Forum:SH:Admin/'crat edit requirements

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Admin/'crat edit requirements

Hello friends, I'm back (spring policy cleaning, part 4). There's some tweaks I personally think might be handy to change on Wookieepedia:Administrators.

The first one is super minor, just that either under "sysop tools" or "responsibilities," we should probably add a one-liner codifying that administrators have the capability/tools to moderate the Discord.

The second, is regarding this clause:

Administrators and bureaucrats must make at least 250 mainspace edits in any six-month span, excepting prior explanation of inactivity.
Bureaucrats must make at least 500 total edits combined in the mainspace, Wookieepedia:, File:, MediaWiki:, Template:, and Category: namespaces in any six-month span, excepting prior explanation of inactivity."

Which, I do see the point in it, but I'd like the see the latter part—about the bureaucrats—removed. In the changes to consensus and administrative autonomy policies among others, we've been taking out the extra powers/privileges/differences between admins and bureaucrats where we can, many of which helped enforce the somewhat toxic atmosphere Wook had until 2021.

Of course, some things must remain different (bureaucrats have RevDelete) but, if every bureaucrat is an administrator, it makes much more sense to remove the bureaucrat-specific editcount, which is calculated in a semi-convoluted and unnecessary way, and just have the 250 per 6 months for all admins. Bureaucrats would remain (and currently are anyway) subject to that, still making it so if someone genuinely does fully disappear without explanation/Vacation tag, there's still a process for that, which was the intent of it anyway.—spookywillowwtalk 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Given it's basically either pass or fail, taken to CTto see how it fares.—spookywillowwtalk 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The Discord rule sounds sensible. I'll leave it up to the non-BCs to decide what's fair in terms of the edit count requirements. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Bridging the gap between admin and BC is good by me. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 23:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Both suggestions look good to me. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 00:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Bit of a potential conflict of interest for me to comment on the second proposal per Ayre, but I think the arguments brought forward here make sense. Imperators II(Talk) 08:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this makes sense. Echo the conflict of interest per Imp and Ayre, but the logic seems sound. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 10:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Per Dani. And if more non-admin users are good with this, then I'm good with this. OOM 224 (he/him) 10:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)