French
Deutsch|
|
Inactive admins 2022/02
[edit source]We seem to have a couple of inactive admins on this project. Just a list of accounts that fall into that criterion:
- ARR8 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-07-21)
Danapit (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-09-29)(desysopped on 2022-02-02 as they have agreed to be desysopped)EvanProdromou (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-06-05)(created a new article on 2022-02-02)- Globe-trotter (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-08-11)
- JuliasTravels (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-01-22)
MarkJaroski (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-01-26)(desysopped on 2022-02-02 as they have agreed to be desysopped)- Sumone10154 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2019-01-30)
- Traveler100 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-01-25)
- Traveler100bot (talk · contribs) (inactive bot account)
As inactive admin accounts pose a security risk, their admin privileges should be removed per policy. Pinging our 'crats @Ikan Kekek, Jpatokal, LtPowers: (and @Andre Carrotflower: with your main account). Thanks. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you successfully ping them here, or should they be notified on their user talk pages? –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The inactive users should be informed via their talk pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done, except for Traveler100bot as they are not a human though I let Traveler100 know about this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The inactive users should be informed via their talk pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, as I am no longer an active contributor, it is only reasonable to remove the admin rights from my user. Thanks :) --Danapit (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. -- Mark (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment: It looks like, based on a thread on a previous round of desysopping that was just archived, we wait 2 weeks after inactive admins are notified on their talk pages, and if possible, also by email, before we desysop them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I'll act right away on the Danapit and Mark's accounts because they agreed in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Danapit and Mark, you are now autopatrollers. We would welcome your return to edit any time you like, and if you ever decide you'd like to be admins again, just let us know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I hear-by confirm that I'm in favour of this -- Mark (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've fixed the dates. Thanks for picking up the error Ikan Kekek. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I'll act right away on the Danapit and Mark's accounts because they agreed in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment: It looks like, based on a thread on a previous round of desysopping that was just archived, we wait 2 weeks after inactive admins are notified on their talk pages, and if possible, also by email, before we desysop them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek As it is 17 days now since notices given, when you get the time, can you please remove the sysop privileges off these accounts. Thanks :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did anyone try to email them? We did before, as I remember. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried to email them? Does anyone want to, or should I just desysop them and post a talk page note encouraging them to let us know if they ever want their admin bits restored? Let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did we have a standard email template from the previous times we did this? If so, it shouldn't be hard to email each of the five users with the notice, excluding the bot account. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't remember this, but per Wikivoyage talk:Administrators/Archive 1#February 2020, it looks like the following wording of emails was agreed to:
- Did we have a standard email template from the previous times we did this? If so, it shouldn't be hard to email each of the five users with the notice, excluding the bot account. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried to email them? Does anyone want to, or should I just desysop them and post a talk page note encouraging them to let us know if they ever want their admin bits restored? Let me know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did anyone try to email them? We did before, as I remember. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as a Wikivoyage administrator. As you may be aware, our Wikivoyage:Administrators policy indicates that administrators who have not edited on the English Wikivoyage in over two years should have their administrator flags removed. This is for account security purposes, not a reflection of a loss of trust or any disappointment.
As such, we have removed your administrator flag as of [today's date]. If you ever decide to return to Wikivoyage as an active editor, your administrator flag can be restored by request.
If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.
- My feeling is that we don't have to wait for a broad discussion on this wording, as no-one else seems to be following this thread, so the only question is whether I should in fact remove their admin bits now or whether we would like to postdate the removal. I'll go with whatever you prefer unless anyone else wants to express an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think we ought to give them a chance to see the email first, if that's what we've done with prior accounts. Does this email go from a particular email address? Or just the "email user" function? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd use the "email user" function if it's operational. If it's not, it'll probably be impossible to email them. Should we give them another week to see the email and reply to it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- The main reason I've pretty much abstained is because I have not been here long enough to do all this, but I think the bot account's admin privileges can be removed tho. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying. Abstained from what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for not being clear enough. Abstained from commenting further because I'm very new to this process and the only time where I've seen this process done is on Commons' bureaucrat's noticeboard. As to the bot account, I'm taking about Traveler100bot (talk · contribs). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're right that I can remove the bot's privileges. I'll do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Selfie City, would you like to email everyone concerned? If not, I probably have time this week to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. One user did not have a registered email, but I have emailed the others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC) - I'm so sorry I am so late in taking care of this, but all the accounts listed above have been desysopped, with their statuses changed provisionally to autopatroller (except for the bot), with everyone invited to resume their status as admins if they would like to do so any time in the future that they would like to participate here again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Under "Current administrators," we see the following statement: "Wikivoyage has 45 administrators." However, I count only 42 at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop. Any insight into why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says 40 now. I'm not going to worry about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- The page says " Wikivoyage has {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}-2}} administrators.". I assume that there is a few hours delay between making the change and the number being updated, and the -2 is either an earlier attempt to fix what appeared to be an error, or is removing bot accounts from the total. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't understand what the code means, but there does appear to be a delay after the number of admins is changed by a bureaucrat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should be changed from "-2" to "-1", as Abuse filter is the only non-human admin left. AlasdairW (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't understand what the code means, but there does appear to be a delay after the number of admins is changed by a bureaucrat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The page says " Wikivoyage has {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}-2}} administrators.". I assume that there is a few hours delay between making the change and the number being updated, and the -2 is either an earlier attempt to fix what appeared to be an error, or is removing bot accounts from the total. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It says 40 now. I'm not going to worry about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Under "Current administrators," we see the following statement: "Wikivoyage has 45 administrators." However, I count only 42 at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/sysop. Any insight into why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry I am so late in taking care of this, but all the accounts listed above have been desysopped, with their statuses changed provisionally to autopatroller (except for the bot), with everyone invited to resume their status as admins if they would like to do so any time in the future that they would like to participate here again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Selfie City, would you like to email everyone concerned? If not, I probably have time this week to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're right that I can remove the bot's privileges. I'll do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for not being clear enough. Abstained from commenting further because I'm very new to this process and the only time where I've seen this process done is on Commons' bureaucrat's noticeboard. As to the bot account, I'm taking about Traveler100bot (talk · contribs). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying. Abstained from what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- The main reason I've pretty much abstained is because I have not been here long enough to do all this, but I think the bot account's admin privileges can be removed tho. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd use the "email user" function if it's operational. If it's not, it'll probably be impossible to email them. Should we give them another week to see the email and reply to it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think we ought to give them a chance to see the email first, if that's what we've done with prior accounts. Does this email go from a particular email address? Or just the "email user" function? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- My feeling is that we don't have to wait for a broad discussion on this wording, as no-one else seems to be following this thread, so the only question is whether I should in fact remove their admin bits now or whether we would like to postdate the removal. I'll go with whatever you prefer unless anyone else wants to express an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Question about admin requirements
[edit source]What are the requirements for being an administrator? Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- What it means to be one is here: Wikivoyage:Administrators, how to be come one is here: Wikivoyage:User rights nominations, how to be a good one is here: Wikivoyage:Administrators' handbook. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your reply. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2022/12
[edit source]I know it's only been 10 months since we last did an admin activity check, but I'm only starting this now so we can be consistent by doing one every year just before the New Year (and hopefully this permanently stays this way, as opposed to doing one every February).
