Wikidata talk:Administrators/Confirm 2013

Timing

Do we automatically open the voting at 00:00UTC on 23 and automatically close it at 23:59UTC on 28 (for the first batch), meaning the votes on 24 are invalid? Or do we wait for the stewards to close the voting at some (convenient for them) point on 29?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say votes should end after 7 days like a normal admin vote. Why should it be 5 days? --Sk!d (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Common sense - they open on the 23rd and close on the 27th for the first round. They need to be locally closed, but it's just counting votes so not hard. If there is a vote or two within hours of it closing, that's fine. The aim here is to attract as much input as possible. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Threshold

Not written anywhere as far as I can see. Also 8 voters and 80%, as for the admin elections? But we are running the confirmation for 5 days, not for 7, so should it be 8*5/7 = 7 voters?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are we running the vote for just 5 days? I thougth it should be 7 as usual. Just starting every 5 days a new vote does not mean to short the voting period. --Sk!d (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Threshold for any other RfA, considering that this is renewing their adminship (per the meta standards). I am personally fine with five days, but seven days would also be alright. I'd prefer to get them over with fairly quickly. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 admins

For the remaining temporary 2013 admins, how are we going to reconfirm them? Should we start a separate RFP 7 days before the expiration? (5 days to run the confirmation, and 2 days extra to make sure that the stewards don't pull the plug too early). --Rschen7754 06:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the easiest, especially since all of them are likely active.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO sounds reasonable. --Stryn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just add some subpages to this confirmation page to keep all the confirm votes clearly arranged in one place. Regards --Iste (D) 14:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But will they be noticed, especially if they occur 2 months after the rest of the confirmations? --Rschen7754 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sitenotices are beautiful things :D - it can be advertised via that and notes on project chat, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as I'm not the one putting up the notices for my own reconfirmation - that would seem awkward. --Rschen7754 00:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be. I have them marked in my calendar, but that doesn't mean I'll remember them... if it's under a week until and there's no signs of life over here, feel free to give me a ping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Activity

As a non-admin, I have difficulties interpreting the admin activity level. Is there currently enough admin work for everybody? For instance, if someone is reasonably active, visits Wikidata daily, is it reasonable that there is always work for them to do? Or should they search all over the place looking for a single admin action to perform? Could someone pls comment?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The only real admin activity is deletions, and sometimes those are gone within 2 minutes. We've made less than 50 blocks on this site over three months, I believe. --Rschen7754 08:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does it mean that if someone is on Wikidata say three times per day, they may be in a position when there is no work for admin tools available for long time? Is ten deletions in three month a reasonably high activity then?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible, yes. --Rschen7754 08:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it is more or less clear, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is unsure how e.g. spam will increase when there will be more wikis using Wikidata. --Sk!d (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, I just wanted to understand whether say 10 admin actions is a big deal or not. I am not going to disqualify anybody just because we seem to have too many admins for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW: Edits in the MediaWiki namespace and to other protected pages or checking deleted pages are also activities that require the tools. --Leyo 23:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed schedule for remaining confirmations

Circuit 6 (Feb 17–Feb 21)

• Morten Haan (talk • contribs • logs)
• Lukas²³ (talk • contribs • logs)
• NuvieK (talk • contribs • logs)
• Riley Huntley (talk • contribs • logs)

Circuit 7 (Feb 22–Feb 26)

• Inkowik (talk • contribs • logs)
• Stevenliuyi (talk • contribs • logs)
• Leyo (talk • contribs • logs)
• Rzuwig (talk • contribs • logs)
• Amire80 (talk • contribs • logs)

Circuit 8 (Mar 18–Mar 22)

• Karol007 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Rschen7754 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Techman224 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Hazard-SJ (talk • contribs • logs)
• Sk!d (talk • contribs • logs)
• Iste Praetor (talk • contribs • logs)

Thank you for any comments, feedback or improvements! Regards --Iste (D) 13:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we split the 6th Circuit (if there is enough time)? So we have only 5-6 votes per circuit? --Sk!d (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as long as something is decided; this is like the 5th or 6th discussion I've seen on this, and considering that it's my reconfirmation included, it's getting a bit stressful. --Rschen7754 06:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now splitted circuit 6 according to Sk!d's proposal. Yes, I also noticed that, so I would just suggest to create voting pages 6, 7 and 8 if there are no objections within the next few days. Regards --Iste (D) 17:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for doing the brainwork for this! Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the admins, that are listed above, on their talk pages. Regards --Iste (D) 13:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My inactivity

Just so everyone knows, I am facing reconfirmation in the fifth round and I have been less active for the past few days, and will continue to be due to an accident where I have lost partial vision. It's expected to return to normal, but I am unsure of how long that will be. Knowing this, I don't know if I will be active for my reconfirmation RFA. I will go ahead and type up my nomination while I am on but this is a heads up in case someone reviews my contributions and sees this inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll get well soon. --Leyo 22:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes. I'll start contributing again shortly, I don't like to remain inactive long. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Take care. Raystorm está aquí 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes! Conny (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

What about me?

I want to ask whether I will be included in the reconfirmation process. I got my translationadminship together with the normal adminship and resigned later as sysop, but not as translationadmin. I would like to keep this permission but per SR/AT, this right was also granted temporary. That means I have to run for confirmation, although I'm not a sysop anymore. Besides, I plan to get more active again and maybe this translationadmin confirmation could be extended to a sysop confirmation, because I would love to help out here again as a sysop. Thanks for your comments and kind regards, Vogone (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest filing a new RFP for either sysop or translationadmin when the time comes. Since you resigned and we have no resysopping procedure, I don't think a confirmation would be appropriate for +sysop. --Rschen7754 20:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Filing an independent request would not be a problem for me but the translationadmin right is a right, which was granted temporary and should be confirmed by the community. Why not confirm it together with the other confirmations then? Regards, Vogone (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The stewards will automatically remove the right when the time has expired. The concern was making someone who went inactive and who already lost sysop go through another reconfirmation for translation admin which they would lose. It's still being discussed on the project chat though. --Rschen7754 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

lead time on confirmation

I got only 1 day of notice that I had to re-run for adminship. Now I already have a pill-on of oppose votes since I didn't write a candidate statement in time. Guess I'm just screwed since I was busy doing other things yesterday. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There have been notices up for the confirmations for weeks now, sorry that you didn't get the talk page message in time to act on it. You can always create a statement. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What good would it do? It would be impossible to pass at this point. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion admins should be aware about reconfirmations without that they get the message for their talk page. --Stryn (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair though, you were inactive, and people mostly seem to be opposing regarding that (if you look at the other reconfirmations). --Rschen7754 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation administrators?

I'm not a sysop, and therefore I've not been included in this reconfirmation process. But on meta my translationadmin rights was removed because expired. Also the Translation administrators must be reconfirmed? Also after a regular discussion? If yes, how I can be reconfirmed? --β₁₆ - (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion your rights should not have been removed because we voted you to be translation admin. And really don't need anything reconfirmations for translation admins. Maybe we can just ask on Meta to put rights back to you. --Stryn (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal or that this TA was considered temporary, but that's what the stewards decided to do and I guess we're stuck with it and have to do a reconfirmation. --Rschen7754 10:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

TA was never granted temporary except for those who got it due to their temporary adminship. Thus I would ask the stewards on meta to grant the rights again. Regards, Vogone talk 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Info I have posted an SRP request on meta. Regards, Vogone talk 15:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done by User:Axpde. Thanks to all! --β₁₆ - (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive

Now that all of the confirmations are over, isn't it time we placed the archive header on top of the page? Techman224^Talk 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is clear that this page is an archive. I don't actually know which template you mean and how it would help. Regards, Vogone talk 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's {{Archive}}. Techman224^Talk 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So go ahead. :-) Vogone talk 00:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)