (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that it's a solution in search of a problem - all the discussion that went on before this opened shows that there is a problem. If this isn't the solution, then what is? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The solution is working on improving the encyclopedia. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Aervanath. I was literally about to type verbatim what he just did. In the unlikely event that the number of reconfirmation RfAs becomes burdensome, we can consider revisiting the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Support. Using RfA while you're an admin is nonsensical. If you want to go through RfA again, resigning the tools first just makes sense and eliminates lots of potential issues with admins failing reconfirmation but refusing to give up the mop. Preventing problems from happening is a valid use of policy, and this prevents problems from happening. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for all the right reasons, including those offered by Cullen, Nilhus, and that odd Potato. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I agree that the entire discussion is a waste of time. However, I think that this will prevent future disruption. Some have said that this is a solution without a problem, but repeated discussions prove that this will keep happening until there is a policy consensus on the matter. Tamwin (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Support. Effectively prevents unnecessary reconfirmation RFAs. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. This is such a rarity it's not worth the instruction creep. Proposed in good faith to clear up a raised issue, but all this RfC serves is to create more useless discussion. Now if we could get as much discussion on some genuinely needed reforms of the RfA process, that would be progress... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I favor the creation of a community-based desysop process. Voluntary reconfirmation RFAs are not that, but they do help to set a precedent for increased community involvement in deadminship, and that's a step in the right direction. I would support a proposal to formalize the role of bureaucrats in closing them, along the lines of the one above by SarekOfVulcan. Tim Smith (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per
WP:CREEP. feminist (talk
) 11:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This isn't common enough to even worry about, so it's a solution looking for a problem. WP:CREEP. A larger discussion is needed re: reconfirmations, and this isn't a valid temporary solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per User:Hammersoft. This is unnecessary instruction creep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC).
Oppose - utterly unnecessary, often the situation is not that black-and-white. And that for something that is so utterly rare to happen? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you haven an example for when the situation is not that black-and-white, Dirk? — Sebastian 08:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@SebastianHelm: if it is black, you’re in front of ArbCom (hence almost by definition obsolete), or you give up your rights without question, if it is white you block editors, delete rubbish, protect pages and blacklist spam. If you get complaints and you want to see whether the community at large still supports you, it is grey, and you are here. If it is not black, there is no reason to first give up your rights, you do that after you know you lost the trust of the community at large. If you don’t have the rights, it is not a reconfirmation RfA in the first place. If the admin wants to give up their bit before, fine. If they don’t and just stop doing admin actions, fine. If they don't and keep doing good admin stuff, fine (reason to support), if they don’t and screw up admin actions, fine, you have a reason to oppose. Not that it matters, R-RfAs will just attract first all the people who have an axe ready. The whole system is broken, and we will never have consensus on any alternative proposal. But this is just utterly unneccesary bureaucratic instruction creep. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to see what you meant: The situation for the proposed rule is utterly rare, but the circumstances that might induce one to choose this path are not rare, but quite varied. So, if I understand you correctly, your intention is to keep this path open for some of the gray areas of circumstances? I feel that the current choices (listed at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall and Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Reference material) suffice for any circumstances; or can you think of a circumstance in which the current paths are not enough? — Sebastian 12:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Drmies, Cullen, Nilhus, Ivanvector and The Quixotic Potato (among others who also give great reasons to oppose this). This does not help fix our low administration promotion rate. In fact I'd be willing to bet it would even lower the amount of people willing to run for RFA: currently 0. When I first joined, RFA wasn't this damn toxic, and you didn't have to be a super-creator or just a very popular person to finally get the votes necessary. It used to be that there were very reasonable minimum requirements, and the only thing we even looked for was whether they might not have the right temperament/knowledge/skillset to be an admin. Nowadays that's gone entirely out the window and we treat it as though we're running for some Congressional seat. Anyone from around my time on the site, looks at RFA with complete distaste now. The system of RFA is slowly dying, and our admin numbers are drying up every year. I'd be interested in hearing ways to fix that actual problem, but this is just another potential deterrence from admins wanting to run at all. And honestly a distraction from what we need to be spending more time on: improving this encyclopedia instead of patrolling and judging our fellow colleagues every move waiting on them to trip up. Focus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This proposal has nothing to do with non-admin candidates putting their name forward and it is only a distraction if you allow it to distract you. "...another potential deterrence from admins wanting to run at all" makes no sense. Admins don't need to run for anything, they are already there. Leaky Caldron 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"This proposal has nothing to do with non-admin candidates putting their name forward": Isn't the entire point of this proposal that the administrators become non-administrators before they can put their name forward? "it is only a distraction if you allow it to distract you" That makes no logical/psychological sense whatsoever, so I'm not even going to bother to reply to it. "Admins don't need to run for anything, they are already there." Admins actually have to run for Bureaucrat, Oversight, Checkuser, and even re-adminship (if the sysop bit was taken/or resigned under a cloud by the ArbCom). And clearly the idea behind this entire RFC is that they would need to run again. I think you need to review what we're talking about here a bit more before you project whatever your thoughts are about what I'm saying as if they're actually what I'm saying. I'm not going to reply to this further. Good day. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Admins actually have to run for Bureaucrat, Oversight, Checkuser," is absolute nonsense. No one has to run for anything. The point of the exercise here is to deter pointless discretionary rRFA for Admins. who have not lost their rights for no good reason. Leaky Caldron 19:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And the point of my opposition to the exercise here is that I find it to be entirely useless instruction creep that's fixing a non-existent problem. Regardless, I'm allowed to have a perspective that differs from your own. So, please stop

badgering me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans

// 11:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a solution looking for a problem. An admin running a reconfirmation RFA happens so seldom that it is unnecessary to try to regulate it. The easiest solution is if anyone thinks it is a waste of their time to review the admin and write up their observations about their suitability to continue as an admin then don't do it. The admin can not waste anyone's time, you can only waste your own time and if you think what you are doing is a waste of your time, then it is your own fault. ~ GB fan 12:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as per above as well as per my comment above, If you want to seek opinions then go to AN otherwise shut up, be happy and help with adminny things. –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Trying to legislate fringe cases always makes for bad policy. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we clarify "involved" with this?

Here's text I added [1]. There was a kerfuffle at one of the noticeboards about whether an admin that has taken action such as blocking, AfD or topic banning should be considered "uninvolved" during an appeal of that action. The concern is whether their view is considered "uninvolved" during the discussion of those actions and determining consensus. Right now, the caveat implies they are not, and admins have argued they are not involved. Based on the feedback, it appears there is broad community support for viewing a sanctioning admin as "involved" during the review of their actions. AfD, for example would not generally support the idea that the admin that closed and deleted an article should close the deletion appeal as well. They are free and encouraged to participate in the discussion and provide rationale for their action but they shouldn't act as an uninvolved administrator. I think it's rather obvious as to why. Here is the wording from the diff above that I proposed to the caveat that excludes "admin only" involvement: This caveat does not apply for the duration that an administrators actions are being reviewed by uninvolved editors at appropriate noticeboards and proceedings as part of an appeal or arbitration case. --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I mostly object to that addition on the grounds that it's poor text style; adding it makes it read "Admins should not A except when B but except C". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've only seen one admin resist the idea of not being able to post to the "uninvolved admins" section when their AE action is being appealed. Do we really need to add clarification just for this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have hoped it wasn't necessary. Other areas use more common sense in dealing with it (i.e. I recall occasional shenanigans at AfD but they are handled swiftly and severely - though maybe avoidable.) The place of the incident you are referring is the most wikilawyered and structured but unclerked discussion place in Wikipedia and probably shouldn't ever be used for setting policy. The NLT policy was recently updated to clarify a single incident. There are many editors that are incredibly literal in their interpretations and while it's usually pretty clear they will not prevail in a dispute, they are still intransigent in their interpretation. The stakes are very low in these battles which of course makes the arguments the most vicious. In the case you mentioned, either side ignoring it would have been fine. That of course, didn't happen. --DHeyward (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the wording added really helps with the issue described. It would mean that if I applied a topic ban to somebody and that topic ban was appealed to some noticeboard, I would be considered involved with respect to that editor and would be unable to take any further admin actions against them until the discussion closed. I don't think that was intended. An admin claiming that they can make comments on one of their own admin actions as an uninvolved editor is basically claiming they're uninvolved with respect to themselves, which is rather silly. I don't think we particularly need clarification to stop that. Hut 8.5 20:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, while your topic ban was being appealed, I would hope you wouldn't take further action against that editor while it's being appealed simply for the sake of how it would appear (i.e. I'm quite certain the editor would consider it retaliation). You are of course free to ping any other admins and of course free to act as an admin after the appeal runs its course. --DHeyward (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If it might be perceived as retaliation then it might also be perceived as retaliation after the discussion has closed. This is exactly what the current policy is designed to prevent: you don't make an admin involved just by questioning their decisions. Hut 8.5 20:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

