Wikipedia talk:Administrator Activity Proposal

message: I have ignored this order because of its inappropriateness on the wiki. This is a collaborative project, not a military organisation.  The article needed (and still needs) editing to put forward the pros and cons of the proposal.  At the moment it makes little mention of the cons so editing is essential. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 06:04, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
: What I mean is, effectively, "don't make major changes to this without first consulting everyone else involved." This mostly applies to the Articles section, so the wording has been revised as such. What you've done is perfectly acceptable. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:08, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
:I hoped that that was what you meant. Cheers -- Derek Ross |  Talk 18:18, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
I agree.  Until voting begins, people should feel free to make changes.  In the last few days it would be rude to make any major changes without consensus, though. anthony (see warning) 16:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not edit this page directly

message: Note that, in the absence of the type of automated method of keeping track of which administrators are currently online that people have discussed above, I have added an extra section to Wikipedia:List of administrators in which people can manually record whether they are on or offline at any given moment. --Derek Ross |  Talk 15:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
GRUNT!  Great idea.  Hopefully I'll be active again in time to vote for it.  Damn that Hurricane Ivan.  blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrators online

message: * I have removed the unwiki-like "do not edit this page" disclaimer.  While there may be situations where such an approach is an appropriate way to handle policy discussions, this has only been done after considerable discussion.  There has not been much discussion of this idea yet.
* I also made the "vote" a proposed one, in line with our way of doing things.  We may find that a vote is unnecessary.
* I removed some legal-sounding titles and verbiage from the policy, which I believe are out of place at Wikipedia.
* I also added some information on existing policy.  Perhaps Eloquence or some other developer can better remember how much this was actually done.  The last I remember there was some attempt to try to remove dormant admin logins about a year ago.
* As for the policy itself, I'm concerned that it does not solve any problem that we actually have.  I am willing to be convinced, though.  I don't believe anyone uses "listadmins" to try to find someone to contact, since we have "vandalism in progress," the "village pump," and "requests for page protection" for those things.  In fact, the idea of contacting a specific admin for help in a particular situation is sort of passe now that the project is much larger.
* As for activity, if we are really concerned about this sort of thing, we would do better to count only admin-specific activities when calculating the "inactivity period."  Many admins rarely if ever delete or protect pages.
* I agree with Angela that we do need some sort of periodic review of administrators.
uc 19:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  UC's comments 

message: Surely we can do better than organise the list alphabetically? What are people coming to this page looking for help on? Categorise admins using those headings, i.e. I suggest that sysops are instead listed by what type of request they are most happy to help with. At the minute, with an initial Z in my username, I am somewhat less likely to be called upon for help. Yet I am quite happy to help. I do think that some kind of "will respond to requests within X hours/days" label would also be useful, admins can change this as they are online/offline/busy as required. Of course, there isn't much way to validate this guarantee, apart from disgruntled users complaining that sysop X has not responded within the timescale they labelled themselves as. Just some thoughts. zoney ♣ talk 22:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organising list of sysops 

message: Per a discussion on IRC, the definition of inactivity has been changed to five months from three months. Also, there are now three reminders sent out from the determination of being inactive and the "grace period" after the temporary desysopping has been doubled to two months. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:21, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
----
Looks like a good idea on paper but has little to no connection with reality. silsor 04:35, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
----
It's true that there is little benefit in having an admin who isn't around to do their job. I have admin status (I don't THINK anyone took it away from me... if they did I haven't noticed yet!) but I've been around very little in the last 18 months. I don't really know what all the rules are any more, so I'm very wary about using said status for anything until I've checked and double-checked that it's still okay.  Anyway, if you want to set a blanket period of nonattendence to earn automatic de-adminning that's fair enough, but it has to be a LONG time or it'll just be a hassle for everyone when the admin in question comes back again a week later, and has to ask to get reinstated. I'd say that six months of inactivity would be a suitable period. Being an admin isn't a popularity contest - it's something you do for a reason. KJ 07:52, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
----
Couldn't the list of sysops be edited in a way that either the date/time of last edit could be shown, or have the list ordered by sysop with most recent edit?  Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss) 09:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in proposal 

message: I think this proposal is well-meaning, but what is the problem it is addressing? I believe the problem is, that if an editor (esp. a new editor) is looking for admin help, s/he really doesn't know where to turn. The List of Administrators really doesn't do it. On my own entry, I tell people that I welcome queries. AFAIK, I haven't gotten a single query or request for help from it. The editors who contact seem to be ones who know me or have inteacted with me. What is a new user to do, faced with a list of 300 admins?
Now, I don't see that non-performing admins (including those who edit but simply haven't the time to pursue admin chores) are a problem per se except that their presence on a list makes us think we have more admins than we effectively do. The addition of "Currently Online" to Wikipedia:List_of_administrators is a noble effort, but I wouldn't list my name there because I am on and off in the course of my work and leisure. It's just too cumbersome.
So about this? Let's ask all our admins to volunteer to be on a "A List" which indicates a special willingness to engage users looking for assistance. No shame if you're not on the list--you just aren't in a position to give requests attention in a reasonable time frame. Anyone could add or remove their names at any time depending on their current circumstance. If you volunteer for the list, and if there are a sufficient number of admins on the list, we could carve out a different 10 (say) admins each day or each week as "duty admins" on a rotating basis. Post these admins at the top of the list with the admonition "contact these admins first." What do you think? == Cecropia | Talk 15:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a very good idea. I agree that this seems to be the main problem people are attempting to solve (how to contact an admin). I think I too agree that "administrator activity" is not necessarily the problem. Having just an alphabetical list of sysops is a problem. zoney ♣ talk 15:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: What about a "Contact a Sysop" page?  Submissions would go to a certain page, like perhaps "Wikipedia:Requests for Assistance" or something.  The admins that are signed up to help out would all recveive a notice (like the "new messages" notice for usertalk page edits) that help was requested on that page.  Then whoever of those admins was online could go help out. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 16:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: This is a very good suggestion, provided that sysops can jump in and out of the A-pool at any time. ✏ Sverdrup  16:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different... 

message: Well, I am completely unsure what half-baked idiot (or collection of said) cooked this one up. As an admin I spend more than enough time fighting vandals as it is. If this continuous trend towards spurious and nonsensical policy-making for the purpose of policy-making itself continues, the number of active admins will certainly be reduced by one. Never a week goes by without someone coming up with some new time-waste or other. Sjc 04:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your case wouldn't be damaged by some arguments. I'm sure you have them; let them out! ✏ Sverdrup  18:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This gets stupider by the week 

message: If I wish to contact an admin I will without exception go to their talk page.  If this one small change is added, then I would know at a glance if they are an active admin or not, and even be likely to find an admin that is online right now
:I propose that at the top of every User:Talk page, there be added a feature that tells the time and date of the user's most recent edit.
It's a simple change to make, and I believe it would be relatively inoffensive to the POVs expressed in the previous talk.  This would work regardless of the duration of an admin's term, regardless of whether they are 'away' or not.  It has the added benefit of allowing all editors, regardless of 'rank' to tell at a glance who is working on the 'pedia at any given time, by consulting their user page.comments? please comment in the section below, reserve this section for revised versions of this proposalPedant 18:47, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
:This doesn't address all the issues I have concerning inactive admins, but it's a good idea regardless of that. Perhaps it should be submitted as a feature request at Mediazilla:. Angela. 02:27, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
=== comments on Nov. 3 proposals ===
I believe that the statements about the difficulty of contacting an admin are a red herring and should be removed.  People can contact an admin promptly by tagging stuff for speedy deletion, adding things to VfD or VfU, adding things to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or adding things to WP:VIP.  This is well documented.  These are the only admin-only activities, and each has its own means of contacting an admin.  We have IRC, we have the mailing list.  I would go so far as to say that the admins of Wikipedia will respond faster when contacted thusly than will the local police or fire department does when you dial 911 (or 999 for some of you).  Contacting an admin simply isn't a real problem.
There are two real problems:
# If someone leaves the project for, say, three years, and then comes back, they will be out of touch with people and policy, and may have become a POV warrior of some kind due to a Near death experience or being Born again.  
# There is a security problem in that dormant accounts are susceptible to password guessing, and if someone shows up after a year of inactivity we will have no sure way of knowing whether it is the original contributor or not.  This is not a problem with active accounts, because the original contributor will realize what is happening.
I observe that the time periods in this proposal are really too short.  
Interested Wikipedians occasionally have life changes due to school, work, or travel schedules and leave the project for a period of months.  Give people a year.  If they've been gone for that long, they are unlikely to return.
Whether anyone admits it or not, short time periods scare people into voting "no" because they become afraid that they themselves may be de-admined for one reason or another.  Keep the time periods long, and it becomes more a matter of each of us accepting that sooner or later we are going to move on from the project for various reasons, and that that's ok.
I don't think the "away" status is helpful.  It just adds extra work and an incentive to "game" the system.  Keep it simple, and revoke admin status after a year of inactivity.
There should be some room for judgement because a few contributors make an edit or two every few months, perhaps when they happen to read an article that they've found through google, but have in fact left the project.  In these cases people should still lose their sysop status.  Leave it vague so there is no incentive to game the system.
On a final note, I am not aware of any administrator who has returned to the project to make sizable contributions after being gone for more than a year.  It is not uncommon, though, to see people who leave but duck their heads in once in a while, e.g. User:Zoe, User:JHK, User:Mbecker.
uc 20:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 3 new proposal 

message: I believe that the statements about the difficulty of contacting an admin are a red herring and should be removed.  People can contact an admin promptly by tagging stuff for speedy deletion, adding things to VfD or VfU, adding things to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or adding things to WP:VIP.  This is well documented.  These are the only admin-only activities, and each has its own means of contacting an admin.  We have IRC, we have the mailing list.  I would go so far as to say that the admins of Wikipedia will respond faster when contacted thusly than will the local police or fire department does when you dial 911 (or 999 for some of you).  Contacting an admin simply isn't a real problem.
There are two real problems:
# If someone leaves the project for, say, three years, and then comes back, they will be out of touch with people and policy, and may have become a POV warrior of some kind due to a Near death experience or being Born again.  
# There is a security problem in that dormant accounts are susceptible to password guessing, and if someone shows up after a year of inactivity we will have no sure way of knowing whether it is the original contributor or not.  This is not a problem with active accounts, because the original contributor will realize what is happening.
I observe that the time periods in this proposal are really too short.  
Interested Wikipedians occasionally have life changes due to school, work, or travel schedules and leave the project for a period of months.  Give people a year.  If they've been gone for that long, they are unlikely to return.
Whether anyone admits it or not, short time periods scare people into voting "no" because they become afraid that they themselves may be de-admined for one reason or another.  Keep the time periods long, and it becomes more a matter of each of us accepting that sooner or later we are going to move on from the project for various reasons, and that that's ok.
I don't think the "away" status is helpful.  It just adds extra work and an incentive to "game" the system.  Keep it simple, and revoke admin status after a year of inactivity.
There should be some room for judgement because a few contributors make an edit or two every few months, perhaps when they happen to read an article that they've found through google, but have in fact left the project.  In these cases people should still lose their sysop status.  Leave it vague so there is no incentive to game the system.
On a final note, I am not aware of any administrator who has returned to the project to make sizable contributions after being gone for more than a year.  It is not uncommon, though, to see people who leave but duck their heads in once in a while, e.g. User:Zoe, User:JHK, User:Mbecker.
uc 20:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on Nov. 3 proposals