Not that many users this time, but here's a list of all admins who have not made one edit in the past two years:
- DenisYurkin (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-11-01)
- PerryPlanet (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-12-23)
- Texugo (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2020-10-26)
I have not sent out a mass message just yet, only because I'd like to know when will their sysop privileges be removed (assuming they don't respond), but as soon as I get a few opinions on when, I'll send out the mass mail (and emails).
Also pinging our (active) bureaucrats @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:. Apologies for the extra burden that I may have caused – one by starting this two months before we did our last admin check, and two because I sorta have to canvass both of you into this discussion (thankfully w:WP:CANVASS isn't a behavioural guideline here) so I can mass mail and message the three users listed above.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also, genuine question, but should I self-nominate myself for bureaucrat rights to help out with inactive admins? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's no big deal to desysop 3 or fewer people. They should be given 14 days to reply after being emailed before they are desysopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll send out the mass message in just a moment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is kind of unfair to send a letter with a two-week deadline the day before Christmas Eve. Schools over here are closed more or less until Epiphany, so people may be off with their families. People may be off the grid any time of year, but if we are trying to standardise on some dates, February is much better in my opinion. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Done all users notified and emailed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Setting a particular time of year to do these is a good idea, but I agree with LPfi and wish you'd waited more than a couple of hours to get more opinions before acting. This is a bad time of year for availability for many people. It's a bit late to back down now, because you've already sent the message, but I think you should send another one to tell them we've extended the grace period to a month (so they have until 23 Jan to reply).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ThunderingTyphoons!: apologies for being a bit hasty with this. Reflecting upon it, that was irresponsible of me and I probably should have waited until tomorrow morning. I'll make sure to remember to wait a day before acting on such decisions in the future.
- Nonetheless, I've sent three follow-up emails plus a message on their talk page letting them know they have until the 23rd, not the 5th. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Point well made, Thundering, and well resolved, SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- We're not quite at 23rd January UTC yet, but it looks as though Ikan or I will be removing three sysops tomorrow.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Can also confirm that I have received zero email replies. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- We're not quite at 23rd January UTC yet, but it looks as though Ikan or I will be removing three sysops tomorrow.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Point well made, Thundering, and well resolved, SHB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Setting a particular time of year to do these is a good idea, but I agree with LPfi and wish you'd waited more than a couple of hours to get more opinions before acting. This is a bad time of year for availability for many people. It's a bit late to back down now, because you've already sent the message, but I think you should send another one to tell them we've extended the grace period to a month (so they have until 23 Jan to reply).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll send out the mass message in just a moment. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's no big deal to desysop 3 or fewer people. They should be given 14 days to reply after being emailed before they are desysopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
just for the record, Texugo is very missed. He is my big mentor and we worked together very hard and very productively in pt-Wikivoyage, way back before the fork. After he went inactive, I lost interest and hardly edit the pt-version anymore. His desysopping taking place is a sad thing for me. Ibaman (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Has any attempt been made to make contact since the end of the festive period? If not, then it might be good to send another email, and give them until the end of this week to reply. If somebody is offline for the holidays (in a mountain hut, or staying with Aunt Morag who has no WiFi), they may come back to 100 emails and just delete the lot. AlasdairW (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- These three were last active in 2020, so I think we've been accommodating enough. If they come back to regular activities in the future, and want to be reinstated it should be relatively easy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. I hadn't realised it had been so long. AlasdairW (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- These three were last active in 2020, so I think we've been accommodating enough. If they come back to regular activities in the future, and want to be reinstated it should be relatively easy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Done - The three former admins are now patrollers/autopatrollers. I have left a message on each of their talk pages confirming the change. Thanks for everyone's assistance.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: Per User talk:LilHelpa#Admin tools (particularly Special:Diff/4679386), please remove their admin tools. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Changed to Autopatroller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift response! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks both. This all happened a bit too early for me! ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift response! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2024/01
[edit source]Time for our yearly admin checkup – should we give 28 days for users to respond? I've done this a few days after December now that the holiday season is coming to a conclusion.
List of inactive admins:
- AndreCarrotflower (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2021-04-11)
- Seligne (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2021-05-20)
I haven't sent out a mass message yet until I get a confirmation of the date their sysop privileges will be removed, but at this rate, shall we keep it at Jan 31, 2024? Pinging our two bureaucrats @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:. Once I get the green light from either of you, I'll send a mass message.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bump – I will send the mass messages out tomorrow afternoon if I get no confirmation whatsoever. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to wait until mid-January. The Christmas etc holidays go on for quite a long time in some cultures. Epiphany is tomorrow for instance.-- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done – the deadline date is set at January 31, which is more than enough time to get back to us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- AndreCarrotflower appears to have vanished from any wiki project involvement since April 2021. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Andre Carrotflower (alt account) is still active globally. You'd almost certainly get a reply from Andrew through that account if needed. That said, if the sysop account is inactive and unresponsive, it might be better to remove the 'bits'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- We would, but it's up to Andrew to check the account with their sysop perms if they want to keep it. Plus, I have not received any email reply either, so I think it's safe to say they're not going to respond. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be good courtesy to check whether Andrew wants to retain his sysop tools, as he was an extremely important member of the community for some time. He made clear that he was leaving for a time and wavered between indicating that move was temporary or permanent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What defines "important", though? Why should they be given special treatment because they just so happened to be more active than others? Policy is policy, and we shouldn't be wavering the policy for some users and not for others; it's antithetical to the inactive admins policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's just wait till the 31st, like we've agreed to do. If he replies later than that and says he'd like to have his sysop tools, it's no problem to restore them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Anybody given the trust of admin has probably been an important contributor, so this is not really about having been more important, but about trying to be as respectful as possible, which is a virtue and important for keeping the spirit of the community. We can afford to take special circumstances into consideration. That said, nobody suggests deviating from policy. –LPfi (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What defines "important", though? Why should they be given special treatment because they just so happened to be more active than others? Policy is policy, and we shouldn't be wavering the policy for some users and not for others; it's antithetical to the inactive admins policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be good courtesy to check whether Andrew wants to retain his sysop tools, as he was an extremely important member of the community for some time. He made clear that he was leaving for a time and wavered between indicating that move was temporary or permanent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- We would, but it's up to Andrew to check the account with their sysop perms if they want to keep it. Plus, I have not received any email reply either, so I think it's safe to say they're not going to respond. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Andre Carrotflower (alt account) is still active globally. You'd almost certainly get a reply from Andrew through that account if needed. That said, if the sysop account is inactive and unresponsive, it might be better to remove the 'bits'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a heads up with 3 days left and I still haven't received any email responses, for the record. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Removed the tools from both of them and changed their status to autopatroller (with a message on their talk page). I hope I didn't miss anything. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- AndreCarrotflower appears to have vanished from any wiki project involvement since April 2021. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done – the deadline date is set at January 31, which is more than enough time to get back to us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to wait until mid-January. The Christmas etc holidays go on for quite a long time in some cultures. Epiphany is tomorrow for instance.-- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference to Wikibooks
[edit source]A bullet was added:
- The policy on global sysops is the same as on the English Wikibooks.