They might but I think admins are on much more solid ground after appeals run their course. Broadly, the community would view actions while cases are ongoing as poor decisions in general. Appeals don't last long. Depending on the discussion, if the appeal was successful, the community may also consider an admin "involved." These are case by case. It's not the "questioning" that makes an admin involved, it's the process. While actions are being reviewed, the admin is involved with the process and it would be generally frowned upon to take action against an editor that initiated the process that triggered the review. If an editor files a case against an admin at ArbCom, I would hope they would refrain from admin action on the filer until after it's over. Even if the case is declined, the period during which the process is ongoing is not a good time to be asserting the caveat for being uninvolved. There are lots of other admins. --DHeyward (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two different things. It would be inappropriate for an admin to close an appeal of one of their own admin actions because any admin is automatically involved with respect to themselves. That doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether the admin is involved with respect to the subject of the original admin action. The policy makes it clear that in general the admin isn't involved, and for good reason. I don't see any good reason why we should insist that the admin is automatically involved with respect to the subject of some admin action for the period when an action is being reviewed. Closing a discussion to review some admin action doesn't have any impact on the judgement of the admin. Hut 8.5 22:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We don’t normally review unblock requests if we’re the blocking admin unless we accept the request and unblock the user, and I think that principle applies elsewhere, but as written this isn’t a good addition to the policy. Bold editing is a great idea in articles, but changes to policy should usually be discussed before being made.
talk
) 20:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
As stated by the others, I don't think it was a change to policy, rather a clarification to what most already accept as policy. To the extent it is clumsy or unnecessary, I certainly agree with discussion and a diff is the easiest starting point. Bold editing is a great idea everywhere except perhaps the main page and is why policy pages are unprotected. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the proposed addition adds anything which isn't already included in the first sentence of the section: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." (italics added). If someone is disputing your actions, then you are considered

WP:INVOLVED when talking about those actions, but this does not carry over to anything else, as is made clear by the "caveat".--Aervanath (talk

) 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This was clearly sparked by some incident, but I'm ignorant as to what is being referred to. If someone (pinging DHeyward) could link to the situation in question, and more clearly articulate why this addition would have prevented that incident if it were there.--Aervanath (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aervanath: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeals_and_admins_who_placed_original_sanctions --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Having looked over that discussion, it seems like a classic tempest in a teapot, and I don't expect it to be a recurring issue. Let's not be

CREEPy about this.--Aervanath (talk

) 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As written, the proposal suggested to me that admins can't amend the blocks, or bans, they imposed, which would be a very poor outcome -- they should be able at any time to change 72 hours to 48 hours, or time served, or reverse themselves entirely -- they should also be able to amend 'Ban from V' to 'Ban from V, modified', etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Withou it, it reads as if admins could increase sanctions while an appeal is ongoing. --DHeyward (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like an issue for the admins/editors processing the appeal to handle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I should have commented on this earlier, I reverted DHeyward's revision to the policy and then IRL stuff happened and I forgot to follow up. I also objected for the most part because adding an exception to a section which itself is an exception is poor form, and carving out exceptions[-within-exceptions] instigated by single isolated incidents makes for weak policy, particularly so when there has been no discussion of the change. That, and the edit itself is grammatically awkward. Yes, admins shouldn't comment in the "uninvolved admins" section on appeals of AE sanctions they themselves implemented, that was the eventual consensus of the discussion NeilN linked above, and really it's common sense. However, defining this as "involvement" within the policy is likely to have unintended consequences.

I don't think any of this really needs to be spelled out in policy, actually. This incident was one admin losing their shit when they were already having a bad day, and basically everyone else who commented told them they were some degree of wrong. But if it needs to be added, then perhaps wording should be added to some other section such as under "accountability" or "grievances", explaining that administrators should allow neutral editors(/admins) to adjudicate appeals of their actions, but not define this as being "involved". And perhaps change the wording of the AE template that reserves a section for "uninvolved administrators", maybe "neutral" is a better term. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Slight tweak to lengthy inactivity policy

The clear consensus here is in support of Beeblebrox’s proposal; admins who have not used the admin tools for a prolonged period (5 years is mentioned) will usually be required to reapply via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Fish+Karate 13:25, 3 March 2018 (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 case of admins who have not actively used their tools for a prolonged period, should they still be granted two years to simply ask for them back if they are removed for inactivity?

talk

) 22:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No This occured to me when looking over Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017. There are numerous admins there who went totally inactive in 2016 after not taking any administrative action for a prolonged period prior to that: In nine cases, there was no tool use for between five and ten years, five cases where the user had not used their tools in over ten years, and one very extreme case of an admin who got the tools in 2004, never used them even one time, and hadn’t actually spoken to another user on any sort of talk page in 12 years.

And yet, in all of these cases current policy grants them two additional years in which all they need do is ask, and they will get their tools back. Re-granting the tools is the purview of the bureaucrats, who aren’t given much leeway to bend the rules, so if one or more of these admins were to ask for their tools back anytime in the next two years, they would be compelled to do so. This just can’t be the right way of doing this.

I would therefore propose that any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back, and would need to pass a new RFA to regain the tools and that wording to this effect be added to the administrative policy at Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity.

The point of granting advanced permissions is not to reward users, but to give them what they need to help maintain the encyclopedia. If they aren’t doing that, they aren’t actually admins, and

