It appears that some users manage to "retire" for a period of days with the possible intention of avoiding AN, AN/I or ArbCom discussions. I suggest that "retirements" of under 1 month be labelled "temporary" at the time of occurrence, with violations thereof being considered subject to admin blocking for what would have been the remainder of the 1 month minimum - thus preventing some of this abuse. Collect (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A problem of a retirement so the editor doesn't bother responding to a charge but other editors invent what are sometimes nonsensical defenses as if the charged editor can't speak for themself seems to occur now and then and it confounds the attempt at a resolution, especially a sanction. If the retirement is real, either permanent or even if temporary but due to, say, hospitalization, it's appropriate to defer the adverse action until unretirement. If the retirement is a temper tantrum, because an editor wants to edit or behave in their own way even though it violates policy or guideline and the retirement is just a means for evasion of a sanction in lieu of answering a charge, then the retirement should be ignored and the procedure should go forward. And we should not have to judge the intent behind a retirement.

I propose that if an action has been started that would be adverse to an editor freely editing and if notice has been provided to that editor, if the editor retires after that notice, the retirement shall be equivalent to the editor not objecting to the adversity of the action. For example, if the adverse action would be a block, the block would go forward as if the editor had no objection and it would not be reversible (the editor could not be unblocked) until the editor unretired and replied with ground enough for an unblock.

If multiple actions have been begun, notice of the first one begun being before the current retirement would be ground enough for the retirement to be ignored for all of the actions.

I'm not sure what policy or guideline should have this, but this seems to be a place to start a discussion.

Comments?

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is closed here and continued at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution#retiring under a cloud. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section in question as it seems entirely inappropriate and open to abuse. An excellent MeatballWiki essay is linked on the page which describes the negative reasons that some editors have to "retire" and, bearing that in mind, giving future retirees the forum to post melodramatic, potentially-inflammatory leaving statements is highly counterproductive.
Note also that the authors of both statements linked have edited since their creation. I do not imply any bad faith on their part, but their retirements clearly weren't permanent. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The {{retire}} template says that "If you later resume editing for any reason, any user may remove this erroneous template from your user page." - does this also go for erroneous "I am no longer active" type claims made in prose, on user pages? --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current use of the retirement template or its subsidiaries is an absolute farce. There's a frequent spell of editors who use those templates as a method to express protest or extreme disapproval of an action taken by a higher authority (usually WP:ARBCOM), but inevitably they return to editing within a couple weeks, or they never truly intended on retiring anyway, and will just continue editing even with the {{Retired}} template at the top of their user page - sometimes even fully aware that it's there, to spite other editors. The template either needs to be deprecated or there needs to be some consequences to declaring a false retirement, such as a script-enforced Wikibreak.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If admin permanently retire from a project, does this action necessarily imply removal of admin roles and tools? What is the practice on en.wiki?  Imbe  hind 💊 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtyarjanie 154.80.63.97 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]