Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 180 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Proposed change to the minimum activity requirement[edit]

Currently, the minimum activity required for an admin (including bureaucrats, checkusers and oversighters) is 5 "admin actions" over six months, i.e. an average of less than one action a month, which is an extremely low requirement. Following from the section above, I propose that the minimum requirement should be increased to 60 "admin actions" over six months, to make it an average of 10 actions per month. This isn't particularly challenging because it is quite possible to perform 60 actions in a day. Even if this only results in less active admins having to do a little bit more, I think this would result in a net positive for the project. With the current requirement, some less active admins log in just before the review period and carry out 5 actions in order to avoid being classed as inactive. Whilst it is good to see a surge of activity, I propose that the requirement should be expanded so that at least 30 of the minimum 60 actions should have been carried out in the first three months of the six month period, to spread out the surge. If these changes are adopted, I propose that they should become effective from the start of the next six month review period i.e. from September 2015. Green Giant (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please can you spell out what "net positive" you expect? And why your particular solution is the best way of achieving these positives? I fear you have jumped straight into a !vote situation without time to mature your proposal in discussion. [It also might help to link previous discussions, which I know were very vigorous, but I can't find at the moment.] --99of9 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The net positive would be that those users with fewer admin actions, who log 5 actions just to keep above the minimum, might be prompted to log an extra 55 and for example help ease the strain at Deletion Requests. At any given time, there may be as many as 5,000 files needing attention but not enough admins to attend to them. I noted that at the last activity review, there was a little surge with DR's being closed by admins who hadn't been very active for a few months. At this particular point, we've lost Fastily and INC, and Jim is away until August, so the DR backlog is steadily growing (just under 6,000 files at the moment). A couple of weeks ago I recall there were about 10,000 files in the Deletion Requests, which fell to 4,000 after I mass deleted 6,000 in one DR. In the last week I've been busy on other wikis, looking at "Copy to Commons" categories, and haven't done many closures but it seemed to me that the DR backlog is growing. It isn't just DR's but the whole admin backlog, which at the time of the review seemed to shrink a bit more than usual. I appreciate that many admins do other things but I would have thought that one of the major reasons for being an admin is to help with the backlog. As for the format, you can't please all of the nerds all of the time. If there wasn't a vote subsection, someone else would have questioned why there wasn't such a subsection. Previous discussions have been difficult to find but I have based this proposal on some recent and not-so-recent comments e.g. the last part of the section above, a short section on my talk page, a comment you made at the bureaucrat noticeboard a couple of months ago, a few comments here and there at the Village Pump (which are a pain to find). Mostly it was because I felt that a discussion needed to be started, even if it is unlikely to be adopted in its current form. From the comments below I think most people who oppose are not opposed to the general idea of encouraging more admin activity. There are other ways to improve deletion requests in particular (which I will propose later) but this seemed a good place to begin. Green Giant (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Such a change is a long overdue. Thanks a lot for making this proposal. Yann (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Goes without saying I support this. I do think it should be different for Bureaucrats though. There isn't as much for them to do so naturally they should have more time. Reguyla (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A