talk

) 23:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this is that not all admin tool use and other actions are logged, for example viewing deleted revisions or closing move discussions. We simply can't know from the logs whether or not someone is actively using the tools or not. It's similar to the issue that used to pop up with Useight's crat bit; they didn't make a single edit from their main account for five years (and thus didn't make any logged admin/crat actions), but contributed to crat chats. Crats do have an activity requirement, but their activity is much better defined and more easily determined. ansh 666 23:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, not all admin actions are logged. But if you have not used the tools in five years or more and haven’t made an edit of any kind in over a year, you clearly aren’t doing admin work at all.
talk
) 00:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
No - I would generally agree that admins should be admins and non-admins should be non-admins - none of the "admin without the tools" stuff that happens when it's a lifetime trophy for passing RfA rather than a set of technical buttons you have access to. If adminship is no big deal, then it should be easy to both assign and remove adminship from an account. To that end, I agree with the proposer; if an admin is removed for inactivity then they should no longer be an admin, and not be eligible to get the tools back after asking nicely on BN. As for the non-logged actions argument, our standard for activity is logged actions. It's a reasonable standard, and because we can't measure non-logged actions, I don't see why we should consider them. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
(Perhaps a symbolic) No I suspect that a lot of barely-active admins that would likely be affected by this proposal will come out of the woodwork and mysteriously oppose this proposal for exactly the reasons Ajraddatz describes above, so I don't think this will pass. But I do support this change. --Rs chen 7754 05:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment The proposal should also specify whether admins who voluntarily resigned not under a cloud can ask the tools back without an RFA and during which period this could happen. Otherwise, if it passes, it might lead to inconsistencies.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Neither. I understand where the OP comes from but I also agree with Ansh666's valid argument that logged actions is a bad measurement in these cases because some admin work can be done without using the buttons, yet it's still admin work. As such, I would propose that instead of a hard and fast rule, we give crats some discretion whether to grant such resysop requests in edge cases where no admin-related activity took place. A possible wording could be: for any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity, bureaucrats should usually not regrant the tools upon request. That leaves some discretion for crats to regrant the tools if the requesting user can demonstrate that they worked in any admin-related way, even without use of the tools per se. Regards So Why 07:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
No somebody who hasn't used their tools for that length of time is likely to be out of step with the community on how best to use them. Regarding the point that admins can do admin work without making logged actions, this is technically true but I don't think it would happen much in practice. Such an admin would have to spend their admin time viewing deleted pages, editing protected pages and closing discussions with results requiring no admin action (e.g. closing AfDs but never as Delete because that would be a logged action). I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine an admin doing this type of thing for five years but never doing anything that generates a logged action. Hut 8.5 07:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And completely ignoring non-logged actions, I think it's reasonable to expect admins to perform one logged action every five years. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. This is not targeted at semi-active admins who only use their tools rarely, or anyone who makes at least one edit of any kind at least once a year. This would still be an extremely lenient policy, we’d just be closing a tiny loophole. No admin who is the least bit active in any way will be affected by it.
talk
) 19:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@
Beeblebrox: Who has slipped through this "loophole"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk
) 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not hard to find people who would be affected by this. This admin recently desysopped for inactivity has one admin action ever (unilaterally overturning the result of an AfD in 2007). This one has also used the admin tools exactly once (a U1 userspace deletion in 2013). Both of those people would qualify to have admin tools restored on request at the moment. Hut 8.5 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Plus the other fifteen cases I mentioned in the opening statement.
talk
) 22:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting that Grandiose should be picked out, his RfA was one of the few that I went straight in with a support for, so I was surprised a few days ago when this was sent out. When he went for RfA, I believe that he was a final-year student at Oxford University, so I expect that real life got in the way. Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) may be able to enlighten us here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging to see if it's actually happened before, but I think it could be plausible - for example someone who only uses their admin tools to scour deleted pages for valid citations to (god forbid) build other articles. So I do support this proposal in general, but I think that it shouldn't be a completely absolute rule. FWIW
WP:IAR should cover it, but crats do tend to have a reputation of doing things by the letter. ansh 666
21:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It’s not just their reputation, it is explicitly what the community expects of them, you basically can’t invoke IAR for ‘crat actions, which is exactly why I made this proposal, so they have a rule they can point to that specifically says what they should do in these circumstances.
talk
) 21:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would be absolutely fine as long as they make at least one edit every two years. Hut 8.5 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think some care needs to be made for non-logged actions, such as editing through protection, a necessary admin function for people who work maintaining (for example) protected templates or the main page; they may appear to have not used their tools when in actuality they use them every day; even if they go many years without logging a block or a protection or a deletion. --Jayron 32 03:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Note, we have a very big list at INACTIVE (Special:PermaLink/824245032) right now, some examples of rather inactive for a long time. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any activity requirements. The more active admins the better, and current inactive admins are potential future active admins. Κσυπ Cyp 10:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You do know we already have activity requirements and have for some years now? This is just a minor tweak to the existing requirements, if you are opposed to the very idea that we have any standards that is a seperate discussion.

talk

) 20:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose both the proposed requirement tweak and the existing requirements, although only the former is relevant to this particular discussion. Κσυπ Cyp 06:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, change goes into a wrong and unhelpful direction. The proposal makes it harder for people who have been admins to become admins again. What we need is to make it easier for people who have never been admins to become admins. How does your proposal help? —Kusma (t·c) 21:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the proposal. If you haven't logged an action in five years, and haven't touched the project in ~~two~~ one, then I don't see a compelling reason to assume that you have a current and nuanced understanding of policy. No comment on admins with barely a ghost of activity opposing what is an exceptionally lenient increase in our inactivity policy. GMG ^talk 07:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Clarifying question related to this: someone brought up five years, but I don't see it on the policy page anymore. Could someone give a clear policy proposal here? From what it looks like, this will change the activity requirement to an edit or log action in the last year or else permanent removal. But I don't have any experience with how this policy was made or how it is applied, so I would appreciate some clarification. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I'm running on caffeine, calories and nothing resembling sleep. It does look like there are two ways I see to read the proposal actually, depending on how you interpret the word "subsequently". Either five years of no logged actions the last of which had no edits at all, or five years of no logged actions followed by a sixth year of no edits at all. GMG ^talk 08:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. If an admin is not active for 5 years, they clearly aren't being an admin and should not be able to simply request the tools after being desysopped for inactivity. A lot changes in 5 years of inactivity, enough that they should have to go through RfA again. However, I do think the comments about admins who use the tools in a way that doesn't get logged as activity make a valid point about how admin tool inactivity should be considered. timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 06:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No, assuming however, that we find a way to account for non-logged actions. If someone hasn't been an admin for one year, I think they're likely out of step with the community; the current policy allows for a good bit longer than that. Maybe we should be spending our time on fixing RFA instead, but I don't see how this can hurt, and I do see ways it can help. Vanamonde (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Not as worded A couple of years ago, Arb made it clear that closing an WP:AE discussion is indeed an admin action (subject to wheel warring policy if reverted) yet it is not logged. I don't think closing an AFD as "keep" creates a log entry, although policy clearly prefers admin close AFDs (although doesn't require the bit). Many admin actions do not generate log entries, so this is fairly unworkable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment All of the discussion about logged vs non-logged admin actions does not really seem on point to me. We are not talking about an automated process that simply looks at logs and spits out a binary decision we are discussing guidance to give to human beings whose judgement on the suitability of an editor for the admin bit we already trust. Not having performed a logged admin action simply is a trigger ie a necessary but not sufficient condition. If there are no logged actions then it is necessary to look and see if the admin is doing other adminy stuff before making a final decision.
Why not just say "In the case of admins who have not actively used their tools for a prolonged period, and have not otherwise performed administrative actions" and proceed from there? The purpose, as I understand it, is to give the Bureaucrats a bit of leeway that they do not otherwise have to deal with inactive admins. As to identifying other 'adminy' actions, just ask the editor in question, if they can not point to something they do not need the tools back. Jbh ^Talk 18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, we simply can't know if someone has used their tools recently or not. Viewing deleted revisions leaves no trace at all; editing through protection would be painfully difficult to spot (afaik there aren't automated tools for this yet). And since we're talking about inactive editors - being desysopped for inactivity requires one year of total inactivity, at least as far as we can tell, given what I noted before - we can't simply ask them. ansh 666 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ummm... The question asked by this RfC is "...should they still be granted two years to simply ask for them back if they are removed for inactivity?" They have already been desysoped and they are asking for them back so it is possible to ask them questions as well.
If the question is whether to desysop and how to determine activity many of the situations brought up can be handled by a bit of searching - ie closes etc. There are not so many of these that spending an hour or so looking into each is much of a burden. In the hypothetical case of an admin who has been so inactive as to be examined for whether they should be desysopped and it is impossible to get in touch with them then they should have the tools removed. When they come back they can be asked what it is they are doing that left no trace. If they have been doing admin stuff within whatever window it is that we require then give them the tools back, if not do not.
If they are not editing and can not be asked the question then they do not need the tools because... they are not editing. It seems to me that this, like most changes on Wikipedia, is being made much harder than it need be by placing too much emphasis on edge cases. The final decisions in this are being made by highly trusted users who can figure the edge cases out. What they need from the community is a set of instructions to guide them in making those decisions in line with community wishes/expectations. Jbh ^Talk 20:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I feel really dumb now. Of course we'd be able to ask them, this would only come up when they're asking for the bit back. Sorry about that. In any case, the focus on edge cases here, specifically, is because bureaucrats have historically not been welcomed by the community to use IAR and such as freely as everyone else, so considering edge cases is important. ansh 666 22:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No. I agree with
Beeblebrox's proposal: for any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity, bureaucrats should usually not regrant the tools upon request.. Perfect. Let's leave a little room for 'crat discretion. Bishonen | talk
20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC).

