Wikispecies talk:Administrators/Archive 2

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Admins activity summary

This is a list of admins' (in)activity. Legend:

  • Only those who made their most recent edit and/or admin action more than 100 days ago are listed
  • The numbers shown states the number of days passed from last edit (E) and admin action (A)
  • Admins that are also bureaucrats are noted (B)
  • Only Wikispecies' edits are counted, not edits in MediaWiki, Meta, Wikimedia Commons, etc

Ping to all admins (except bots): @Accassidy: @Andyboorman: @Ark: @Benedikt: @Circeus: @Dan Koehl: @EncycloPetey: @EVula: @Faendalimas: @Geni: @Keith Edkins: @Koavf: @Mariusm: @Maxim: @MKOliver: @MPF: @Murma174: @Neferkheperre: @OhanaUnited: @Open2universe: @PeterR: @Pigsonthewing: @Tommy Kronkvist: @Totipotent: @Ucucha: @Uleli: @UtherSRG: @Wikiklaas:

Table showing admin's recent activities. Data source: February 12, 2016.

User E A B
Ark 72 733
Benedikt 675 3511
EncycloPetey 112 840
EVula 801 1163
Geni 298 2178
Keith Edkins 121 455
Maxim 526 526
Open2universe    428 997
Totipotent 656 656
Ucucha 757 1509
UtherSRG 676 2130
Wikiklaas 105 105

The list includes 12 administrators, out of a total of 30 (including 2 bots). On top of that 7 of them are bureaucrats, out of a total of 11. Perhaps we should try to ameliorate the situation with inactive administrators? Any thoughts or ideas on how this should be done? Please note that I am in no sort of way trying to start a flamewar here, and I certainly hold no grudge against any user – (in)active or not! – but simply feel that the issue should be resolved in the best possible way. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: If you feel like someone's inactivity is a problem, try writing a note on that person's talk for a start. Do you think that anyone should be deactivated? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist and Koavf: I guess the first and important question, is leaving the situation unchanged causing real harm. We can tag them as inactive, hopefully then people will message an active admin; beurocrat as needed. Apart from contacting them, is the downside of leaving them as currently flagged worse than the downsides of removing their admin flag. I say this because, if removing the flag risks making them permanently disapear maybe there is a better way. Or maybe it should be resolved. I am not sure of the pros and cons and the balance of this issue. Faendalimas talk 20:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to continue as an admin; I guess the way I work on WS (mainly updating bird and plant pages) doesn't bring me into much contact with maajor admin tasks like dealing with vandalism so I miss seeing them, but I do need admin abilities for 'lesser admin tasks' like page moves over existing pages. But if anyone has an admin task that needs doing, drop me a note on my talk page. - MPF (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: Yes, perhaps. As far as I know there is nothing wrong with any of the work done by any of the present admins, but some of them are indeed very inactive. For instance it's close to 2 years since Benedikt made any edit at all, and he hasn't performed an admin-related action for more than 9.5 years (since July 3, 2006, to be exact). He's of course welcome back anytime: as I said I do not bear a grudge against anyone. Also, removing his (or any other's) status as a bureaucrat can't be done be any of the admins or bureaucrats here at Wikispecies: we need a Meta-Wiki steward for tasks like that.
@Faendalimas: No, I can't see that leaving the situation unchanged would cause any harm as such. However it might send the wrong signals to the community. Right now we have 30 (human) admins and 11 bureaucrats, which is a good number in comparison to the total bulk of users. However, I bet that most of our users aren't aware that 40% of the admins and 60% of the bureaucrats haven't acted as sysops for anything between 3 months and 9.5 years...
@MPF: There's a reason your name is not mentioned in the table... :-) It shows nothing but user statistics, and only admins who made their most recent edit and/or admin action for more than 100 days ago are listed. You're a frequent editor. As for your admin actions they can't be seen in the logs every week – but they're not too far apart, and in my opinion always the result of careful and thorough consideration. No one expects us admins to take on our role as if it were a full-time job, but I feel we should perhaps have some sort of policy stating how long it is okay to be absent. (For instance, Danish Wikipedia have decided upon a 180 day limit before the admin gets an inactivity warning, and if not "reactivated" within 30 days the admin flag is removed.)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Yes I guess there should be an upper limit in the absence of a us knowing a reason. Sometimes people need a break, for whatever reason. However, in the absence of informing us, 9 years is a bit steep. I guess the Danish resolution for this seems reasonable and has the advantage of precedent. So I could agree with a proposal to follow suit with that, in the absence of us knowing someone is taking a leave of absence. Cheers Faendalimas talk 03:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought we went down this path not too long ago. A number of admins and both bot accounts had their admin rights removed over inactivity since that post. A few more will lose their admin rights if they don't edit this year. I don't see any needs to change the mechanism when it's functioning as it intends to be. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, and in many ways I agree. However the information given at Meta seems inconsistent. Presently Wikispecies:Administrators reads "as with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive Administrators may have their access removed." The referred Meta administrator policy basically says that users who have made fewer than ten edits in the last six months immediately before a review date (April 1 and October 1) are desysopped without notice.
Then again we have the Meta Admin activity review policy, which establishes that "the maximum time period of inactivity without community review for holders of advanced administrative rights should be two years." So either less than ten edits in six months, or zero edits in two years. This doesn't seem right. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
Clearly the Meta advice is not hard and fast, but perhaps that is deliberate to allow for some local leaway? IMO we ought to go with the WS precedent set in April 2014 and in due course post a message on the pump in the same vein as was used then. However, if Admins think there is a problem or that we need to change this procedure then we will need to eventually go with a discussion on the pump before making changes on WS, surely? As it stands, ignoring admin activity, only two Admins fall foul of the basic "two year" edit inactivity rule at the moment namely @EVula: and @Ucucha:, but another three @Benedikt:, @Totipotent: and @UtherSRG: will drop below the mark in 54/74 days. The suggestion of writing a note on their talk pages would seem to be appropriate at this stage. Andyboorman (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Then should we present a proposal to the community on changing it to the "Admin activity review" policy, because right now this process is broken. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Two years ago, at IMPORTANT: Admin activity review in the Village pump archive nr 26 there was discussions reg inactive admins and crats. During that time there was a support to keep some of those inactive users as admins, simply as a way of showing honor etc. During that period I emailed a couple of inactive old timers, who the next day did one or two edits, and that was all. By this they kept their admin rights, but havnt used them since.
I personally don't favor this anymore, since the adminship dhouldn't be an honor thing, its just a function, and I Believe should only be kept by users who are still active within the project. Im not at all against honoring users, but then I suggest this is performed in other ways, rather than being listed in as admin, although totally inactive since years. Weather we should create our own WS routines is another question, an initial step was taken over a year ago, see Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_admin_activity_review which did not really got the attention or interest from the community. Until we have adapted a local Local admin activity review, we should follow the global routines, and if we are not satisfied with them, then we should create our own. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Please block User: for spam. Thanks --Samuele2002 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for one day. Thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