more reasonable level, not for an active admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like everything except the 30 in the first three months part. Hedwig in Washington is inactive for months every now and than because he is busy IRL but we don't want to miss him as an admin do we? Natuur12 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle, though Natuur12 above makes a good point. -- Tuválkin 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't necessarily oppose expanded activity requirements, but "all edits," not just "admin actions," should be the measurement. As long as an admin is (minimally) active on the Commons in general, there is no good reason whatsoever to remove the sysop flag. "Admin actions" is a poor indicator; if I were to close 100 DRs in six months (which is above average participation in DR closures) with a 50/50 keep/delete ratio, I would fall below the proposed threshold. If we're going to change the policy, change it properly. Эlcobbola talk 00:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as proposed. I don't think the idea a bad one per se, but we need to remember that we are all volunteers and not paid. We don't have a upper limit of admins we can have on Commons, so there's no need to fire them if they active below average. The only problem I see is this: Newbie wants assistance from admin in her/his language, looks in the admin/language list and asks the first one on the list who's not active much. No reaction - newbie frustated - potentially a good user lost. 60 edits / 6 months and all edits counted seems the better way to go. My two cents. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am quite happy with present rules. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If there is anything to change, remove the notification / 30 days grace time. --Krd 08:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per Natuur12. Indeed, there needs to be a change, but natuur12 makes sense. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - there is a need for understanding absences and not using those as an issue against an editor/admin - such as Natuur's comment about Hedwig... unexplained absence or inactivity could be a condition imho, but not punitively... I agree with others about activity in general as an indicator of presence, rather than any specific number of type of actions. JarrahTree (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- aka 12:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alan (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Generally agree that current threshold is too low but disagree with some proposed details. As others, I am not warming up to the three-month split, as it halves the length of the evaluation period in all but name. Proposed admin action levels are also a bit high. Not for someone who contributes regularly a and regularly performs admin tasks, but certainly for someone whose interest shifts from time to time. My main activity is category work, not something that generates much admin specific actions usually. My main reason for rfa was to make me self-sufficient in categorising, I.e. not add to the backlogs thanks to the ability to delete useless/empty/misnamed cats and such on my own. IMO adminships like mine should remain a real possibility for trusted users, and potential admins of my type should not be pushed off with overly steep admin action requirements. New admins should not be pressured to close RFDs they don't feel confident about just to fill a quota, just to be allowed to keep accumulating admin experience. Adminship costs nothing, and it's a thankless job we do for free. As long as a user remains trustworthy to the community, it should be easy for them to remain admins. Admins with little admin specific a actions to their name are not a burden. Backlog reduction has options other than tightening admins' leashes. I'm afk right now but will propose my ideas when I return in August-possibly earlier. --Pitke (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 60 admin action is a bit outrageous, being active should suffice e.g. 100 edits over six month Mardetanha talk 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I prefer suggestions that encourage admins to do admin work instead of suggesting to higher the minimum activity requirement. For example to give official barnstar for every X admin edits. And l