No. The admin bit is a tool to assist with maintenance, not elevation to the Wikipedia Peerage. If someone hasn't used the admin tools for a protracted period, then we can't trust that they still understand current policy and (importantly) custom and practice, and they should have to go through RFA again. If anything, I'd support making the inactivity rules even stricter. ‑

Iridescent

20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would too, even with this little tweak the rules are still incredibly lenient. When I was drafting this I had some ideas that were significantly stricter than this, but thought it would be best to start with something small and achievable.

talk

) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No One small step towards making sure people with the admin bit are familiar with current community practices and norms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, by which I mean yes, let's make the change Beeblebrox is suggesting. While non-logged admin actions (reviewing deleted content, responding to emailing queries, etc.) can be helpful, requiring a single logged action every few years is nowhere close to an unreasonably burdensome requirement. 28bytes (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment We talk about giving Crats some wiggle room for "discretion" but that is kind of against the grain for a Crat. Crats are supposed to act in a way that is clearly and obviously documented, making high level actions that are non-controversial. Most Crats like clear lines drawn in the sand. The last thing a Crat wants is to be dragged to WP:AN to explain why they put the admin bit to someone when the rules were fuzzy. Whatever we do, if anything, it should a hard and fast rule that leaves little to debate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No however this hardly goes far enough IMO. For example look at this batch of "admins" - they have ZERO logged actions in 5 years or more (including ANY action, not just sysop actions - even a Thanks would avoid this list).

big list

user_name	user_editcount	user_registration	Last edit	Last log
Sebastiankessel	4569	20050607221548	20170126191418	20090129213910
Knowledge Seeker	10201	20041122073705	20170301023720	20100505205338
RG2	13292	20050828070336	20170303064209	20111130043959
Yannismarou	20253	20060102151546	20170309153458	20120131222718
Chochopk	24485	20050117093317	20170330061951	20110709043351
Bratsche	5479	20030104000341	20170416034406	20080930033108
Scott Burley	3312	20040503062516	20170517231623	20120826044153
Moink	5432	20031202000434	20170520101957	20120606101704
David.Monniaux	17000	20030913115900	20170605134217	20111203144756
Thatcher	28280	20060208173441	20170615220941	20121107052744
KF	23685	20020225155115	20170727110704	20120520025610
Arcadian	163049	20040913134723	20170806092412	20120424100541
Where	7156	20051225023642	20170809160526	20110810012028
Daniel Quinlan	4700	20021207042559	20170829234211	20100711203841
G.A.S	15690	20060905182406	20170907103632	20121120043339
Fang Aili	24548	20050809133756	20170913184534	20120317174753
Babajobu	7998	20050128142308	20170918042415	20111028021547
Jrdioko	4460	20040313220527	20171006204133	20090125183223
Morven	18617	20030217073253	20171030015717	20090310163226
Davidruben	18989	20040907001819	20171107231910	20110410231547
Butseriouslyfolks	16737	20070104201720	20171124013346	20111011054725
K1Bond007	25913	20030805032410	20171224050135	20100819063220
Graft	3473	20020714112549	20171230235415	20090513002809
Ilyanep	6908	20030507214927	20171231201943	20111126083352
Brian	4151	20050709085306	20180101012825	20120201004455
Tcncv	17720	20080315041627	20180102042812	20120807235435
Harro5	14593	20050314051629	20180102082102	20120608070545
Viajero	11388	20030104002332	20180124153812	20081012070805
Dwheeler	2800	20020805092806	20180125162605	20050812155306
Peruvianllama	13508	20040326191110	20180207045641	20130111043559

I generally expect admins to actually use their mops to help maintain the project, and these editors seemed to have lost the key to the mop closet. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t uderstand why someone who never uses the tools at all would care whether they had them or not, there’s really no reason I can see other than wanting the status, which is funny since actual working admins don’t exactly live in a world of unending respect and universal love where everything is puppies and rainbows.

talk

) 06:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No If you don't use it, then you don't need it. Nihlus 06:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No Though too lenient to make any tangible difference, it is still an improvement to the current method. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No (I think; read for details) - I've lost track somewhat of what we're !voting on. I agree with the spirit of the original proposal that admins desysopped for inactivity who also have not logged admin actions in an extended period of time should not automatically get the tools back upon request. Admins should be active; admins returning after prolonged absences and adminning in a way that may have previously been acceptable but which is presently against the grain have caused ANI-level issues a non-zero number of times in the past few months. I also agree that things we send off to the 'crats should be bright-line rules, not subject to discretion. Although I know the 'crats are all keenly capable of exercising discretion, that's generally not what's asked of them; that role is one of button-pushing, as mindlessly as we can make it (this is a good thing - in my line of work, when the people pushing the buttons are also the people making the decisions, things like Enron happen). So this proposal needs hard-and-fast limits: if an admin is desysopped for inactivity, and prior to that has no logged admin actions in [5 years did we say? I'd go for even shorter] then they are not eligible to ask for the tools back; they must resubmit to RFA. Should also say that G6 deletions do not count as logged admin actions since non-admins can log those entries now, unless that changed again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: G6, only on pagemoves AFAIK (I believe I have one myself). Other G6s, such as {{
db-blankdraft}}, are clearly admin-only still. ansh 666
23:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not as worded - Suggestion isn't very clear as has been expressed above. Additionally, there are non-logged admin actions. Declining at
CAT:RFU, viewing deleted revisions, etc. SQL ^{Query me!}
23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CENT, since I think it's a policy change that needs broad participation. Mz7 (talk
) 10:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have an opinion here, but I'm a little confused about whether we're giving a yes/no to the question in the RFC header or a yes/no to the bolded proposal(s). Could I suggest that this be closed and a concrete proposal made in a new RFC? (commenting as an admin, not an Arb) Katie^talk 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the admin/arb distinction would be important here. But I agree that reformulating this discussion with a clear proposal would be a good thing. As it is, different people seem to be arguing for and against different things. The proposal is that admins should be desysopped after failing to perform an edit or log action within a year, and are only able to regain the bit through a new RfA. Because of the vague nature of the discussion, people have been talking about 5 years of inactivity and unlogged admin actions when the proposal isn't addressing either point at all. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment There was a similar discussion on inactivity last year; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 15#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy. I made a proposal for inactivity based on less than 50 edits+logged actions per calendar year, and that proposal failed miserably. Maxim_(talk) 16:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I deliberately aimed low with this proposal, it’s still exceedingly lenient and won’t affect anyone who still makes one edit per year, logged actions or no. Somewhere between this and the proposal you mention lies a good balance that the community will support this is a baby step in that direction.

talk

) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No. If someone hasn't made a logged action in that long, it would make sense to ask them to go through a new RFA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose any activity requirements per User:Cyp. Yes, I know there's existing requirements, but I disagree with those too (and wish I had said as much when they were adopted). FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 17:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Support making the requested change/No (whichever makes this !vote clearer). The "not logged" argument strikes me as a red herring in that an active administrator performing administrative actions without any of them logging for years is such an outlier as to fall off the probability curve. The only reason to oppose activity requirements is to make admin status a permanent reward, something the community has multiple times emphatically rejected.
WP:NOBIGDEAL was a real thing. Expecting these editors to emerge from the woodwork and return to actual adminship is assuming absurdly good faith. The community gives editors administrative status in the expectation that it will actually be used. The solution to the oft-stated administrator shortage is not to reward non-administrative behavior. The solution is to recruit new admins. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
22:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No - a user should only be an admin if (s)he can be trusted to understand the current relevant policies and follow them. A user who doesn't use a tool is likely to forget how to use it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No per above. If you've gone that long without using the tools, then chances are you don't need them. -FASTILY 00:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No this won't change much, but it is a step in the right direction.
Lepricavark (talk
) 15:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose — as a sometimes-inactive admin myself, I usually find proposals like this very mildly insulting, as they're tacitly saying, "Yeah, remember all that sanity you demonstrated and your respect for policies and guidelines? You'll forget all of that and become rash if you go away for any period of time." Furthermore, rarely does someone actually throw up any cases where someone's inactivity and subsequent return from it caused serious issues (except for like, that one time way back when which resulted in the current activity bar).
Reading the above I also see lots of imagination and assumptions of future bad faith, plus some strange interpretations of ideal behavior. Why is it a bad thing to edit normally and avoid logging admin actions if you're inactive? How does that count against you as demonstrating poor judgement? Isn't it preferred that an admin avoid using admin tools when they've been inactive until they're confident in their use again? Isn't that literally an embodiment of what's desired to achieve the goal of the thing that's being proposed? Why make it permanent?
RfA's a pretty stressful and time-consuming process that you should really only have to go through once unless you demonstrate untrustworthiness, and when life/job takes over, volunteering can fall by the wayside; I've had months disappear before what I feel is "coming up for air." Either way, a good admin tries to review whatever's happened in the meantime to check for any major changes to policy (and be happy to undo something botched if it ever comes up). Keep in mind, however, that even when they're active, admins aren't magically hard-wired into all changes across the encyclopedia, so being an active admin doesn't automatically endow you with a feel for the Zeitgeist of the community. Throwing up more barriers to resuming the thing you were already trusted with doing is just one more reason someone won't return unless they know they can dedicate large amounts of time to the process of returning in and of itself, which is unlikely given the likely reasons for inactivity in the first place.
Also, as a side note, each time someone proposes more zOMG-inactive-admin things like this, what little time I have tends to go toward an obligation to respond to it as one of the "class" of people potentially being affected. If/when evidence of an actual problem occurs under the current guidelines, then I'd be more than happy to support revisions; otherwise, the ounce of cure isn't necessarily worth the pound of prevention in my eyes, but it looks like I'm in the minority on this one; still felt the need to raise a dissenting opinion. :P
--slakr^\ talk / 23:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean... I understand where the argument is getting at, but I have personally seen multiple times when returning admins needed fairly basic policy explained to them, of the type that any RfA candidate would be expected to understand before they're handed extra buttons (at times even asked and answered at the Teahouse of all places, although I'd be hard pressed to find the diffs), and this starts to at some point, codify very different sets of expectations from the community. I would also point out... again... that half a decade away from the project is a pretty exceptionally long time. Even as someone who considers themselves fairly inactive, you don't even approach the type of standard being proposed here. This wouldn't catch most "sometimes-inactive" admins; it would catch patently absent ones.

There is also IMO a larger matter of eroding the notion of the admin corps being its own landed aristocracy, which I, and I'm sure many others, see as an overall positive direction to go in. I expect this peerage is the main reason why RfA has continuously inched closer to a beatification process, rather than a net-positive/negative evaluation, because it's seen by many as, if a mistake, a nearly irrevocable one that must necessarily degrade into a spectacular catastrophe in order to undo.

I would argue that the whole thing on average is corrosive of community confidence in the corps overall, and leads to a less effective cohort, filled with some fairly unqualified candidates, and less overall qualified active ones because of the effect it has on recruitment. GMG ^talk 15:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly this. I am not concerned with the account security or policy forgetfulness issues. I just don't see how adminship can be "not a big deal" but also a lifetime appointment. I don't advocate for a very high activity standard, because that would make it more of a big deal than no activity standard at all. But I think that some easy processes to remove adminship from people who no longer need the buttons is a step in the right direction. And I support this proposal, because it actually enforces that standard, rather than removing the tools but not the status as the current policy does. I would also like to see the policy changed to prevent admins from continually turning in the bit and then getting it back when they come back from vacation, but that's another debate I suppose. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: guess it depends on the length of the vacation, the ones that literally make 1 edit a year (often removing the required warning notice) and go away for a year are the ones keeping up the "lifetime" standards. Notably, this discussion will not have any impact on them. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No / Support. Though I think I would prefer it to fix the 5 year interval as running between the last admin action and the request to regain the tools, which doesn't quite seem to be the proposal (I find it a touch unclear on that). Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Meh. Seems like a solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
No or Support proposal, whichever is more clear. If an admin hasn't made a logged action in the last year, chances are that they're busy. If an admin hasn't made a logged admin in the last five years, chances are that they're either using only the viewing-deleted-revisions function, or they really aren't on Wikipedia and need to get re-familiarized with the rules. If these users are in good standing, passing a re-RFA shouldn't be a problem. epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose A very large percentage of admin actions don't actually generate a log entry, closing Afds, Tfds, etc. Closing request for moves or other Rfds etc etc. That being said there really shouldn't be activity requirements other than editing requirements to keep the bit. No admin should be forced to use their tools just for the sake of activity. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This argument is a red herring. It’s incredibly unlikely that someone would spend five years doing admin work on a regular basis yet never once see any situation where admin tools were called for. It just doesn’t add up.

talk

) 04:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No (or Support proposal, whichever is more clear). We're talking about logged admin actions here - not things that are preferred to be done by admins but which any editor can do without the tools. Admins are elected at RfA on the fundamental premise that they claim to need the tools and will use them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No/Support - As mentioned above, this stance is still exceptionally lenient. I mean seriously, this will only apply to admins who haven't logged a single edit in a year, and have not logged an admin function in five years. And to the people saying that "not all admin actions are logged": seriously? No admin is going around using the mop in a way that doesn't log a single action for five freaking years. Can you imagine a desysopped admin coming back 7 years after their last admin action, saying, "It's okay because I've been using the mop to look at deleted revisions". Not exactly a mitigating factor. Swarm ♠ 00:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No/Support per Swarm. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No/Support per Swarm and further the project is nearly 17 years and activity of several of them has declined over time .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
No if they aren’t being used for so long, there’s no point in having them. Even with this proposed change, it’s still much too lenient for me. Part of me can appreciate what Slakr says above, and the fear of having to go through RFA is not unexpected from less active admins. But at the end of the day if you aren’t here, you don’t need extra privs. Aiken D 16:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
NO/Support: Oh give me a break. If you toodle over to the section of Wikipedia where they approve the use of scripts for approval/declining of draft articles, if you've been inactive for a couple of years, they turn you down and ask you to get familiar again with current WP standards before reapplying. WP changes all the time, and I really don't think any admin who takes a few years off has the current knowledge to be FIT for the mop. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No (i.e. support proposal)- This seems to me very sensible. Being an admin is a functionality, not an honorific. If it no longer serves any function, then the rights should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No (support). Really great to see this proposal getting traction in contrast to prior efforts to rein in the hangers-on. — Scott • talk 13:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No yes, admins need to use their tools to remain familiar with the standards, and there are a few good analogies above. As for the minutiae as to what constitutes an admin action- well that's why we have bureaucrats. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No - Just no. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Close requested

I think it’s pretty clear what the result is here, and have asked at

talk

) 19:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

A little question: Does the consensus here consider only "logged" admin actions as valid for the purpose of this policy or admin actions in general. I am asking because the edit implies that only the former count while the discussion seems to be more evenly split among these who do specify what is meant by "admin action". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I made the edit because tool use is probably the most ambiguous phrase around, and it seemed pretty clear from the discussion that the proposal was for logged actions (and that is what people who were !voting on commented about). There was specifically opposition because of that point, but the consensus was to carry the proposal, and based off of the discussion, it made sense to clarify it as the first time someone tried to get a resysop while failing the criteria, we would have no guidance and 'crats would be left on their own to decide what counts (I could reasonably argue that viewing deleted content was an admin, action, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Should one of the expectations of administrators be to have email enabled?

There is no consensus to require admins to have their email enabled, but a significant number of comments suggested that it would be best practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2018 (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'd like to see that as a requirement. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Totally. I suppose it would be OK to temporarily disable one's e-mail during a wikibreak, but otherwise, users should be able to e-mail all admins. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC).
Best practice, yes, required? No. My email is enabled (and I don't think I ever had it disabled when I wasn't an admin), but there may be valid privacy and harassment reasons why an admin does not want email enabled. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, instead of getting the message that the admin's email is disabled, and knowing to move on to another admin / process / etc, you would end up with emails falling off into the void (either switching to a bs email address, or filtering mail from wikipedia most likely). I agree with Tony - it is a best practice. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm an admin. My email is enabled, and that is only for the situation where I forget my password (it has happened). If anybody else emails me, I usually ignore the email, so it does fall off into the void in a sense. My reason is that I believe in openness, so I discuss Wikipedia matters on-wiki, the only exception being at organised meetups such as m:Meetup/Oxford/57. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this should be a requirement per the general sense of
WP:ADMINACCT which requires that admins be contactable. Some issues might be sensitive, such as BLP enforcement, and so open discussion on talk pages might be considered inappropriate. There then needs to be a private communication channel and email seems to be the standard alternative. Andrew D. (talk
) 08:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a requirement. The question of where one replies (per RedRose64 above) is actually distinct to the question asked. All admins should have email enabled in the spirit of making oneself openly communicable, particularly so as not to deter editors from sending private info. Or indeed, editors who just do not want to be seen asking a certain question :) However, per RedRose— with whom I agree—this does not automatically mean one is entitled to a reply, and the choice to do so, or to otherwise reply publicly, is very much still reserved to the admin. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, administrators are not really authorised to deal with private info, and I was always uncomfortable when I was sent pieces of private information. I would say if issues can not be discussed onwiki, they should be sent to
WP:OVERSIGHT if needed.--Ymblanter (talk
) 10:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
But there is not a single quality called privacy, and a thing that is not oversightable may still be private. I'd like to think that admins were willing to save editors' good faith embarrassment if they had the ability to. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder whether it's plausible to assume that everyone can have a secure email address. I also think that since the community has no effective means to monitor email usage (all what we can do is to ask a checkuser if user X sent an email at date Y, or take Z's word at face value without firm proof), there is more potential for abuse there than with an user talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Best practice, yes - requirement, no. If admins don't want to be bothered by users outside the time they have allotted to working here, they should be able to choose so. There is no requirement at RFA that says admins have to be available outside Wikipedia. What's next, requiring admins to be active on IRC? As Ymblanter points out, there are already processes to handle certain matters, like OTRS and OS and we should encourage people to send privacy-relevant requests there instead of some random admin who might not even be active at that time. Regards So Why 10:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that's nothing in the proposal that says anything about doing unpaid overtime, or out of hours work. If an admin is daft enough, though, to use a main email a/c, rather than a single use, generic <[email protected]> than that is, absolutely and irreparably, their lookout. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's all unpaid overtime... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, if an admin doesn't want to deal with wikimatters off wikipedia they should be able to have this separation. There are plenty of admins who are fine with this and very few matters can't be dealt with on talk pages. For cases where users are prevented from sending emails or blocked from their talk, there is usually a reason and UTRS exists. (my email is on but I ignore most emails or reply on wiki)
Spartaz ^Humbug!
12:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Recommended best practice perhaps, but not a requirement. If an admin only wants to be contacted on-wiki, that should be their right. Users shouldn't be contacting admins about urgent or private matters anyway, we have official emails for those things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
No, administrators should not be required to have email enabled. To some extent, it would go against Wikimedia's privacy policy ("If you do create an account, you do not need to give us your name or email address"). It's a voluntary service; and to add to this, for those administrators who, of their own choice, have emails enabled, there is no (and there should be no) further requirement that they need to answer via emails to received emails. Lourdes 12:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
What SoWhy said. Best practice, and to be encouraged, but not required. We should encourage as much to be on-Wiki as possible, and email certainly encourages the spreading of personal information. There's no guarantee that email would be more responsive anyway — plenty of folks have non-personal emails for privacy reasons, and as someone recently more active, it's easy to miss emails for months/years. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course not, best practice maybe, but certainly not required. I have mine enabled but as someone above mentioned, that is mostly for password reasons. There is pretty much nothing as an individual admin that I would deal with through email that cannot be done on a talk page. Anything that needs privacy can go to OTRS etc. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
As Tony says above, best practice, yes, requirement, no. There are privacy-respecting venues that can be used for material that can't go on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
No. All the good arguments have been taken already, so I'll just throw my weight behind Lourdes, SoWhy, Tony and others. Best practice, but not a requirement. We are volunteers, after all... *goes off to check Wikipedia email inbox for the eighth time today... 14:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunshui (talk • contribs)
- Just because all the good arguments are already gone that's no reason to hide your name from us as well Regards So Why 14:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
No. Echoing most of the others, it's a good idea, especially for password recovery - but requiring it "to be enabled", no. I would not expect them to be 'required' to actually read it even if it were enabled. Should this conversation result in a "yes", I think it should be "required" that anyone wanting to email an admin under a communications expectation also be required to contact them publicly (by leaving a talk page message such as {{
ygm}}) as email delivery (and echo notifications) can be unreliable. — xaosflux ^Talk
14:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I note that, unless I am missing something
WP:ADMIN mentions communication, only in "failure to communicate" (are we uncommunicative about communication?). So perhaps all these ways of communicating about admin-type things should be added in a section, 'Communication with Admins'. Perhaps I am reading more into this but given Doug started this, is this prompted by an admin-to-admin communication issue? If so the communication section I suggest should address that, too. (I also, think, that if an admin is the type that regularly ignores e-mails, as many people are, it's really better if it's shut off, or they make that rather clear, somehow). Alanscottwalker (talk
) 14:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with it as a best practice but not a hard requirement. If private information that can’t be shared on-wiki is involved, users should be contacting the

talk

) 16:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It should not be a requirement. No admin needs to be "on call" when off-wiki. There's nothing I can do that one of the admins on
WP:AN couldn't handle. I personally have it enabled, but if anyone has been sending me e-mails I have definitely missed them.--Aervanath (talk
) 14:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just noticed the standard AE block template in Twinkle (which I'm thinking most admins use) has this text: "You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page." The template itself has an option to turn that wording off but that's not the default nor can it be adjusted through Twinkle. There's no time limit on when an appeal can be initiated so admins using this specific block template should be aware that there is an expectation they'll be reachable by email. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Some things are best handled by email, most things are best handled on wiki. My email is enabled, I get a trickle of email, almost all perfectly OK. But I'm a bloke. I can understand some of our female admins not enabling email. More generally are we addressing a problem here or being bureaucratic for the sake of it? Do we have regular backlogs anywhere that involves emailing admins? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I have email enabled, and I've gotten exactly zero of them since I became an admin last September. Don't know if there's a pressing need for email to be enabled. ansh 666 18:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure I would force admin to enable email, but would strongly request it. There are plenty of times when an editor or another admin need to contact an admin privately (
WP:HARASS, etc) and best practice is for it to be enabled. Dennis Brown - 2¢
14:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Results of research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents

Hello all,

Last fall, as part of the Community Health initiative, a number of experienced En.WP editors took a survey capturing their opinions on the AN/I noticeboard. They recorded where they thought the board working well, where it didn’t, and suggested improvements. The results of this survey are now up; these have been supplemented by some interesting data points about the process in general. Please join us for a discussion on the results.

Regards, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Inactivity?

Should an admin with just two (non-admin) edits in the last year still keep the bit? (A once very-active editor whose edits over the last eight years haven't exceeded double figures.) Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Under current policy, yes. Attempts to raise it above 1 edit or log entry a year have failed in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So the absence of any admin actions isn't grounds then? That is surprising (although it's how I read the literal statement too). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All an admin has to do is either have one edit or one logged action a year to keep the bit. The reason for this that has been explained to me was that the community adapted the activity policy primarily for account security concerns, not for reasons involving competence and familiarity with project norms. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. The original discussions leading to the introduction of the process featured all those elements strongly, but the account security argument was harder to dismiss. Failure in 2008, success in 2011. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorites paradox ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You can see in the above discussion that some users are disputing whether not using the tools at all for five years is sufficient reason to question someone’s fitness to be an admin. There is a segment of the community that seems to think “not all admin actions are logged” is a blanket argument against any sort of standards for admin activity. It’s ridiculous, but there are enough people who actually believe it to keep things more ro less the way they are.

talk

) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In the 2011 discussion I link to above I mentioned several admins who hadn't edited at all since 2002; there were still plenty of people against de-sysop. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: see in the thread above "big list" there are admins with 0 logged actions in over 10 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Close of above RFC

Beeblebrox, hello. Just a quick query if I've misread the Rfc. What about inactive administrators who have four years of no usage of admin tools before the desysopping due to inactivity and come back, say after five years of no usage of admin tools are complete but before the two additional years of inactivity are complete? Do we depend on the bureaucrats to decide on an as-is-where-is basis or do we tweak the wordings to include this (something to represent that "if an administrator is desysopped due to lengthy inactivity, and if the desysopping is preceded and/or succeeded by a cumulative five years of non-usage of admin tools..."). Thanks, Lourdes
15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, any policy rule that must be expressed as an algebraic function is probably too complicated for general acceptance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat in here too and say that the wording currently added isn't perfectly supported by the close. "Five years was mentioned" does not equal "consensus for five years" as interpreted, and the current wording could still be interpreted in at least four ways:

Five years no logged actions plus a sixth year if no activity at all
Five years no logged actions the last of which had no activity at all
Five years of no administrative work whatsoever regardless of logged actions plus a sixth year of no activity at all
Five years of no administrative work whatsoever the last of which had no activity at all

That's... probably not terribly helpful, but when the rubber meets the road the crats are going to have to figure out which interpretation they're going to go with. GMG ^talk 15:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My reading is #2 (which is what I just tweaked the wording to clarify, as I agree tool use is awfully ambiguous, and the conversation made it clear we were talking about logged actions): the RfC did not authorize desysoping for 5 years of no action. It said that a resysop request should not be granted if there have been no actions in the previous 5 years. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The ambiguity there is on the meaning of "is subsequently". And actually, there's a few other ways it could be interpreted. For example, what if someone last "uses the tools" (ignoring the second type of ambiguity there) on 01/01/1900. Their last edit is 01/01/1903. They're subsequently desysoped on 01/02/1904 for inactivity. They request the tools back 01/03/1905. The five year period during which they did not "use the tools" passed on the day prior to requesting restoration, but they're desysop for inactivity did not occur subsequent to the five year period during which they did not "use the tools". GMG ^talk 16:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

At any rate, the close doesn't authorize five years for anything. The close simply puts that there is general agreement that after a prolonged period the tools should not be restored. It decides the issue of principle without deciding the issue of procedure, and for whatever my probably unwelcome opinion is worth, it don't think it would have been inappropriate, in the interest of supreme propriety, to allow a crat to close the discussion, since they're the ones that have to deal with any fallout from it. GMG ^talk 16:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will admit that “tool use” was maybe a bit vague but I think it’s abundantly clear from the discussion that it was taken to mean “logged actions.” I don’t think any reasonable person can honestly argue that an admin who is using the viewdeleted right (which is not logged) for five years without ever finding occasion to restore anything (which is logged) is really doing admin work, in fact to me that would suggest pretty clearly that all they wanted it for was to peep at things non-admins can’t see.

As to the meaning of the word “subsequently” quite frankly I don’t see the ambiguity. Wiktionary lists the primary definition of the word as Following, afterwards in either time or place and I think that is what everyone agreed to here.

Not super thrilled about the “usually” in the close language, it seems like this had a pretty high level of support as an actual rule, not a suggestion, and ‘crats need clear rules to do their work.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, this would have applied to 15 desysops for inactivity last year, so there’s sure to be cases where this will apply in the near future, I’d prefer to see policy language that clearly mandates this as opposed to “probably” or “usually” which won’t do the ‘crats much good.

talk

) 19:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not viewdeleted but AfD closes or AE posts or edits to protected pages (if memory serves, there is an admin or two who did mainly that) are not "logged" but certainly "recorded". No opinion on any other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t wish to re-argue the RFC, but I can’t see how an admin could do AFD closes for five years and never run across a single one where the consesus was to delete, or edit fully-protected pages for five years and never come across a case where protection should be changed or removed. A month? sure. A year? maybe. Five years? No way. It seems quite a number of others agreed that this argument is a red herring.

talk

) 19:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any examples of admins who match these criteria? If not, then I think we can say it’s so improbable it’s not worth worrying about, and consider tool use to be logged actions. Aiken D 19:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think reductio ad absurdium is quite valid here. It's perfectly plausible for someone to come across plenty of non-logged admin actions during normal reading and editing - someone could close an RM or XfD or two on pages they come across, edit through full protection (without even realizing it), decline some G4s, rescue some sources from a deleted article, I believe create an article through the title blacklist, and roll back vandals, and none of those actions would be logged. Nobody is saying that someone could be constantly doing AfD or whatever for 5 years and not delete an article. Besides, 5 years ago was 2013 (when I started editing actively) and frankly not much has changed since then compared to, say, 2006. Frankly, I'd be more worried - and I know a lot of other people would be too - about someone who has held the tools continuously and semi-actively since the beginning than someone who is coming back after a long absence, since they'd have less incentive to keep up with current events and changes. No admin who has been desysopped for cause so far has ever had the tools removed for inactivity. ansh 666 19:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is all beside the point. The RFC is closed, a consensus was reached, we’re just trying to work out the appropriate language now. Tony Ballioni’s latest edits seem to reflect it fairly well, although I’m still not a fan of saying “usually” in a policy we expect ‘crats to enforce.
talk
) 20:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Would it be okay if we quickly ask the community here in a quick poll if it's alright to remove the word "usually" from the above addition in order to remove ambiguity? Lourdes 03:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s even necessary. There was no discussion of making this a “maybe” rule.

