The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Removing "voluntary removal" from the 5-year etc rule
As discussed extensively at WP:BN, it is now clear that UninvitedCompany, in good faith, misapplied without consensus the "voluntary removal" of tools to the five-year rule section. I have reverted the changes. Editors can discuss below if they need this to be included, and if consensus is gained for the same, the same can be done. Lourdes14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is just messy - here is an example what do you think should be done Lourdes:
2019: User:SomeAdmin Asks for restoration under the 'haven't been completely inactive for 3 years' provision.
If this admin didn't "resign" in 2014, they would have been ineligible when they would have removed for inactivity in 2018 under the '5 year rule' - but that 2014 "resignation" prevented us from processing the 'inactivity removal' since it was already done. Do you think we should have go through the "inactivity" process (notifications, etc) even when they have already resigned to avoid this? — xaosfluxTalk14:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not messy xao, and you probably didn't need to write up such a long table :) You and the other bureaucrats need to get the community's consensus on this. Crats can't decide on their own to include the "voluntary" part just because Crats believe it makes sense (yes, your point of view makes sense; but get consensus). Thanks, Lourdes15:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was mostly copy and paste ;) I'm not trying to individual make any policy here - just trying to clarify these edge cases, because it is what drives so much heated debates. In the table above, assuming that the current policy allows SomeAdmin to use BN instead of RFA in 2019, would this be avoided if 'notifications' were sent to them in 2018 that they are now 'inactive' - because having to track and notify inactive resigned admins for this seems to be a silly process in my opinion. — xaosfluxTalk15:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to iron this all out with a new RfC. And if things need simplifying, do that at the same time as well. No need to have it be five years (that was an arbitrary figure suggested at the RfC). Make it three years for both editing and admin activity. I'd also throw in that it would be nice to treat those going on a break with respect and say that the request to give up tools counts as an admin action, and start the clock ticking at that point. That would remove the potential problem over removal for inactivity versus voluntary removal. Carcharoth (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counting the removal request as a final admin action is an excellent suggestion that fixes the messiness in xaosflux' example. —Kusma (t·c) 16:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: it just pushes things forward, such as if in the table above if there were some more years like 2015/2016 it is the same situation: resigning, then becoming inactive has a longer timeline just just becoming inactive. — xaosfluxTalk23:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of the five-year rule was to stop giving a free pass to admins who are almost totally disengaged from the project, it was never intended to apply to users who resigned adminship but were still active otherwise. I would consider that a seperate issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you say above isn't consistent with what you said here. You say above that it was "never intended to apply" and you said there that it "probably should". Which is it? There is an example right now at the noticeboard of someone resigning adminship. If they want to keep open the option of taking up the bit again, they won't have to make yearly edits and only need to edit every three years. If they do that, they will be able to ask for the bit back at any time. Is that what you had in mind? You also said (in the same diff I link above), that you were aiming low in the hope of getting proposals to pass, and presumably with each proposal you are trying to gradually tighten the requirements bit-by-bit. What is the end goal you intend to achieve with that process? At the moment, the risk is that you will end up with a load of former admins who voluntarily gave up the bit, with varying levels of current activity, all of whom are entitled to ask for the bit back, which could be difficult to keep track of, and who may need notifying if the requirements change again. On a personal note, it would be nice to have some stability without feeling that the requirements will (yet again) change. But maybe incremental change is all that is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