ets all remember, we can not count the whole real admin activities. -- Geagea (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my comment below. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Commons needs more admins, not less. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't want more fastily's like admin. --PierreSelim (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have no idea how many "admin actions" I take, and while I suspect that I meet the threshold, if I don't then I certainly have no interest in doing certain specific admin-only tasks just to meet a threshold. I probably answer more help desk questions than anyone else. I'm sure there are many other users in a similar position, doing a lot of good work only a little of which requires these particular tools. Do you really want to take away a perfectly good admin's privileges just because most of the work they do here doesn't require admin tools? I certainly don't. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jmabel: As far as I understand it, a more or less dead admin account needs or should have X edits in Y time or whatever. That's what I get out of it, throwing active admins out on the street through a closed window doesn't make sense at all. Unless you're selling windows that is. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Hedwig in Washington:: The criterion about "admin actions" could take away the account of someone who is quite active taking photos and uploading them, categorizing content, answering questions, etc. They just happen to be doing work that could technically be done by a non-admin. Indeed, if they were not currently an admin, they'd be a good candidate to be an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it is good to encourage administrators to be more active, I think this proposal may do more harm than good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Эlcobbola --Oursana (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as some of us have lives outside of commons. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Re Эlcobbola talk's proposal above, I'm against it. Such a change, to measure editor actions rather than admin actions, would presumably require rather more of them. If an editor has time to make those many more actions, why would they not have time to do some admin tasks too? If they have no intention of using the admin features at all, then why have them? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It depends what you are hoping to achieve. Are you trying to weed out "dormant accounts" for computer security as you discussed in the section above? If so, then I wonder whether you consider mine to be a dormant account? I have made 31 admin actions in the last six months. In the same time I have made thousands of edits, and run a bot making about a hundred thousand. "Why would [I] not have time to do some admin tasks too?" you ask... well maybe I could, but maybe I just do what I feel is useful, necessary, and interesting at each point in time. Does that make me a dormant computer security risk? --99of9 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The point about dormancy for security reasons is about accounts that aren't being watched. So that if you're logging into it regularly, let alone editing, that removes the problem. The point above is also about cases where imminent dormancy can reasonably be predicted, before it happens, which is a different situation again.
This point is about accounts that may be active as editors (or may not be active at all), but aren't using their admin privileges. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this proposal will sole the issue. If we raise the threshold, people will try again to pass that. What we need is change of attitude. It is concerning if people have no more interest in this project still prefer to keep their admin flag. (This may an example. Otherwise I may miss something.) People should either resign or the community ask them to resign. Jee 02:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jee, my hope is that having a higher threshold might spur some admins to do more actions and others to review whether they need the admin tools. If this is all that happens as a result of this proposal, then I'll be happy with that. Green Giant (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
For me, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship looks rather humorous. We can deflag an admin or crat only if he is below activity threshold or he abuse his power. We can't touch them even if 99.99% of the community don't want them? It is funny they can access highly important crat list, deleted contents, etc. by maintaining a few edits per year. Jee 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
One reason to want to keep the admin hat is because of the increased status it gives in content-related arguments. "We should do this", 'No, we should do that, and I'm an admin so I'm right', "But that's a crazy thing to do!", 'I'm an admin. If you still do this, I will block you'. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Per the above comments about absences, there is provision for this on the project page i.e. "if an admin places a message on the administrators' noticeboard stating that they will be away for a period and giving an intended return date, then no action should be taken over inactivity until two months after that date." That's not an unreasonable thing to ask someone to do. Green Giant (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I had something to do with that phrasing... (& indeed the whole policy). I've always found it bizarre that folk get adminship cos they are active and the community respects that and then they get less and less and less active and there is virtually nothing that can be done about it.
More generally - it was hell to get it through last time and I doubt it will be that different now. Strangely (...) inactive folk suddenly take an interest in a project when their precious trophies - sorry, rights - are under threat.
And no matter how carefully worded there will be folk who ensure that the just do the minimum require which I find quite insulting to the community that trusted them in the first place. Plus ca change etc --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer that every admin should be willing to step down if the community think so. I will maintain a recall page if I ever become an admin and will step down if at least 10 people having license review/admin right ask me to step down. Jee 12:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Green Giant: I oppose this primarily because your proposal, while appearing simple, is too complex. You essentially aim to change both the time period which we measure activity, and the required actions, but have framed it in a way where only the actions are changed. By requiring a set amount of edits in six months, but stipulating that half need to be in the first three months, you are essentially advocating a move to desysoping after three months. This is fine, however, it leaves the ludicrous situation where an admin could be inactive for 95 days, then make 1000 admin actions in the next 90 odd days, but still - through the technicalities introduced by your convoluted proposal - have their admin bit removed. How would this be a benefit to Commons? Sure, it could be argued that we wouldn't desysop said admin, but in that case the 30 actions in the first three months is completely meaningless and should not be part of the proposal. And I haven't even gotten into the problems about warning admins that they are falling below the 30 edits in the first three months. As this proposal seems to be heading towards no consensus (in part because of the oddities I am describing) I suggest you split it into two separate sequential proposals. The first to determine in what time frame an admins actions be measured, six months or three; and a second proposal which determines how many actions or edits admins will be required to make. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If edits to pages in the MediaWiki namespace or to protected pages aren't counted, I will likely loose the admin bit sooner or later. This is nothing I am afraid of, though. -- Rillke(q?) 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