talk

) 20:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. The close is otherwise fine, but adding “usually” feels like a

talk

) 20:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I still don't feel like the wording of the close adequately supports a clear five year limit, and I don't like the word subsequently (not in the original RfC question, not in the close, present only in the additional bolded proposal and not well discussed in particular). I also don't think the close addresses really the debate over logged actions vs. tool use at all (particularly well discussed). But if I'm the only one feeling uncomfortable with the whole thing, I'll just go back to my quiet corner elsewhere. GMG ^talk 11:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I find the "logged" thing questionable. A number of participants were talking about "admin actions" in general without specifying "logged" and some were conditionally supporting a form that was not restricted to "logged" actions or opposing because they had concerns about that formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It was a poorly worded close. There were some who raised the objection, but they were in the minority of the supporters or opposing. It was abundantly clear from the discussion that people were talking about a minimum of one logged action in 5 years to be resysoped. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:--Hmm..I agree that the word usually was ill-chosen, given the discussion.At any case, Tony, if an admin hasn't any logged action over 5 years but has closed one/two AE thread(s), (which (per Dennis) is an admin-action), over the entire span of 5 years, , will he be still eligible for a resysop?~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, but per Ajr and Beeblebrox that isn't really the point: we need things that are measurable, and with other forms of activity review (CU/OS and Stewards globally) we used logged actions as the standard. That was what was being discussed above, and while there were objections to it, simply having objections is not enough to change a consensus. To Beeblebrox's point: if someone is actively working in AE, or AfD, or RMs, even if only sporadically, the odds of not using the tools are pretty low. If anything, the stereotype for AE and the like is the legacy admin coming out of the sky to issue a dumb block, not the legacy admin coming out of the sky to close something as no action. I also agree with Beeblebrox that we shouldn't relitigate the RfC: I am actually neutral on the change, and I was going to step up to close it if no one else did, and there is a pretty clear consensus for a 5 year no-logged action rule. The wording of "tool use" was confusing, but the intent of the discussion and the comments make it pretty clear that this is what was being discussed. Honestly, if there is debate over "logged action" vs. "use of the tools" it would be better to simply remove it and have a new RfC as "use of the tools" is meaningless to the point of not actually being a policy at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If you do even a quick read-through, the vast majority of people who said "No" didn't mention logged actions or admin actions at all. I agree with GMG. ansh 666 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it was clear through the conversation what was being talked about: logged actions. People opposed on those grounds, and presented conditional supports on those grounds. A generic support/No on the proposal should not have to spell out that they supported the technical aspects of the proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I... would really like if User:Fish and karate would weigh in here somehow. GMG ^talk 21:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I don’t mind if someone wants to rephrase the close. I don’t think anyone’s in much doubt as to what it needs to say, feel free to reword if my summary was insufficiently precise. I think comments from some of the RFC contributors such as SoWhy and Bishonen led to the “usually”, as there were some valid arguments for trusting bureaucrats to use their judgement on edge cases, which I tried to incorporate into the closing summary, but I’m not beholden to that interpretation. Fish+Karate 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Once this dies down, would someone please drop a note at
WP:BN as to the final state. — xaosflux ^Talk
05:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Seems died-down enough to me to warrant a heads-up to the bureaucrats. 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

COACH ZARLINO

hello my name is John zarlino and I try to edit some of the pages on here but I keep getting attacked in bullied by other editors is there a way to protect my content somebody actually deleted my user ID and my talk page please advise I use voice recognition to edit these pages I am a retired Navy guy 57 years old any advice would be appreciated thank you[🇺🇸 COACH Z | #USNavy ⚓] 21:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by COACH ZARLINO (talk • contribs) Responded at the appropriate venue. (their talk page).

talk

) 21:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Five Year Rule" Notifications

After the recent discussion at

WP:BN, does anybody have any thoughts about sending some sort of mass message to those former admins where the new five-year unlogged admin action policy is in play? -- Dolotta (talk

) 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note, all admins are getting this as part of their normal warnings going forward now. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Send a brief mass message to anyone who has been desysoped for inactivity within the past three years. It couldn't hurt (other than the watchlist, but that's one time, and people can turn bots off). They'd also get the message when they logged in, when they might not get an email. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Note @TonyBallioni: there could be 2 classes here: desysoped admins that are no longer actually eligible to skip RfA, and desysoped admins that could return and skip RfA still - messages if sent should be sure to explain the difference. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Request for adminship. This message is purely informational, and being sent to all administrators who have been desysoped for inactivity in the last 3 years to alert them of this change. If you wish to see your logged actions you can see them by [some wording to explain how to view their own logs that is beyond my technical knowledge to place in a mass message.]
TonyBallioni (talk
) 03:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe Special:Log/<username> contains account creation, file upload, block, protect, delete (including revdel and restore), move, merge, grant permission, and rename, which should contain most if not all logged admin actions (one exception being creating articles through protection/title blacklist, which may or may not count as a logged action). [[Special:Log/{{PAGENAME}}]] would work for a talk page mass-message. IMO the message at Template:Inactive admin has become quite bloated and redundant...perhaps that could be pared down a little, though it's certainly not necessary. ansh 666 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Five year rule

I'm not exactly sure what the new "five year" rule realistically changes. While it is in theory good to have a bar (as opposed to no bar), it's kind of redundant if said inactive administrator logs in, deletes one of their user subpages and then logs back out. By rule, that counts as an admin log until 2023. The rule should be at the bare minimum they do something productive (outside of the userspace) and not tick a box. At least if they delete a CSD or the like it accomplishes a very minor thing. — Moe Epsilon 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that we are looking for an easy and objective standard. We can't start deciding between different admin actions for the same reason we can't examine any of the admin actions that don't make logs - it turns the process into a subjective discussion, rather than the enforcement of an absolute standard. Of course, any inactivity system can be gamed, but that doesn't make them any less worthwhile. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. As other attempts to tighten standards have failed, I deliberately aimed low with the proposal, for something I thought would actually pass. Basically, it has now been proven that consensus is that the previous standards were too low. And a number of users commented as you did, that even with the new rule it is still extremely lenient, so that suggests the possibility that it could be tightened further, but since we just got done getting this far I wouldn’t suggest trying to rush things in that direction.

talk

) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And we are still one of the most lax projects as far as inactivity goes (The global default is no actions in 2 years, done - start over, see other projects summaries here: meta:Admin_activity_review/Local_inactivity_policies). I think this is one of the factors that leads to BIGDEAL here. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that's neat to browse through. I suppose one could make the (probably silly) argument that, given the above-average size/participation of enWiki, any issues from a suddenly-not-so-dormant-account would be caught more quickly than on a smaller project. At any rate, good read. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a silly argument; that's almost certainly true. But it's also true that compromised accounts are an incredibly rare problem that are almost always dealt with very quickly (including on small wikis, thanks to those who watch them). Even though security is a solid argument, I personally think that the benefit of activity standards comes from the reduction in status it gives to the admin role. It's a lot easier to argue that something isn't a big deal when it's easy to get and take away, rather than when it's nearly impossible to take away. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The five year rule is eminently sensible. Five years is a long time to have given something up. There should be some community ceremony in welcoming back an old admin. RfA can be a baptism of fire, but a good number of times it is a near unanimous affirmation of trust and respect. If someone years ago passed with flying colours, I would be very eager to support a reconfirmation RfA based only on a simple statement of where they've been, why they are returning, and an acknowledgement of one or two things that have changed. Not much has changed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)