Do we really outsource the policy to Wikibooks? Our policy may be identical, but I think, in that case, that the policy should be copied to here. Otherwise, any change enacted there would silently amend our policy, which feels weird.
–LPfi (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's always been the case (I clarified that because it's unreasonable to know that with just a single link – see the original first line). I'm indifferent on copying the content over here, though – very little actually changes on that wiki (the only policy that's changed this year is the policy on AI content). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really afraid that there would be changes that we cannot accept. Its just cleaner not to refer outside (other than to Meta for global policies, and the like). "Always" here isn't too long ago, I assume, not before 2013 anyway. I am puzzled that I have no memory of such a decision. Was it actually never made, just assumed? Or made in a single posting in the relevant thread? –LPfi (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- The text was added by Minorax with the link when this wiki became a GS wiki in 2021; I vaguely recall a discussion before it was added, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I now included the linked section from Wikibooks, except the explanations. I find it confusing and odd. Could we just remove that text? –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- That wasn't the best wording, I agree – I've clarified it a bit (which is what is current practice at enwikibooks). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now included the linked section from Wikibooks, except the explanations. I find it confusing and odd. Could we just remove that text? –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text was added by Minorax with the link when this wiki became a GS wiki in 2021; I vaguely recall a discussion before it was added, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really afraid that there would be changes that we cannot accept. Its just cleaner not to refer outside (other than to Meta for global policies, and the like). "Always" here isn't too long ago, I assume, not before 2013 anyway. I am puzzled that I have no memory of such a decision. Was it actually never made, just assumed? Or made in a single posting in the relevant thread? –LPfi (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
DannyS712's resignation
[edit source]@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: Just mentioning it here for transparency purposes that one of Wikivoyage's most beloved vandal fighters resigned today as per their request at m:Special:Diff/28049971 and as such, I've removed their sysop bit and restored the permissions they had prior to sysop. Thanks to Danny for their service – they truly will be missed. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 05:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2025/01
[edit source]Time for that time of year again – and luckily we've only got 1 inactive admin account this year, much fewer than in previous years. :)
From an SQL query that I've run, EvanProdromou (talk · contribs) is the only user who hasn't made an edit in 24 months, with the time of Evan's last edit at 2022-09-04 02:00:50 (UTC) (ironically, the last edit was about his bureaucrat status).
Based on this, I'll send a message on his talk page and will remove his tools 14 days from now – so until Jan 26, 2025. I think 14 days is more than reasonable enough. --SHB (t | c | m) 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two comments: first, he is of course the founder. Second, he is active on Wikipedia as a sysop, having edited as recently as last November, and I believe he is a WMF employee as well, so I doubt his account is a security risk. Do we really need to remove his admin status? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, we don't need to do so for security reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the argument would be to treat all admins the same way, including the founder of Wikitravel. It's a debatable idea, but if he wants to keep his mop and pail, he can perform an admin action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...and he has made 1 edit so nothing needs to be done now. And yes, I agree that we should treat all admins the same, no matter if they made an edit elsewhere or was the founder of the project. While one reason we remove inactive admins is security reasons, another reason we do so is because policies change – both local and global – a lot can change within 2 years. I've seen my fair share of admins (both here but mostly elsewhere) come back after a long hiatus (most often just to keep their tools) and it never ends well. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that's sound reasoning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- ...and he has made 1 edit so nothing needs to be done now. And yes, I agree that we should treat all admins the same, no matter if they made an edit elsewhere or was the founder of the project. While one reason we remove inactive admins is security reasons, another reason we do so is because policies change – both local and global – a lot can change within 2 years. I've seen my fair share of admins (both here but mostly elsewhere) come back after a long hiatus (most often just to keep their tools) and it never ends well. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the argument would be to treat all admins the same way, including the founder of Wikitravel. It's a debatable idea, but if he wants to keep his mop and pail, he can perform an admin action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, we don't need to do so for security reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2025/06
[edit source]As per my SQL query, I notified Inas of their sysop tools as their last edit was in June 2023. Mentioning it here for recordkeeping purposes. //shb (t | c | m) 12:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Inas is not a woman, to my knowledge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed (and my apologies for that; fatigue does really get to me sometimes). //shb (t | c | m) 23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done – with many thanks to Inas for their service. //shb (t | c | m) 00:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed (and my apologies for that; fatigue does really get to me sometimes). //shb (t | c | m) 23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Question
[edit source]Where can someone request that an administrator be demoted with reason? Faster than Thunder (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can try, but I'd advise you against it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:User rights nominations, but I echo Ikan's sentiment. //shb (t | c | m) 06:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with Ikan's advice.
