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.

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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this proposal, I see no harm in applying this proposal, and not applying this would be unfair for admins regularly editing protected pages such as COM:CDC (which is protected to prevent abuse from non-admins) and does deletion or any other admin actions rarely. Oh, if 5 logged actions is easy to circumvent (just make a page within your userspace and delete it 3 times and restore 2 times), circumventing this is easy too. Just make a page within your userspace, fully protect it (one admin action), edit it (don't use null edits) 3 times (three admin actions), and delete it (one admin action). 1+3+1=5. Face-wink.svg -- Poké95 03:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Rekindling this discussion after yet another de-adminship "threat" (to be sure, this is nothing personal against Odder, who is merely performing the role of the messenger). This whole process feels unwarranted, unappreciative, and verging on abusive. And to make matters worse, I got the message less than a week after having performed a series of edit protected requests (out of several more I did throughout the last few months, not to mention having a pretty much unbroken edit activity record). The only reason I don't resign out of protest is that this unpleasant action (punching in the "time card" and pledging to satisfy activity criteria that are clearly incomplete) is at least predictably spaced out in time, whereas the alternative --e.g. hitting walls when attempting to edit protected pages-- could happen more frequently and unpredictably.

Raising the issue here, despite the instructions in the policy page, doesn't seem to be an effective way to propose a change in the policy. Is there anything else I can do other than engage in an extended and time-consuming RFC process? This policy, albeit surely well-intentioned, feels completely backwards for a project like this. Have we forgotten that this movement is built on volunteer (i.e. self-motivated) work? --Waldir talk 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Waldir: It is really so hard to make 5 *logged* admin actions is 6 months? Seriously? BTW: I *love* the current system, and i think 5 admin actions are too less, it should be 100 admin actions in 6 months. Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not hard, but that's not the point I'm making: my objection is to having a system that forces people to perform a set of predetermined tasks, in a project whose success is entirely owed to being intrinsically motivated. This kind of controlling systems, which subtly (but fundamentally) robs people of autonomy, recognition and trust, has been thoroughly demonstrated in psychological research to erode intrinsic motivation even below the initial baseline that led the persons to engage with projects in the first place.
The main issue is not that it is unpleasant for those subject to the control system (those who happen not to conform to the policy's expectations of "valuable" work, that is), but that the actual effects are contrary to the very goals of the project: we end up demotivating and/or losing people who are actually doing valuable work in the project, and could be helpful should they need to use the administrative tools, and instead we're concentrating that work they could have done themselves, into a smaller set of people tasked with performing these duties in a regular basis.
If only we had a way to measure real usage of administrative tools (including editing of protected pages, accessing deleted content to engage with users who contest the deletions, etc.) then I could agree that once a person spends a long period of time not using those tools, it wouldn't make much of a difference to remove their access to them; but even though we all agree we don't have the means to accurately measure the usage of such tools, we choose to impose artificial constraints on volunteer contributors, rather than accept the slight inconvenience of a longer list of administrators? I just don't see how the latter makes more sense than the former. --Waldir talk 12:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Waldir:, this all is right. Now please open COM:DR and close 5 requests. Choose any 5, some of them are very simple. This lasts less than 10 minutes. Or if you don't like it, open Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and delete 5 copyright violations. This lasts less than minute. I'm sure you wrote these messages more than 10 minutes. Taivo (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with you 100% that those are easy tasks to perform -- I'm not contesting that. But implicit in this requirement to perform those tasks is the notion that the work I already do willingly for the project --including the work done using administrative access, such as editing protected pages in response to edit requests, or as part of some other task-- doesn't count; instead I must do something else, that is more convenient to measure. Regardless of how hard it is to comply, do you honestly feel it is right choice to shift the burden to the contributors rather than the verification process? --Waldir talk 09:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You were right is the burden was any. It isn't. --Krd 10:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Procedure when an admin is going to be away for a period[edit]

A potential change to the policy is being discussed at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Voluntary suspension of adminship. Please contribute there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem much interest in discussing our policy of allowing admins to be away for a period, and I'm going to be bold and make the suggested change: "away for a period" --> "away for a period of not more than 12 months". Nobody has objected to the suggestion and I think it should not be contentious. Of course it can still be discussed if anyone feels the need to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal on de-adminship for cause[edit]

A proposal has been made to amend this policy. See Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Proposal on de-adminship for cause. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)