User talk:Xaosflux/BConf

= CRAT confirmations = - sort of a follow up to User_talk:Worm_That_Turned - if that admin term lengths get approved perhaps we should address the 'crat issue a little differently. Not being burdened with the huge number of editors that we have in the admin corps we could easily handle something like an annual confirmation of crats (akin to the annual steward reconfirmations). Perhaps actual 'voting' and a threshold. Thoughts? — xaosflux  Talk 14:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not expecting my proposal to go through - but I do think that crat confirmations would be a good idea. Not sure about the form it would take though as this seems to be quite the sticking point. WormTT(talk) 15:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * / : Bureaucrat work is so infrequent, it will be difficult for participants to adequately judge a bureaucrat's recent efficacy which would lead to the thinning of the team and a loss of institutional memory, when people simply take the position of "Disconfirm, not enough work for bureaucrats already, and this one isn't doing any" (which might not be for lack of trying). This could be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one's view of the remaining utility of the bureaucrat role, bureaucrat discussions, etc..
 * As for 10-year admin reconfirmations, wouldn't admins naturally fall into a cycle of being on their best behaviour in the twilight years (perhaps riding rough in the early ones), not being willing to take potentially correct but unpopular decisions as they approach their expiry date? –xenotalk 14:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note; I wasn't going to put forward anything for crats unless there is something for admins (don't want to think of ourselves as above scrutiny). I expect that if WTT's prop gets approved at least at first there will be many admins that just don't bother and end up not being admins anymore. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A silver lining is that might help show how few truly active admin there are - this is just a brainstorm: what if there was a group admins who (by their own admission) were no longer "exceedingly active" could laterally move to voluntarily signal their status? The community would then have a better way to judge "okay, we've only got 75 admins who are on active duty". –xenotalk 14:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * we do have a bot job that populates List of administrators/Active that shows that as of today only ~500 of our admins have made 30 or more edits in the last 2 months. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm on that list and I know I do not carry enough administrative weight to be considered an truly active administrator, I can get on that list by doing one rename of a user with many subpages - it is other admins doing the heavy lifting. It would be nice for the community to have a clearer picture of the administrative landscape. I think someone has a chart somewhere about it, I'm not sure if it's regularly updated. –xenotalk 15:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * hmm we have a bot that populates User:JamesR/AdminStats - maybe we can get it to give the stats in a rolling monthly chart? — xaosflux  Talk 16:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)