- This has been tried twice before, see Wikivoyage:User_rights_nominations/Archives/2022#Pashley_(removal) & Wikivoyage:User_rights_nominations/Archives/2024#User:Andrewssi2/Asretired (removal). Neither attempt succeeded & in my (obviously biased) view, both were a waste of time. Pashley (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The timing of this comes way too close to User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn (posted 3 minutes apart) which makes me wonder – Faster than Thunder, instead of reforming your editing behaviour, why are you so insistent on picking on minor details and deflecting the issue onto Asamboi? //shb (t | c | m) 12:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- They're now going around reverting my edits and harassing me on WP as well, including bizarre references to my admin status here. Asamboi (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest maybe starting a new discussion on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations for a full sitewide ban since I do not think they can be trusted any further (it would probably require a user ban nomination since they haven't technically violated any parts of their topic ban). //shb (t | c | m) 00:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- FtT was just given an indefinite block on WP, so I won't be pursuing one here unless they continue being disruptive on WV. Asamboi (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well if they have been indeffed on enwiki, they can be one-striked on this project were they to continue their behaviour. //shb (t | c | m) 21:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I recently got unblocked on Wikipedia. The issues I filed on Meta were crystal-clear and policy-based (I was not objecting the TBAN itself), yet my actual concerns were overlooked. Regardless, it has been long enough (2 months) since the original dispute, so I won't be pushing the original issue further unless Asamboi behaves similarly again, here or on another wiki, towards me or another user. I will mind my own business. Faster than Thunder (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- @SHB2000, I truly hate to add to this discussion and ring my promises not to interact with Asamboi again hollow, but Asamboi appears to have recently exhibited uncivility towards other users on WP as well at Talk:Zizians on Wikipedia:
- #Transgender category:
- After more conversation between the two holding their stances, Asamboi said, "I'm sorry, but you are not engaging in good faith at this point. You keep wilfully misrepresenting my argument as supposedly being about
demographics alone
, when I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that, to quote myself,Arguably the single most defining feature of Zizian ideology, what sets it apart from every other rationalist ideology, is the whole "two brain hemispheres" thing, in particular the claim that these hemispheres have genders and "desire to kill each other" (Ziz), and must be tamed through the equally defining Zizian practice of "unihemispheric sleep"
, plus that theyexplicitly targeted transgender people for recruitment because they believe they're uniquely suitable for AI research
.
- After more conversation between the two holding their stances, Asamboi said, "I'm sorry, but you are not engaging in good faith at this point. You keep wilfully misrepresenting my argument as supposedly being about
- In short, the Zizians' transgender identity and belief system are both defining to the topic (WP:CAT#D) and neutral (WP:CAT#N), because I don't believe there is any doubt about the factual basis of the assertions above, which are covered at length in the article. Asamboi (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)"
- To this, RelmC told Asamboi to stop.
- In short, the Zizians' transgender identity and belief system are both defining to the topic (WP:CAT#D) and neutral (WP:CAT#N), because I don't believe there is any doubt about the factual basis of the assertions above, which are covered at length in the article. Asamboi (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)"
- #Transgender category:
- Unwarranted assumptions of bad faith are personal attacks, but I was told by Tamzin not to interact with Asamboi on Wikipedia at all, so I'm not inclined to do anything there. Faster than Thunder (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care about arguments on Wikipedia, and I urge you to keep them off of Wikivoyage. I believe that taking them here is itself grounds for a block if the action is repeated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Right. I should stop interacting with Asamboi everywhere. Faster than Thunder (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also, enwiki has a large enough community that they will have plenty of people to handle the situation appropriately if Asamboi's conduct really wasn't acceptable. There is nothing that needs to be done from you. //shb (t | c | m) 23:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care about arguments on Wikipedia, and I urge you to keep them off of Wikivoyage. I believe that taking them here is itself grounds for a block if the action is repeated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @SHB2000, I truly hate to add to this discussion and ring my promises not to interact with Asamboi again hollow, but Asamboi appears to have recently exhibited uncivility towards other users on WP as well at Talk:Zizians on Wikipedia:
- I recently got unblocked on Wikipedia. The issues I filed on Meta were crystal-clear and policy-based (I was not objecting the TBAN itself), yet my actual concerns were overlooked. Regardless, it has been long enough (2 months) since the original dispute, so I won't be pushing the original issue further unless Asamboi behaves similarly again, here or on another wiki, towards me or another user. I will mind my own business. Faster than Thunder (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well if they have been indeffed on enwiki, they can be one-striked on this project were they to continue their behaviour. //shb (t | c | m) 21:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- FtT was just given an indefinite block on WP, so I won't be pursuing one here unless they continue being disruptive on WV. Asamboi (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest maybe starting a new discussion on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations for a full sitewide ban since I do not think they can be trusted any further (it would probably require a user ban nomination since they haven't technically violated any parts of their topic ban). //shb (t | c | m) 00:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- They're now going around reverting my edits and harassing me on WP as well, including bizarre references to my admin status here. Asamboi (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- The timing of this comes way too close to User talk:Asamboi#Think before you warn (posted 3 minutes apart) which makes me wonder – Faster than Thunder, instead of reforming your editing behaviour, why are you so insistent on picking on minor details and deflecting the issue onto Asamboi? //shb (t | c | m) 12:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Inactive administrators as of 2026-03
[edit source]Hi. After reviewing https://meta.toolforge.org/stewardry/enwikivoyage?sysop=1, I saw at least two administrators who are inactive:
- Jonboy (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2023-11-21, last logged action on 2023-02-11)
- Asretired (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2024-03-15, last logged action on 2024-03-14; however, their last edit here said they wished to leave Wikivoyage permanently)
Thanks. Codename Noreste (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'd support removing administrator status from both after we provide our customary reminder. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Not done Neither user was notified as per policy. In the future, try to leave admin activity reviews to local sysops/bureaucrats who know local custom a lot better – we are a large enough wiki that we don't need intervention from global users for things like admin activity reviews (in this case, I'd already planned one for June, approximately 1 year after doing the last one – it helps to consolidate reviews). //shb (t | c | m) 13:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC) - I think it's helpful to get this type of message. Not every wiki can count on someone being organized enough to have it on their calendar. (Also, what would happen if it's on your calendar, but something bad happened to you?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- For sure, I get you but my point was more so that we're not really one of those wikis to need global intervention (and if we do, our policy allows for stewards to do this, who are far more trained at these type of matters). Our admin inactivity requirements (rather annoyingly) require email notifications as well, which is something that is much better off coming from an admin/bureaucrat than it is from someone else, at least from a formality perspective. //shb (t | c | m) shb (t | c | m) 22:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's probably easier for them to take a standard approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Jonboy is still editing on en.wp while Asretired has stopped editing in any projects. Leaving a message to Jonboy will likely reach him. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- It's probably easier for them to take a standard approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- For sure, I get you but my point was more so that we're not really one of those wikis to need global intervention (and if we do, our policy allows for stewards to do this, who are far more trained at these type of matters). Our admin inactivity requirements (rather annoyingly) require email notifications as well, which is something that is much better off coming from an admin/bureaucrat than it is from someone else, at least from a formality perspective. //shb (t | c | m) shb (t | c | m) 22:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's helpful to get this type of message. Not every wiki can count on someone being organized enough to have it on their calendar. (Also, what would happen if it's on your calendar, but something bad happened to you?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Notification regarding inactive administrators
[edit source]Please see Wikivoyage talk:Administrators#Inactive_administrators as of 2026-03, thanks. Codename Noreste (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Inactive admins 2026/06
[edit source]Now for admin activity reviews...done properly this time from someone actually local to this wiki.
- Asretired (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2024-03-15)
- Jonboy (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2023-11-21)
Both users have until July 1 to indicate whether they'd like to keep their sysop perms. //shb (t | c | m) 09:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Notifications + emails also handled. //shb (t | c | m) 09:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Appreciate you being on top of this, and it's done now, but it would have been a better course of action to ask someone else - anyone else - to handle the messages for Asretired. You know why, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- tbh I don't think it's a huge issue so long as it follows site conventions and policy, only because you're the sole other bureaucrat on this site; though fair point otherwise (I won't do the removal itself tho :)). //shb (t | c | m) 08:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- He probably won't see the message, but any admin could have sent it.
- And am I? That's concerning :/ --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ThunderingTyphoons!: the time has come for Asretired. It seems Jonboy has made a few edits on the 17th and the 20th so no removal needed for them. //shb (t | c | m) 13:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. At least we'll be getting a new admin in a few hours.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- @ThunderingTyphoons!: the time has come for Asretired. It seems Jonboy has made a few edits on the 17th and the 20th so no removal needed for them. //shb (t | c | m) 13:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- tbh I don't think it's a huge issue so long as it follows site conventions and policy, only because you're the sole other bureaucrat on this site; though fair point otherwise (I won't do the removal itself tho :)). //shb (t | c | m) 08:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Appreciate you being on top of this, and it's done now, but it would have been a better course of action to ask someone else - anyone else - to handle the messages for Asretired. You know why, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
More admins?
[edit source]I'm not sure how many people here have really noticed this...but I find this year in particular we've really been lacking enough people to take on janitorial tasks. VfDs going well above the 14 days (to which I still argue the solution is to reduce the time period to prevent discussion fatigue, but I digress), featured articles not being updated on time, touting left for hours on end, more spam...the list goes on.
At least out of the 23 active sysops, the current team seem to be doing reasonably well, so I think this is really a call for more admins. For anyone hesitant, it's not a huge time commitment, but just more people having the ability to do these tasks alone will help out a lot. I'm more than happy to give any feedback to anyone considering running. //shb (t | c | m) 12:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- At least for myself, this is partly explained by diverting some of my time and energy to perform CheckUser blocks. With more of us (yes, like you SHB who is now a steward) taking on additional roles both within and external to Wikivoyage, and more edits to vet through compared to a year ago, we need to start thinking about admin retention (beyond just editor retention). This was one of the panel discussion in Wikimania Nairobi last year (full disclosure: I was invited, and accepted, to participate in this panel after arriving in Nairobi). What I'm curious to know is the general threshold (account age and edit count) that our community finds a candidate to be acceptable. When I look into the archived nominations, almost all the candidates are either sure-in (7+ year account with 5000+ edits) or sure-out (3-month account with under 50 edits). OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Couple thousand edits, couple years? Realistically, the list of active autopatrolled editors is probably the candidate pool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- The last admin nomination had quite low participation, relative to the size of the current active editor pool. We first need to encourage more people to participate in voting/discussion. And if someone has no strong inclinations to support or oppose, a "Neutral" or "Comment" with reasons will still provide value to the nomination, and help the closer decide whether consensus has been achieved or not. Gizza (roam) 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't want to comment there, because I don't know enough about the Justin's wikipedia ban, which sounds serious... But the other two topics - it's strange to me that being non-nuclear regarding AC is still a topic, after all these years, and seems to cover any other good work a person may have done. Also I don't understand how any past participation on WT is a blocker point... So I didn't vote. -- andree 10:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- If you have an opinion about an admin nomination, do feel free to offer it. And for everyone: every user is entitled to offer an opinion about user rights nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Seconded this – RfAs (or any nomination, really) aren't votes, so neutrals provide just as much value to the discussion as a support or an oppose. //shb (t | c | m) 13:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- If you have an opinion about an admin nomination, do feel free to offer it. And for everyone: every user is entitled to offer an opinion about user rights nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't want to comment there, because I don't know enough about the Justin's wikipedia ban, which sounds serious... But the other two topics - it's strange to me that being non-nuclear regarding AC is still a topic, after all these years, and seems to cover any other good work a person may have done. Also I don't understand how any past participation on WT is a blocker point... So I didn't vote. -- andree 10:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- The last admin nomination had quite low participation, relative to the size of the current active editor pool. We first need to encourage more people to participate in voting/discussion. And if someone has no strong inclinations to support or oppose, a "Neutral" or "Comment" with reasons will still provide value to the nomination, and help the closer decide whether consensus has been achieved or not. Gizza (roam) 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oh thanks for the stats link – I guess that explains everything. //shb (t | c | m) 10:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Couple thousand edits, couple years? Realistically, the list of active autopatrolled editors is probably the candidate pool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- I do start to wonder if this also builds the case for automating things that are otherwise tedious or just annoying to do by hand...maybe something worth looking into. //shb (t | c | m) 23:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of that kind of edit? The important things usually require human judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Things like WV:VfD (a gadget similar to the one on Commons – shouldn't be too hard to tweak to this site) and maybe featured articles is what I'm thinking. //shb (t | c | m) 00:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Do you mean that you want a script that will put
{{vfd}}on the article and automatically add a new ===Section=== at the end of the Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion page? That sounds like a case of https://xkcd.com/1319/ to me. - It looks like we had a VFD nomination about twice a week last year. A script could save about one minute per nomination (probably less, but let's stick to round numbers). If it was used for every single nomination (plausible; for comparison, enwiki uses Twinkle for about 90% of AFD nominations), that would collectively save editors about 90 minutes per year. Therefore, if it takes more than 90 minutes to set up, the net benefit wouldn't be seen for longer than a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- It is more than just that: the gadget would also notify editors (something that we currently don't do), and also potentially append
''Not ending before {{subst:#time:H:i j F Y (T)|+2 week}}''at the top of each nomination to prevent nominations from going untouched. All these would just be annoying to do by hand, and something that can easily be done through a gadget that likely won't take all that long to create (since equivalents exist elsewhere and it's not hard to tweak + modernise it to this site). //shb (t | c | m) 10:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)- Notifying editors is maybe nice, most of the time, but I think that two weeks is easy enough to do in your head that I see no particular value in the "Not ending before" idea. In particular, it feels like something that would make the rules be even more rigid. Enwiki has had fights over deletion discussions that closed less than one hour before the official time. I would not want us to take any step that could lead us even a tiny step towards that sort of expectation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- It is more than just that: the gadget would also notify editors (something that we currently don't do), and also potentially append
- Do you mean that you want a script that will put
- Things like WV:VfD (a gadget similar to the one on Commons – shouldn't be too hard to tweak to this site) and maybe featured articles is what I'm thinking. //shb (t | c | m) 00:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of that kind of edit? The important things usually require human judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Activity level
[edit source]I looked at all 33 admins and see whether they're active (using WP's definition of 5 mainspace edits in last 30 days). I have accounted for logged actions, which did not change the table. TLDR: We may be losing 6 admins (18.2%) of the entire admin corp before the calendar turns 2027.
Here is the current snapshot:
| Criteria | Total number | % of entire admin corp |
|---|---|---|
| Not active (<5 mainsapce edits in last 30 days) | 19^ | 57.8% |
| Inactive (0 edits in last 1+ years) | 6* | 18.2% |
| Inactive and in imminent risk for sysop removal (0 edits in 2 years) | 2† | 6.7% |
^ Includes 1 of the 3 CheckUser.
* All 6 of them have not edited for 1.5 years, and would be "sysop removal" eligible before the end of the year if they don't come back.
† Their desysop was deferred in March 2026 for lack of notification to the affected users.
I think it's time that we loosen up our community criteria to counter "edit count creep". Couple thousand edits and couple of years may be too stringent to our current needs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- We need to be careful how much we loosen requirements. There are security issues involved in giving people admin tools. So something has to establish their trustworthiness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes we should be careful. But at the same time it should be no big deal. We're already seeing the disconnect between what the community feels like with its unwritten rules (2000 edits, 2 years) vs what is written in the nomination instruction ("track record of at least a few months" among other things). I went into the archives and looked at some of the unsuccessful admin nominations. At least four editors went in with the presumption of what was written, got told with "not yet", and shortly afterwards quit the project altogether. Turning adminship into a big deal does not help with editor retention either. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Ohana massively on this one – the last thing we want is our RfA process to turn into enwiki's or ruwiki's, both of which are struggling with admin retention (enwiki somewhat has solved this through AELECT, which is really a bandaid solution to a problem created by their own community being needlessly strict). //shb (t | c | m) 10:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Where does the idea that 2,000 edits and 2 years are required come from? I've been on this site and its predecessor for at least 20 years and don't remember any such unwritten rule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think the security concerns are a bit overblown – if something really bad happens with an admin, the option for an emergency desysop is always there. That's not to say that we should elect rookie editors as admins, but it's not as bad as it might seem. //shb (t | c | m) 10:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: WhatamIdoing wrote that few days ago. They were the only person who responded with actual numbers in mind. Here are several, unsuccessful nomination benchmarks along with outcomes (skipping over sockpuppets and eventual LTAs):
- Yes we should be careful. But at the same time it should be no big deal. We're already seeing the disconnect between what the community feels like with its unwritten rules (2000 edits, 2 years) vs what is written in the nomination instruction ("track record of at least a few months" among other things). I went into the archives and looked at some of the unsuccessful admin nominations. At least four editors went in with the presumption of what was written, got told with "not yet", and shortly afterwards quit the project altogether. Turning adminship into a big deal does not help with editor retention either. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
| Account | # of edits (approx.) | Account age | Outcome after unsuccessful RfA |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | 1800 edits | 6 months | substantial dropoff and essentially stopped 5 months after |
| #2 | 700 mainspace + 2400 userspace edits for drafting | 1.5 years | editing stopped 2 months after |
| #3 | 450 edits | 11 months | editing essentially stopped 7 months after |
| #4 | 5800 edits | 1.5 years | editing continued, though far less active than before RfA |
From the limited sample size, we have a 75% chance of losing the editor within 6 months after their failed RfA. We got to do better. And judging from account #1's RFA in 2022 in the table, it appears that our community does think 2000 edits and 2 years is the comfort threshold to support an RfA. I understand it's not an easy topic to bring up, but it is time that we loosen up the criteria. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- We should still have the threshold high enough that no LTA is tempted to try to get promoted. I didn't dig deep enough in the archives to find the two unsuccessful nominations – what level of experience did they have? A few months of editing might be enough if they really have shown that they understand site policy and ability to work well with the community, but that requires quite enthusiastic engagement with the site. Three months and 300 edits would hardly suffice in my book. –LPfi (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Right. 6 months or so of really great editing that showed real knowledge of Wikivoyage policy and practice and at least something over 500 edits could be sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah no I agree – anything under 6 months is way too short in my opinion. That's not really enough time to actually get a proper grasp and understanding of Wikivoyage policies and practices. //shb (t | c | m) 12:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 Please see my latest, added table above. The 6 months suggestion seem to be invalidated by 4 failed RfAs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is the theory-vs-data problem. Yes: in theory, under some unusual circumstances, a couple of editors would support an RFA candidate with only six months of "really great editing". If we say six months, and someone tries at six months, they might get support from those couple of people, but the RFA is going to fail overall, and they're going to feel rejected by this community.
- I suggest that we do two things:
- Provide actual data to potential candidates. It might sound like "In theory, if your contributions are stellar, then you could become an admin with just a few hundred edits and six months' experience. However, in practice, most candidates with less than 2,000 edits or less than two years' contribution here tend not to get elected." If we think that we have a problem with a requirement ratchet (the standards creep a little higher every year), then we could even add a sentence saying that we discourage voters from imposing higher expectations for volume and tenure.
- Actively search for candidates. One step is to search for people with 500 edits + six months experience and put them on the autopatrolled list; another is to actively search the autopatrolled list for potential admin candidates and beg them to become an admin. This might be best done with a little off-wiki coordination, so you don't invited a doomed candidate, but most people don't run because they weren't invited to. (Also: not me, thanks.)
