Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#IAdmin request (Evad37)

{{rfplinks|0xDeadbeef}}

Hi all, per User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Linking GitHub to MediaWiki, linking from Git to Wikipedia is a common pain point, so I've started a BRFA that would make it easier. This bot requires interface admin permissions, so I am required to have interface admin permissions too.

I have a decent amount of knowledge about JS/CSS, but I'll be very careful when it comes to editing site-wide JS/CSS or gadgets with a lot of users. I don't expect to edit very high risk pages much, and should I do it I will be very very careful. Thank you for your consideration. beef [talk] 05:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Trusted user. Even if the bot doesn't get consensus, I have no problems with deadbeef being an interface administrator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Easily a trustworthy user. I echo what Novem said above, I fully trust Deadbeef with intadmin, and have no concerns about their clearly demonstrated technical abilities. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Duh. Qualified doesn't even begin to describe it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} — xaosflux ^Talk 11:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Gimmetrow}}

I had thought I had the time to be more active, but it didn't happen, and I won't have time in the near future. Gimmetrow 17:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: Thank you for finally acknowledging this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Good timing :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: Gimmetrow, despite filing Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow: I wish you the best, and thank you the amount of work you have put in over the last 20 years. As Floq said on your talk page, your work is not diminished just because it was bunched up in the first 10 years of your editing career. Best regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I am not questioning the intent of this message but the last part reads like a jab, particularly because you were the one who accused them in the first place. Again, not questioning your intention, just how it reads to me, sorry. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It absolutely was not intended to be a jab, though on rereading I can see how it seems that way. Apologies, Gimmetrow; I've handled this whole matter quite poorly. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• We appear to be in an era where the unwritten standards for admin activity are higher than the written standards. This is unhealthy. If people don't think that the minimum expectations for high enough, then it is better to seek consensus to raise the standards rather than pick off admins who barely meet the standards. I've had a couple of speeding fines in recent years, admittedly on both occasions I was doing a few miles an hour above the published speed limit. If those cameras had been set to fine me for doing 29 MPH in a 30 MPH I'd have been rightly pissed, especially if that was done by people who thought it easier to recalibrate the speed camera rather than get the rules changed to lower the advertised speed limit. ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• : I concur, I don't necessarily think that either of the admins should have remained admins but the correct response is to update existing rules instead of picking off people to de-admin one by one. The closest comparison is the recall process acting as a Sword of Damocles over mostly inactive admins, which I think incentivizes better gaming than actually keeping around active admins. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I do not necessarily disagree with the above; maybe recall should be modified so that it can only be used for conduct issues, and/or have "inactivity" marked as an invalid reason to raise the issue? I know that is a matter for the AElect talk page to discuss, but this should probably be done sooner rather than later as I suspect otherwise this will not be at all the last "nearly inactive admin" recall petition. Primefac (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::In both cases, gaming of the inactivity rules was cited as the objection, not the inactivity itself. WP:GAME is a policy. I don't see how we could exclude petitions from citing it as basis for a recall. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That is an incorrect assessment - because very apparently the notion of gaming the inactivity rules only applies because they were not under the ambit of the inactivity rules in the first place, so that cannot be a cause to object. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You're describing gaming: skirting the letter of a policy to violate its spirit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{ec}} Sure, that is the definition but that's not my point. My point is that ofcourse gaming inactivity was the objection instead of the act of being inactive itself because we have clear criterion for what inactivity is; so there is no reason for a recall process to come into existence. And the fact that we're now using the aforementioned process to extend the ambit of our inactivity rules is wrong, because it just incentivizes gaming better as the line between what is considered activity and inactivity gets blurred. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::No, someone could propose a recall for activity that was low but not below the threshold. That really would be a recall petition merely for inactivity, and I doubt it would certify. In both of these cases a legitimate behavioral issue was cited, i.e. violating WP:GAME, which again is a policy. There's a massive difference there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::And you don't see anything wrong with that? Both people who are inactive and people who are gaming the system should be explicitly excluded through procedural policy i.e. there should be no advantage to gaming the system. It is not a worthwhile usage of community time to figure out who is gaming the system. In fact, determining whether someone is gaming is yet another question that shouldn't be the purview of a procedural process (which is also why it's a guideline). This particular case is a bad example for my point because they were attempting to game the system but eventually the process will morph into a different version where there is no distinction between people who are gaming and people who the community considers as "inactive", that is my primary point. Let's continue on the VPP thread if needed. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::+1. Being an administrator is a privilege, not a right. Not using admin tools to benefit the project should be sufficient to remove them, WP:GAME is just the reason it's "under a cloud". Anyone who thinks they're entitled to keep admin tools—even in good behavior—should not have them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I agree with Primefac. If we modify recall to explicitly exclude minimal compliance it should solve the problem. I'd also add that I'd personally support upping the minimum threshold, specifically the 100 edits in five years, maybe adding 1,000 edits in the last 8 years. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Generally agreed, but also think it needs wider community assessment because clearly the current numbers are not adjusted for community sentiments yet. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Rather than setting a threshold which can be gamed at the last minute (1000 edits in the last 8 years) a continuing threshold (200 edits per year in 5 of the last 8 years) would more closely align with community expectations and less susceptible to being gamed. It would still allow for periods of inactivity. Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I think that makes sense, there should be a somewhat lower per-year requirement for edits and logged admin actions, and and a cumulative requirement that is somewhat higher over a period of 5-10 years. I've started a discussion at the village pump so that we don't need to derail the existing conversation here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Since our policies are descriptive and not prescriptive perhaps the better move is just to add "gaming of activity requirements can result in admin recall even if activity passes the minimum threshold." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I'm with ScottishFinnishRadish on this. Documenting current practice seems much better than trying to try to stop people who are frustrated with an admin's alleged gaming and unresponsiveness from doing anything about it. 28bytes (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::For sure not. Given the sheer number of policies, the application and usage thereof is much more nuanced than simply being descriptive. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• ADMINRECALL came about via multiple RFC's (see Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs). Like any other process, it can be changed - and the place to bring that up is Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall - likely via additional RFC's, and/or via the discussion already open at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Admin_inactivity_rules_workshopping. I'm not seeing anything above about issues with how bureaucrats are handling petitions right now or reasons why we should handle future petitions differently in the absence of changes to the process. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The problem with the accusation of "gaming the system" is that it's an assumption of bad faith. All you really know is that Gimmetrow made overly optimistic plans for the future, which didn't work out. That's not something to revile them for, just a fact of life that people sometimes do that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with not trying to delve into the reasons why someone's stated plans didn't work out. It's just a reality that many people set loftier goals for their volunteer efforts than they are able to attain, without any intent of treating Wikipedia as a game. The community can discuss if they think a given admin should be more realistic in their stated plans, without going into their motivations. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Concerns about inactive admins, and those who are gaming the system to retain the tools, are appropriate, and should not be dismissed as being somehow impolite to those users who have been granted the tools. Inactive or less active admin accounts cause concerns for possible security breeches, and for possible inappropriate admin actions. Both these concerns are valid because they have occurred, and they have disrupted the project - a less active account is vulnerable because the user does not often check in, and because the password may be older and so less secure; most less active admin accounts are the accounts of users who became admins in a different time, and they may not have kept up to date with current policies and norms, so are more likely to make an inappropriate admin action. If it were not for those concerns we could let admins keep the tools until they drop off the perch, but as those concerns are valid and serious, we have to accept that steps to address those concerns are valid and serious. I do not consider it an assumption of bad faith to check if there is consensus that a less active admin who is only making the minimal amount of edits to continue qualifying as an admin is gaming the system. I consider it an appropriate security check. And the recall process is a valid community process. Well thought through and with appropriate community consensus. In an ideal world all less active admins would voluntarily resign the tools. And I think it would be helpful and satisfactory if we rewarded those who do so. I'd like to see built into the resigning process, that if the resigning is done in good faith, and not under a cloud, that the Crat who removes the tools should also apportion some status on the user, which, like the "administrator" tag, carries some prestige. Perhaps a "Retired admin" tag, a bit like Jimbo's "Founder" tag. A dual front approach - ScottishFinnishRadish's suggestion of formally adding "gaming" to the recall process, plus a greater recognition for those who have voluntarily retired, might help reduce the amount of times that the recall process is used for less active admins. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think the idea SFR advocates to add gaming to the activity requirements, not to the recall process (it's already being used there). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Personally, I agree that security concerns are important, so I would support increasing the activity requirement on that basis alone. I also agree the community should make a removal of privileges based on inactivity as non-judgemental as possible: acknowledge their contributions, invite them to request restoration of privileges should they resume active status within the appropriate period, and wish them well in whichever path they choose to travel. I think that is more objective than trying to divine if someone is being insincere, or just a poor predictor of future availability and interest. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::While concerns about completely inactive accounts are valid, especially regarding outdated passwords and unfamiliarity with current norms, it's better to address those through technical requirements like 2FA and through improved guidance for administrators returning to higher levels of activity. Increased activity thresholds won't appreciably improve either issue and will end up sidelining more and more experienced administrators over time. If anything, we should be worrying about how to encourage administrators to return to activity rather than falling prey to the temptation to increase activity requirements with little if any benefit (like what's happened unofficially over time at RfA, which has drastically reduced the number of nominations). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I appreciate there are various considerations to weigh, which is why I think the community should have a discussion about its expectations for activity levels. (So far the village pump discussion is more of a meta-discussion.) isaacl (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|L235}}

I'd like to request intadmin to assist with JS/CSS/MediaWiki namespace maintenance. I have 2FA (and a strong password) enabled on my account, and am aware of the privacy expectations on the Wikimedia projects and a sufficient understanding of JavaScript to notice and catch e.g. potential XSS issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{on hold}} Standard 48-hour hold for 1st time requesters. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since I have a friendship with Kevin, I'd be the wrong person to press the buttons on this as a crat, but do want to express my support and trust in him as an editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Another easy one; support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's good to see Kevin back. :) Mz7 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)