Like all the best storybook villains, when Plan A is taking a nosedive, it is good to have a Plan B. My alternative proposal is that we should consider adopting a modified version of the Meta removal criteria. Rather than the current five admin actions over six months, perhaps a minimum of:

  1. ten actions over six months, or
  2. ten actions or ten edits over six months, or
  3. ten actions and ten edits over six months, or
  4. any combination that adds up to twenty actions/edits overall e.g. from twenty actions and zero edits, through to zero actions and twenty edits; or
  5. any combination that adds up to twenty actions/edits overall with a minimum of ten actions, or
  6. any combination that adds up to twenty actions/edits overall with a minimum of ten edits
  7. any other combination that someone else suggests

For anyone who wishes to review the origins of the policy, the earliest discussions about inactivity appear to be from the admin noticeboard archive, which then continued into the archives of this talk page. Let me also emphasise that my goal is not to remove inactive admins but to encourage a little bit more usage of the tools by those entrusted with them, so any and all ideas are welcome. Green Giant (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies to Steiny and Herby, who've already indicated their support before I've added three other possibilities. Green Giant (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

#3: ten actions and ten edits over six months[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this shouldn't be to hard. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll happily support this however I'll happily put money on the fact that some of our (to me) inactive admins will see this as highly onerous. Let's face it the average working commons admin will do this in about 5 minutes (and thank goodness we have some like that). --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, there is a very low requirement. Yann (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Create ten empty pages in own userspace and delete them afterwards. ;) --Krd 13:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
While I am sure (??) that this is humour it is just as likely that some creative and inactive admin will think this a good idea... --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The policy is good to go, but won't solve any problem. --Krd 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd also support a higher bar, of say 50 actions or 100 constructive edits, but won't open a new option. I see no reason to remove the bit from active users, even if they aren't really using the admin rights (it's the community trust that of an admin that counts, not really how much they use the rights in my mind), but I fail to see why users who don't make a meaningful constructive contribution to Commons need the admin bit. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral the difference to the current policy seems so insignificant to me that I think it is hardly worth a !vote (and yet I'm commenting :-). What is the problem we are trying to solve with this? Squeezing 4 more admin actions out of a mostly inactive admin? What do we gain by removing the bit? What is the point of an inactivity de-admin policy anyways? Why not just ask people if they want to hang on to their bit and remove it if they answer no or don't answer within n months (use a maintenance cat to track this)? --Dschwen (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm with Dschwen on this one. Maintaining a "leader board" of active edits doesn't have any bearing on the validity or benefit of those edits. I think it would be better to reach out to inactives one-on-one and see if we can reinspire some of them. Maybe a nice cup of tea to put on their pages with a "long time no see" message? Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fine with me Mardetanha talk 16:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Natuur12 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me. BUT both Dschwen and Ellin Beltz have good points. Still, a reasonable rule to de-sysop should be established. We can't just have rules to make peeps admin and not how/when/why to remove the bit. It's a good start and we have a procedure we can/have to follow. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Dschwen and Ellin Beltz above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'd support at least this much and would (as above) support more. But this is a move in the right direction and so I wouldn't oppose it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but very weak, I think the number its being raised to is insignificant and wont necessarily have the desired impact on backlogs, though this also needs to be balanced against the impact of causing people to perform actions when they may not be fully upto date with any shifts in policy. Maybe its time to rethink the why behind setting limits which I understood was to stop dormant accounts holding the tools, consider how else we can improve the processing of backlogs. Gnangarra 07:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This limit is indeed not very high, however I'm more with Dschwen and Ellin Beltz on that topic. Reinspiring people seems more important than removing tools to me. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I consider this to be the minimum raise able to get consent and falling below this Minimum should result in auto de-admin. I'd like to have 30-50 admin actions (excluding own userspace and those sneaky Open Proxy IP blocks) for this but no automatic de-admin if one fails to comply and still above the proposed 10+10 Minimum which should result in a de-admin procedure/vote (you may call it a re-election). --Denniss (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't see the value to this change, it's such small difference with the current policy. So per per Dschwen, Ellin Beltz and Walter Siegmund --PierreSelim (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rschen7754 19:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's strict enough. We are volunteers and most of us have a life without Commons. Admins who fail the small hurdle should be ping/emailed. Maybe we can motivate a few to continue. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would support any more conciliatory approach, pinging, where effort is made to communicate with the inactive or low action individuals to clarify whether real life has got in the way or not JarrahTree (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this needs to be a policy[edit]

I am unsure if this is needed. We can deal with such problems as needed. If someone makes only 5 or 10 actions in 6 months consistently for years, should they keep their access? I think a quantity isn't that important. Addressing the overall problem of removing access from those who aren't using it is a better angle. Neither current policy nor the proposal addresses this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

different approach[edit]

Although the above could be interpreted as consensus (9 support, 1 oppose, 6 neutral), from the amount of votes and matter of comments I'd rather conclude that the proposal, even being acceptable, is not the desirable solution to the problem.

So, ignoring all previous points I like to bring up another aspect:

Why has a notice to be put on the admins talk page to remind him that he is an admin and is perhaps expected to do some admin work?
Why can the inactive admin, by doing a single signature, get away for free for another six months?

I certainly argued against it at the time and I fully agree with you. I've always said that the tools are for people who are in some senses active. If I recall correctly the inactive ones even get an email... I guess a posting on their page the first time is ok but after that I'm not at all sure. --Herby talk thyme 10:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request comments on the following proposal:

As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive Commons administrators (including those holding bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter privileges) will have their rights removed. An "inactive admin" is one who has made no admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months or has made fewer than 510 admin actions on Commons in the past 612 months. An "admin action" for this purpose is an action requiring use of the admin tools and which is logged as such according to the adminstats tool. Inactive admins per above definition can get their rights removed.

However if an admin places a message on the administrators' noticeboard stating that they will be away for a reasonable period and giving an intended return date, then no action should be taken over inactivity until two months after that date.

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

  1. A notice 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. If the admin has indicated by means of a Babel box that he/she cannot understand English, the message and email should be in a language the admin does understand.
  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.

This change likely affects both those who don't use the tools at all and those who use them occasionally only on own ends, i.e. those who perhaps not really care about admin work for the project, while still keeping requirements rather low for semiactive admins. Please comment. Thank you. --Krd 09:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I would support this. My only change would be that not all admin activity is recorded by the tool I think. So editing protected pages, media wiki type edits are not recorded? There are folk who work in those areas and are very valuable. --Herby talk thyme 10:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This is still in because it's the status-quo and wasn't touched in previous proposals either. I'd also be fine with changing this to "any action that requires admin rights", but perhaps this should be discussed separately. --Krd 11:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Commons is notoriously poor at policy making. For me this issue would need solving at the same time as the overall inactivity policy. --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits to protected pages should be considered administrative actions[edit]

It's the second time (IIRC) I've been notified of an impending de-adminship since this policy was set in place, while I've been a consistently active contributor to the project throughout the 10 years I've been an editor here. Not only I feel slightly insulted by having to provide a proof of work to a project where I'm volunteering my time, but I believe it makes no sense to disregard one of the legitimate uses of the administrative privileges (i.e. editing protected pages) as a valid criterion for such proof of work.

I thus propose that edits to protected pages should be counted as valid administrative actions in the context of this policy. --Waldir talk 11:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

ps - the previous thread (above) is relevant as well -- I may be missing other actions requiring admin status that aren't considered at the moment by the policy, and would absolutely add all of them to my proposal. Pinging @Herbythyme:. --Waldir talk 11:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Waldir, how many (rough guess sufficient) protected pages edits did you perform in 2015? --Krd 11:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't hard to make 5 logged actions in 6 months. I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose protected pages should be counted as valid administrative actions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
While I agree it is not hard to make 5 admin actions (in 5 minutes!) it is mad to not take into account editing protected pages. Admins are the only people who can do that so of course it is an admin action. --Herby talk thyme 15:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Herby: Not answering your main point, it should also be noted that users with the editinterface user right (such as global interface editors or local ones on a few different projects) also have that ability. odder (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Krd, I really can't tell, since most of my edits are categorization or file description edits, and I tend to use HotCat and Cat-a-lot for the former when I can -- essentially, the protection status of the pages rarely, if ever, gets exposed to me. The best guess I could make is multiplying the total of edits I made last year by Common's overall proportion of protected pages to unprotected pages, but I can't see how such a guess could be useful. --Waldir talk 07:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)