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- These are good suggestions that we can explore to implement. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree that the 6 months suggestion is invalidated by the 4 failed RfAs that you cited. Each case is individual. But I do agree that we have usually wanted people to edit for a year before becoming admins. I'd point to User:Rschen7754 as a notable exception, though under special circumstances. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that the "general purpose" documentation should say 6 months, if (as appears to be the case ) less than 2 years has only been successful in recent years under "special circumstances" (usually of the technical variety: example, example). We can say that special circumstances may exist, without misleading anyone into thinking that less than two years is at all normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 Please see my latest, added table above. The 6 months suggestion seem to be invalidated by 4 failed RfAs. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- We should still have the threshold high enough that no LTA is tempted to try to get promoted. I didn't dig deep enough in the archives to find the two unsuccessful nominations – what level of experience did they have? A few months of editing might be enough if they really have shown that they understand site policy and ability to work well with the community, but that requires quite enthusiastic engagement with the site. Three months and 300 edits would hardly suffice in my book. –LPfi (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- (Also FYI I had admin activity reviews planned tomorrow to be handled on July 1, almost exactly a year after last year's removals) //shb (t | c | m) 10:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- None of those folks should have been made admins. Do you want to argue for any of them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not re-litigating RfAs on their merits. I'm pointing out that after they failed RfAs, most of them quit. Do we really want to create a "do or die" atmosphere at RfA? Two of the four continue to contribute in other WMF projects, which is an indication that setting high standards for adminship does not address the admin deficit, but also causes regular contributors who failed RfA to find other things to edit (just not on Wikivoyage). OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that people who are nominated for admin and not confirmed would choose to stop editing on Wikivoyage, but I refer you to User talk:KevRobbAU to see how they absolutely never should have been given any special powers. As for the other cases, what they choose to do after not being confirmed is no indication that the decision was a mistake, and we have no control over that. So what are you suggesting? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- My suggestion to improve the overall RfA experience (aside from lowering the standard) is to offer advice on how they can improve after their unsuccessful attempt. None of my 4 examples showed instant dropoff, but rather a slow fade into disappearance. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Can you point to relevant examples where we didn't do that, should have, and how we should have done that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- I want to focus on improving the overall atmosphere and not fixated on a particular editor. But since you insist on a specific example, #1 (User:Tai123.123) falls under this category. They were invited to apply, accepted, and ended up with non-promotion that I would characterize as near-miss (2 support and 2 neutral, 0 oppose). Aside from a few comments within the RfA that advised the nominee to edit more, there was no other feedback provided to the editor. In enwp, there was feedback on how I can improve in preparation for next nomination. Did we do that here? No, there was nothing said to the editor about this process on the usertalk page. As a matter of fact, we didn't even write a "thanks for putting yourself forward for nomination" message on their talk page or any other "not yet" closes. We can do this as a starting point. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I was surprised to see myself pinged here considering I've not been active for a couple of years. I remember when I was norminated and being somewhat disappointed (though understanding why it didn't) when it didn't go through, I think my dissapearance from the site was mostly due to other factors (starting at a new university) but I think if I felt like I had a commitment to the site I might've kept some level of activity (probably not writing stuff but I did like the small bits of administration with the front page I did). I think my dissapearance from editing came less from anything about this site itself more just that I found new interests and had no commitments to keep me here. I'm now wondering if my life would be different if it went through, if I'd still be editing here.
- Anyway, thanks for the ping (even though the intention probably wasn't to ping me), I enjoyed reading the discussion and remember interacting with a lot of you in like 2021. Those days where I was filled with wanderlust after the pandemic feel so distant, so thanks for the blast from the past. I hope you're all doing well, and the site is running fine. I still check Wikivoyage when planning trips.
- Cheers! Tai123.123 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- So, I misremembered and actually did support Tai's nomination for admin. I kind of feel like they were given a roadmap for a possible if not probable success on a rehearing later, but I was concerned at the time about a lack of participation in the discussion, which I think showed that not enough people were familiar with their work. What more do you or@Tai123.123 feel we could have said or done? I read the Wikipedia thread you linked, and I saw a
- mention of coaching for prospective admins. How do they do that, and how is it organized? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's mostly informal, and AFAICT done by people who either have a lot of practical experience with the RFA process, or at least think they do. If you ask, someone will look through your edits and suggest, e.g., that you get more experience with AFD, and specifically that you go !vote in a hundred obvious AFDs, and do a few dozen completely obvious non-admin 'keep' closures, so that your agreeing-with-the-outcome stats will be pretty. Or they'll say that you don't spend time on noticeboards, so you should go answer obvious questions at one. (They never recommend that you take an unpopular stand or do anything controversial, because being agreeable is more likely to win AFD than being right.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps the more important thing is: Here, everybody knows your name. Admins are elected because we know you. We don't need a statistical analysis of your views on deletion or reverting spammers or whatever, because we already know you. The advice here would probably be the same for everyone: Make sure you're visibly checking Special:RecentChanges every day, make sure you're posting at the pub every week, and make sure that you show our laid-back, calm, we're-all-capable-adults-here vibe (e.g., no screaming at the touters; just revert them, leave a polite note, and move on). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you've hit on the heart of it, when you say "everybody knows your name." That doesn't require 2 years of editing, and I'd oppose stating that being an admin usually requires anything other than "more than 1 year of editing, including participation on policy and organizational discussions, and a reputation for being dependable and reasonable". I think it's fine for people to speak their minds on matters of policy and organization, as long as they don't advocate viewpoints that personally offend people and remain respectful and willing to work within consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think that "more than 1 year" would be an improvement on the "few months" that we've got now, and that the participation and reputation points would be helpful to people who would like to become admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you've nailed it perfectly with "
it's fine for people to speak their minds on matters of policy and organization, as long as they don't advocate viewpoints that personally offend people and remain respectful and willing to work within consensus
" – I would argue that it's we want people to have different viewpoints and healthy disagreement. I can list quite a few wikis where this is unfortunately not the case, which ends up resulting in those wikis becoming cabals (kawiki, eswikivoyage, ttwiki, anwiki...the last one was particularly egregious). That's not to say there should always be disagreement (otherwise you'll end up on the other side of the spectrum like azwiki, uzwiki or Commons), but there's a healthy level of balance that this wiki (and I guess all English-language projects) achieve quite well. //shb (t | c | m) 12:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you've hit on the heart of it, when you say "everybody knows your name." That doesn't require 2 years of editing, and I'd oppose stating that being an admin usually requires anything other than "more than 1 year of editing, including participation on policy and organizational discussions, and a reputation for being dependable and reasonable". I think it's fine for people to speak their minds on matters of policy and organization, as long as they don't advocate viewpoints that personally offend people and remain respectful and willing to work within consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I want to focus on improving the overall atmosphere and not fixated on a particular editor. But since you insist on a specific example, #1 (User:Tai123.123) falls under this category. They were invited to apply, accepted, and ended up with non-promotion that I would characterize as near-miss (2 support and 2 neutral, 0 oppose). Aside from a few comments within the RfA that advised the nominee to edit more, there was no other feedback provided to the editor. In enwp, there was feedback on how I can improve in preparation for next nomination. Did we do that here? No, there was nothing said to the editor about this process on the usertalk page. As a matter of fact, we didn't even write a "thanks for putting yourself forward for nomination" message on their talk page or any other "not yet" closes. We can do this as a starting point. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Can you point to relevant examples where we didn't do that, should have, and how we should have done that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- My suggestion to improve the overall RfA experience (aside from lowering the standard) is to offer advice on how they can improve after their unsuccessful attempt. None of my 4 examples showed instant dropoff, but rather a slow fade into disappearance. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that people who are nominated for admin and not confirmed would choose to stop editing on Wikivoyage, but I refer you to User talk:KevRobbAU to see how they absolutely never should have been given any special powers. As for the other cases, what they choose to do after not being confirmed is no indication that the decision was a mistake, and we have no control over that. So what are you suggesting? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not re-litigating RfAs on their merits. I'm pointing out that after they failed RfAs, most of them quit. Do we really want to create a "do or die" atmosphere at RfA? Two of the four continue to contribute in other WMF projects, which is an indication that setting high standards for adminship does not address the admin deficit, but also causes regular contributors who failed RfA to find other things to edit (just not on Wikivoyage). OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I've been active for two years, with a few thousand edits, right in the middle range being discussed. I find picking at wikis to be much healthier than doomscrolling. Nobody has told me off on anything I've done here so far. I'm open to mundane janitorial roles that I can do for 5-20 minutes a day, 2-5 days a week.
- I'm watching this discussion. I'm fine keeping on with shepherding the destinations I know and copyediting neglected pages, but if there's a need for something else, what do you all suggest for me? Gerode (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Gerode would highly recommend self-nominating yourself at WV:URN! I think you'd make for a great admin (only reason why I would slightly hesitate nominating is because I'd like to close that discussion – though I suppose this community doesn't really care about that so much but yk...). //shb (t | c | m) 21:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Gerode, I'm also inclined support you for admin. Thanks for offering! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- actually yk what...since I have the time rn and that RfAs feel like they take 1 million years, I'll start to get the ball rolling while I have a fair bit of spare time tonight. //shb (t | c | m) 11:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Gerode, I'm also inclined support you for admin. Thanks for offering! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- btw are there any other takers willing to become admins? Mrkstvns, Andree.sk, Brycehughes perhaps? //shb (t | c | m) 12:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would be willing to pitch in, though I try to limit my daily activity here so I can have a life for things I enjoy. Like traveling. Cheersǃ Mrkstvns (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fine RN, doing the technical stuff only, I think I wouldn't have the patience to be kind to vandals:-))) also I'm not that good with local process knowledge... If you guys are seriously understaffed, I can try it, but like Mrkstvns above, I'm trying to limit the activity here too... -- andree 19:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Is there anything you can't do at the moment, that might be useful for you? For example, does any of your technical work require you to look at deleted pages, or would being able to delete a page make you able to clean up after yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not really, in the end I think I need to improve my wiki development methods, rather than get more permissions :) Cleanup would be nice, but it's not really critical for me - I don't put sensitive stuff here. But it is annoying to see my lame-ish attempts in the logs, hopefully not too many people inspect that... :-D -- andree 19:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Is there anything you can't do at the moment, that might be useful for you? For example, does any of your technical work require you to look at deleted pages, or would being able to delete a page make you able to clean up after yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sort of in the same boat as andree. Happy to help out if you're in a jam, but I'm not sure I have the temperament for adminship... I almost never look at my watchlist and I have a habit of disappearing for months at a time. Brycehughes (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Gerode would highly recommend self-nominating yourself at WV:URN! I think you'd make for a great admin (only reason why I would slightly hesitate nominating is because I'd like to close that discussion – though I suppose this community doesn't really care about that so much but yk...). //shb (t | c | m) 21:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm an admin at Wikipedia, but I have less than 300 edits at Wikivoyage so I don't suppose it would be a good idea for me to self-nominate at WV now. Before I nominated myself for admin at WP I was a regular at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion which helped establish myself as a potential admin. But I don't know what would be a comparable process at WV for me to participate in to that degree. Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion has had fewer nominations this whole year than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion gets in one day, so there's much less opportunity to gain experience participating that way here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- The upside of being a small wiki is that you'll likely come across the same Wikivoyagers a lot, so if you participate in various areas of the project, people will get to know you and your contributions should speak for themselves. As for ideas of where to contribute, keep an eye on the Pub (this page), WV:RFC and WV:Destination of the month.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Opt out global sysops?
[edit source]Hello. I am a user who reverts and reports vandalism globally. In my opinion, this wiki should opt out global sysops, for the following reasons:
- This wiki has 33 local administrators and 17 of them are active, so this wiki does not meet the scope of opting in global sysops.
- From what I see in Special:Log/block, Special:Log/delete and Special:Log/protect, although this wiki allows global sysops to perform administrative actions, almost all administrative actions are performed by local administrators.
Thank you. Font8388608 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Font8388608: My question is why. Has there ever been a case of a GS (or steward) that's used their tools not in the best interests of this site since 2021? //shb (t | c | m) 23:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- I also oppose the suggestion. Global sysops have helped greatly by reverting vandalism when admins don't happen to be on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Can you tell me when most of the local admins weren't present and therefore global sysops could revert most of the disruptive edits? Font8388608 (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Plenty of times – GS/stew intervention has been particularly helpful during the times when a certain few LTAs were active (not going to namedrop them per DENY, but I'm happy to do so off-wiki). Also, having been a global sysop (and now steward) and been pretty extensively involved in this sphere for about 2 years now, the worst wikis to deal with x-wiki anti-vandalism are the wikis that set up needless bureaucratic hoops for no discernible benefits whatsoever, and I really don't want this wiki to be one of those said wikis. //shb (t | c | m) 12:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Font8388608, if I knew which times of day we tended to lack admin coverage, I wouldn't want to announce them publicly. Suffice it to say, help from global sysops has been very helpful, and we're glad to have their assistance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Plenty of times – GS/stew intervention has been particularly helpful during the times when a certain few LTAs were active (not going to namedrop them per DENY, but I'm happy to do so off-wiki). Also, having been a global sysop (and now steward) and been pretty extensively involved in this sphere for about 2 years now, the worst wikis to deal with x-wiki anti-vandalism are the wikis that set up needless bureaucratic hoops for no discernible benefits whatsoever, and I really don't want this wiki to be one of those said wikis. //shb (t | c | m) 12:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Can you tell me when most of the local admins weren't present and therefore global sysops could revert most of the disruptive edits? Font8388608 (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- I also oppose the suggestion. Global sysops have helped greatly by reverting vandalism when admins don't happen to be on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. The global sysops are generally helpful, and we have no reason to want them to leave us.
- I also don't understand why the OP would make this suggestion at a wiki they've never edited before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
I believe this question was raised in good faith because our project doesn't fit into the definition of a "small wiki" (see the definition of small and large wikis on Meta). Specifically, the first line on that definition page reads "Every wiki with checkusers should be treated as a large wiki. However, some of those wikis may need help. Global sysops must ask communities for permission to use their rights on that project." The presence of CheckUser elevates our status to large wiki, even though we have not reached 50,000 articles yet. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- So do we have to do anything to assure global sysops that we continue to welcome their help? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Nothing, really. Our policy already permits GS help on an as-they-see-fit model, which overrides the Meta definition in this instance. //shb (t | c | m) 23:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Users with Extended Rights Conference 2026
[edit source]I wanted to drop a note about Users with Extended Rights Conference 2026, which will be taking place in Portugal from 11-13 December 2026. It is an event which covers administrator recruitment, mental health, conflict mediation, admin tools, artificial intelligence and other topics. Attendance is limited to scholarship recipients (who will have travel and hotel covered), and applications are open until September 4th. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)