Using variations of https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/15365, the approximate (to the nearest hundred) current number of English Wikipedia editors with:

• More than 1000 edits and an account age greater than 12 months: 41,900
• More than 500 edits and an account age greater than 6 months: 67,200
• >500 edits, >6 months, 25 edits in the last 1 month: 7,500
• >500 edits, >6 months, 10 edits in the last 1 month: 10,200
• >500 edits, >6 months, 1 edit in the last 1 month: 16,600

English Wikipedia = approx. 1/3 to 1/2 of all editors.

It occurred to me that we might want to not allow bot accounts access. I'm not sure if there's any gaming/security risk here, but it's something to consider.

We also probably don't want to allow access to editors who are blocked on their home wiki (debatable).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Changing_autoconfirmed.2Fextended_confirmed_to_count_only_article_edits

Possibly related discussion about how to limit edit counts to article space. Ideally I think we would require 10 edits to mainspace, but maybe not.

I think we've settled on 10 edits in the past month (main namespace if possible), and the primary blocker now is the details of 'not blocked'. Perhaps users with an active block on their account for one or more Wikis wouldn't get automatic access, but would have to first be approved by a member of the TWL team, who can check the reason for the block. If the reason is e.g. behaviour, and the user is only blocked on one Wiki, we might be happy allowing. If the reason is widespread copyright infringement we might not. Worth discussing.

Hmm. I can easily be away from the project for a month from time to time. It'd be kinda annoying to be cut off from access to partner sources when I got back. Or picture the scenario where I edit every other month: I'm away for a month, get cut off, am back to editing for a month without access, and then get access for the next month when I'm not editing.

Any "recent activity" criteria needs to be very very lax ("one edit in the last year"-level lax) for this reason.

Minimum requirements, the barrier to entry, can be much higher: new users rarely will need access to partner resources, and a high barrier encourages new editors to stick around and keep editing. The barrier to entry just can't be so high that it seems unattainable or scares away the few new editors who do have a need for partner resources. My gut says 500 edits / 12 months is probably a good balance.

@Xover Thanks for the feedback!

The minimum overall requirements will almost certainly be 500 edits / 6 months, to have parity with the current requirements for applying for access.

As for recent activity, that's a valid concern, but we're aiming for the requirements to be checked at the point of access, such that if you're away for a month and make 10 edits the first day you're back, you'd get access again straight away, not the following month. Does that sound more reasonable?

In T153431#4015388, @Samwalton9 wrote:

As for recent activity, that's a valid concern, but we're aiming for the requirements to be checked at the point of access, such that if you're away for a month and make 10 edits the first day you're back, you'd get access again straight away, not the following month. Does that sound more reasonable?

Yes. But at that level, what's the point of having a non-binary recent activity criteria at all? What's the practical difference between 1 edit and 10 edits?

I imagined this was intended to effectively "age out" (expire) access for editors who have effectively retired. Like, say, I was away from the project for two years and came back. In that case my access should probably be expired, and it should take some not insignificant but not onerous activity to regain it; mainly to block a hijacked account and similar problems from spilling over onto TWL. Actively editing for a month or three, say, with "active" being defined as some reasonable average number of edits per month or week for the period. Or perhaps that's not even needed?

In any case, I think the central question to answer is "What is it intended to achieve?", and the right numbers will follow naturally from that.

What is it intended to achieve?

The limit is primarily intended to make sure that the people with access to Library Bundle resources are active on Wikipedia, rather than just sitting on an account they're not actually using for Wikipedia editing just to get this free access.