Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

I've thought about it while writing letters to inactive admins that go largely unanswered. Here's what I've come up with.

• The present "1 edit in 12 months" policy is replaced with a requirement to meet either:
  1. 20 edits in the preceding 12 months, not including edits to your own User: or User:talk: space, or
  2. 1 edit in the preceding 12 months, and 1000 edits in the preceding five years, again not including your own user/talk space.

• For simplicity, logged actions are no longer considered in determining whether a user is active.

• No courtesy re-adminship at WP:BN unless either the 20 in a year or 1000 in 5 years is met first. Bureaucrats would be responsible for confirming compliance.

• Lengthy inactivity provisions remain unchanged.

• Notification procedure to remain unchanged (text of notices will be updated to reflect new policy)

• To take effect six months after approval

• On a one-time basis, accounts potentially affected to be notified on talk pages and via email of the new policy

Rationale is that it deals with the people who have drifted away with no real intent to return but who make a few edits a year without really re-engaging. 5 year provision is a real-world acknowledgement that people sometimes drift away for a while then come back. Deliberate lack of focus on logged admin actions since this is controversial and could unnecessarily derail progress.

UninvitedCompany 00:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@UninvitedCompany: A few thoughts:

1. The "present" includes logged actions, are you wanting to remove that activity avenue entirely, have different thresholds, something else?
2. For resysop requests: if someone is deficient, we would tell them "go make at least 19 more edits, then come back" or the like?
3. The notification verbiage would need slight adjustment, I'm assuming you are referring to the notification requirement and intervals only?

Thanks! For the non-'crat related mechanics, this should probably get moved to a better venue, such as WT:ADMIN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• At these moments I always like to shamelessly plug my essay on policy RFCs. And personally i would wait until the holiday season is truly over before making any real proposals. aBeeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I clarified the text based on Xaosflux' feedback. UninvitedCompany 19:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Perhaps might be better to move this to the idea lab, or tack it onto the bottom of the existing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to tighten administrator inactivity procedure ? –xeno^talk 19:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• ..nod.. If there is no further feedback from other bureaucrats, I think I'll just leave it here for now to be archived, and make a similar proposal at a more suitable time at one of the venues you suggest. I believe it is best to wait until the existing discussion at VP(P) runs its course and is formally closed before proposing an alternative. UninvitedCompany 19:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  I suppose my comment would be that 20 edits is only marginally less "game-able" than 1 edit. The fact is, without actual re-confirmations (which I'm not advocating for, to be clear), there is always the chance that administrators can drift out of touch with community norms while keeping up appearances. –xeno^talk 19:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. R. Baley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Graft (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

For discussion, the following administrators made edits after receiving the one-month warning and were therefore not desysopped.

1. Gtrmp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 1 edit - I left him a note
2. Ilyanep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 1 minor edit and one edit to own talk page - I left him a note
3. Valfontis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - made 8 edits. Was quite active last year
4. Visorstuff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 9 edits in one day. I left a note.
5. Aldux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 6 edits in two days - seems to be making periodic attempts to re-engage
6. Andres (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 6 edits - mainly active on the et: (Estonian) wiki, was never an active admin here

UninvitedCompany 01:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hi there - I acknowledge I’m no longer active on Wikipedia and fine to remove my administrator rights (I received an email on this today). Best wishes to all administrative and bureaucrats still keeping the project moving. Harro5

  Done. Thank you for your service, and Happy New Year. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply