Requests for Comment/Amending the Meta administrator revocation criteria

This aim of this proposal is rather short and sweet, but the rationale is two-fold. For one thing, in the context of Meta administrators, a very Meta Wiki-centric role if there ever was one, does community mean global activity, as it does for other global permissions, or does it mean activity on Meta Wiki? As well, six months is far too short.

It is, therefore, proposed that:

Section Revocation is amended as follows:


 * Replacing "[t]he user is inactive from the community for a period of 6 months" with "[t]he user has not made any log actions or edits, requiring the  toolkit, on Meta Wiki in three (3) months"

n.b. I am currently drafting a similar proposal related to certain global permissions, notably

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Dmehus (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  We don't need to pile up administrators who are barely hanging by a thread in terms of activity, we need administrators who use their hats.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Clear need with no ambiguity. I would also encourage a similar inactivity clause for all other assigned user rights.  dross  (t • c • g) 06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Weak support why not?  Anpang 📨  09:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  I'm not entirely convinced of the need for spring cleaning introduced here per se, but I agree the first point is very logical to pertain to meta wiki and given the prominence of Meta wiki, three months is not unreasonable either. I'm not compelled by the opposition. The admins who are carrying the weight have no trouble fitting the mandate and the ones who aren't should see no shame in resignation or falling out in accordance with the new policy. If someone intends to be absent for some time they should notify, and if they're gone for months at a time then at the very least they should notify, gracefully resign per CoC until they can participate, or take the hit from this clause and if there is no trouble, it's not a great inconvenience to request again. --Raidarr (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) A large number of admins only affect users who really care. I've seen some admit that he's retired, but he prefers to keep his rights. Per comments from other users above also. --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 10:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  While I fully support the first part of the proposal seeking to reduce the activity time period from 6 to 3 months I am not very convinced by the 'requiring admin toolkit' aspect of the proposal. This is because Meta is not a place where a lot of situations occur that would need an administrator and it would in my view be difficult for all administrators to use their toolkit regularly if we have 8 current administrators. I would have preferred an option where bureaucrats have discretion to decide  even if an administrator has not used their toolkit in 3 months but has actively participated in other affairs on Meta. If such discretion is permitted or implied in this proposal then I have no issue with it. --DeeM28 (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree, a clause that considers discretion and can accommodate slower periods where it's unreasonable to expect a great deal of, if much at all raw administrator activity would make sense. The cases that this RfC is specifically attempting to isolate also carry a minimum of activity in general, and if they did have more then they mark themselves as backup option which Miraheze should not dismiss lightly. --Raidarr (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, we also have a little movement of administrators in AN. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 15:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Reducing the inactivity length is a bad idea, and I might even support lengthening it. Since according to the proposer it's not possible to support defining activity without also making the timeframe much more strict, I oppose this proposal (I'm also not 100% convinced the new activity definition makes sense either). The inactivity policy is meant to prevent compromised accounts and removal of permissions from people who will not be returning. Not to extort some specific activity level. I've taken editing breaks of longer than 3 months, and that's fine. enwiki has an activity level of 1 year and they still drop like flies. The only possible benefit this could have is for people who game the inactivity level, but that wouldn't stop them, they can just have one log action every 3 months. Naleksuh (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It won't stop that, no, but it does it more difficult, as the action performed has to in some way be construed as relating to their Meta administrator duties. As well, Meta bureaucrats can use their discretion in terms of whether to apply the clause by taking into account Meta administrators who hold other permissions. Dmehus (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  like Naleksuh, my understanding was that the activity requirement existed for the security purpose of dealing with admins who had appeared to drop of the face of the earth and the possibility their accounts could be compromised. The new activity requirement does not serve that purpose and seems to push people into making unnecessary admin actions. Additionally, Miraheze has traditionally struggled to get new volunteers into high ranking roles and Meta Admins is a way to do that, so trying to reduce the number of Meta admins, especially in a way that seems so unnecessary seems to me to be a bad idea. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 11:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  While I don't have any particular problem with raising the activity requirement from 6 to 3 months, I don't really see a need for it. It would seem to make it harder for inactive admins to game the system, but that isn't really a problem here (feel free to demonstrate otherwise). — Arcversin (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Meta has only number of admins, that's why getting new admins is difficult (and to avoid users who edit by period). Perhaps this is the need. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 10:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  no strong opinion, but happy to see discussion (especially after seing how rigid are some Wikipedias) by more informed. --ZBlace (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * I don't like that this proposal seeks to change two things and to support you have to support both. Dmehus, please add multiple proposals both for changing what it means to be inactive and how long you have to be inactive for so I can !vote on each. Also, why was there no comments section until I added it in this edit? Naleksuh (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seek to do two things. It's intentionally defining what is construed as relevant activity narrowly, and shortening the timeframe from a long-ish six (6) months. As to the comments section, I just missed adding add, so thanks for adding that. Dmehus (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seek to do two things proceeds to explain how it seeks to do two things? I support the new definition of inactivity, but oppose the shortening of the timeframe. Naleksuh (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why oppose the shortened timeframe, though? Three months ought to be plenty of time for a Meta administrator to perform an administrator-related log action or edit. Dmehus (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So because you don't agree that people should oppose it, you won't even give them the option to? Please make them separate. Naleksuh (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The users I've talked to on IRC all strongly support reducing the inactivity timeframe to three (3) months, at least for Meta administrators. If the proposal passes, a separate proposal can be initiated following this RfC to lengthen the inactivity timeframe. Dmehus (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, following the RfC closed just a few hours ago, if considered necessary a new proposal can always be added. I would disagree with the proposed action above to create a 'separate proposal' and if you wish to pursue this path would rather you create it now. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're well within your rights to issue a counter proposal here with only the part you like, easier still by how small and relatively early the proposal is. I don't think Dmehus should necessarily be obliged to do it from the start. --Raidarr (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)