Wikispecies:Requests for Comment

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Requests for Comment. This space is for any conversations that might require the opinions of the community to decide policy or the application of policy. Start a new conversation. For general conversation, see Wikispecies:Village Pump.

Post a comment

If you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the message body.


Removal of User Rights Policy and Considerations[edit]

The following proposal laid out by Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Our current list of 30 admins and 10 bureaucrats includes many who have been innactive for extended periods. It is not fair to the community and in particular to new users who may need help to not receive replies for requested help due to innactivity. It is also unproffessional. Therefore after numerous discussions on this in the past (2015-2016; Early 2015; 2014) we are resolved to do something about it. This issue has also been formed into policy and a review process on Meta which can be read here. In this The review process is undertaken by the Stewards with the exception of those Wiki projects with an Abitration Committee such as EN Wikipedia (Here) or who have developed local policy to deal with this issue and an example of this is the Wikimedia Commons whose policy is here. One difference between Wikispecies and the Commons is that we can remove admin privelages from Administrators, though we cannot do it for Bureaucrats. So we need to do things a little differently but the spirit of the proposal would be the same. The removal of rights can only be done by Stewards so upon reviewing the activity of an admin or bureaucrat we must ask the Stewards to change the user groups of the user.

In theory this policy applies to all higher user rights, Administrator, Bureaucrat and CheckUser being those present on this Wiki. However, CheckUser's are subject to review by the Stewards and other CheckUsers so we will leave them to that scrutiny. Which is much higher than the others.

Policy Proposal[edit]


The implementation of this part of the policy is dealt with at subpage of wikispecies/administrators to be constructed.

As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive Wikispecies administrators (including those holding bureaucrat privileges) will have their rights removed. An "inactive admin" is one who has made fewer than 5 edits and 5 admin actions on Wikispecies in the past 12 months. An "admin action" for this purpose is an action requiring use of the admin tools and which is logged as such according to Logs.

However if an admin places a message on the administrators' noticeboard stating that they will be away for a period of not more than 12 months and giving an intended return date, then no action should be taken over inactivity until two months after that date.

Inactivity: De-adminship process as a result of inactivity[edit]

  1. A notice (Commons example) must be placed on the inactive admin's talk page linking to this policy and explaining that admin rights may be lost. An email should also be sent.
  2. If there is no response from the admin requesting retention of rights as required by the notice within 30 days, the rights will be removed.
  3. If the admin responds to the notice as required but then fails to make five admin actions within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice, the rights will be removed without further notice.

Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process.

Removal of rights[edit]

Where an admin loses rights under this policy, that should be effected by means of a local Bureaucrat removing the rights, for or a Bureaucrat looses rights a request to the a stewards at Meta will be made by a local Bureaucrat for the removal of advanced rights. (local bureaucrats do not have the power, themselves, to remove another user's admin or bureaucrat rights). The ex-admin or bureaucrat should be notified by a talk page message.


  • Support
  1. Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. - Andyboorman (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Justin (koavf)TCM 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. - Dan Koehl (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. - Neferkheperre (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose

  • Neutral

  • Discussion

The adminstats page is returning 0s for everyone. Wouldn't it be faster to check via Logs instead? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever means of obtaining an overview of the activity should be fine. Commons uses the Administats tool apparently, so I assumed it would work. Possibly it cannot grab the data from this wiki. I will switch for the logs page. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin Review Part 2[edit]

This proposal was added by Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As a part of the above proposal it is also necessary to deal with currently innactive admins and bureaucrats. The two will have to be dealt with separately, we can only remove admin rights locally. Removal of admin or bureaucrat rights must go to the Stewards as outlined above in the policy proposal.

I am listing those that I feel have been inactive for too long. Please feel free to add or argue against any of these names and we shall make a decision on removal of advanced user rights as appropriate. My initial list I have been generous, some of those I did not include have two or three edits this year, after not editing for over two. But they did have 2017 edits so I did not include them. Others may wish to see it differently. I am very well aware of who some of these editors are and their role in the history of Wikispecies. But they can be honored for that without keeping the admin flag.




I would like to add User:UtherSRG, who is bureaucrat and admin, but inactive, with 3 edits 2017 (voting on the CU elections) 1 edit from 2014, but in reality stopped editing in April 2010, after he reverted on edit from Stho002 on his userpage. Since his votes was questioned as valid only some days ago, because of his absence from WS, this gives an indication on whether he should remain admin on WS.Dan Koehl (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I nearly did for the exact same reasons. Will add him in for now. This will be a dynamic list till we get consensus. Once we have agreed I will take what names we have to the Stewards. Get the policy worked out at the same time for the future. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Same for Maxim. He only commented once in November 2016 on inactive bureaucrats but effectively stopped editing in 2014. In my view, both UtherSRG and Maxim should have been considered as inactive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes Maxim is there. Please note as all Bureaucrats are also admins I am not listing them twice here, so if a crat is listed please assume they are on the admin list too. I will request both sets of rights removed from inactive crats once we have some consensus. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)