This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux at 01:10, 1 January 2019 (Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2019#January 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the .
To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
You may useto locate recently active bureaucrats.
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats, and all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
To request your administrator status to be removed,below.
Workshopping another inactivity proposal
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:
- 20 edits in the preceding 12 months, not including edits to your own User: or User:talk: space, or
- 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: A few thoughts:
- The "present" includes logged actions, are you wanting to remove that activity avenue entirely, have different thresholds, something else?
- For resysop requests: if someone is deficient, we would tell them "go make at least 19 more edits, then come back" or the like?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 ? –xenotalk 19:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- ..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)
- 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. –xenotalk 19:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)