After conversion Wikispecies:Administrators to translatable mode, this page has become unusable for requests (and generally for discussions). Therefore, new requests are posted here.

Kaganer (talkcontribsblockall projects)

For improving translatable help pages and categories. Requested "administrator" and "translation administrator" rights (both flags at once). As example, for improving translation markup in Wikispecies:Localization etc. I have admin rights on Meta-wiki and (mainly for these same goals), and also translation admin rights in Wikidata, Commons, Meta-wiki and --Kaganer (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that requests for admin rights should be posted in the Requests for adminship subsection on the "Wikispecies:Administrators" page. There you will find an example of the proposed syntax for the RFA template which is used for the request. As you can see in the example the entire request is only a single line of code, starting with {{subst:RFA| followed by your user name, reason for the request, and finally ending with ~~~~}}. Nothing more. With the correct syntax the template automatically adds the main headline with links to your user page, your talk page, list of contributions, etc. The template will also automatically add all of the headings and subsections needed for the voting process (such as "Support", "Oppose" etc). There is no need to add them manually, as you did here.
Voting about translation admin rights will never be done on the admin's page: that page is only for "ordinary" admin rights. However, you can use the same template and syntax for translation admin rights requests, but then please post it at Requests for translation adminship instead.
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
Tommy Kronkvist, please note that Wikispecies:Administrators currently marked for translation, as other translatable help pages. Using that page for as "request page" is bad way because frequent changes that do not require translation, still worry the translation administrators and translators who receive unnecessary notifications. Ok, I moved my request, but please think about changing the procedure. --Kaganer (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Well known two possible way for this cause:
  1. Extracting request page into transcluded subpage
  2. Extracting request page into fully separate page (as in Meta-wiki) - with trancluding translatable header based on user interface language
In my opinion, first way will be more compatible with the terms of the Wikispecies.--Kaganer (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Kaganer: Yes I have known this for quite some time, but haven't really had time to deal with it – after all, admin right requests are few and far between, and other Wikispecies issues have been more important. I agree that your first suggestion would be the most suitable for our needs, and we will have to look into this in due time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I fixed the instructions for you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC).