Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal/Archive 1

WP:ILIKEIT

• I like the proposal as it stands at the moment. For the first "calendar year" I'd support either moving the date back to whenever this policy is enacted (to give the 'crats a full year in which to act) or alternately informing the crats of this proposal (by talkpage would be nice, since the ones who haven't acted since say 2007 may not still hang around the noticeboard). Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer just to give a vote of confidence to them all (maybe leaving out the most recently promoted ones). Much easier, it'll take a lot shorter time, and we don't need to fuss over dates and giving extra chances that they don't need. If TUF-KAT or Cprompt suddenly decided they wanted to help out, I wouldn't trust them at all. They ought to be removed without prejudice. Majorly talk 15:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea

Before this is shot down by the "WP:PEREN" and "There's no harm here!" crowd, this is a very, very, very good idea. Just five years too late. :) Majorly talk 14:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I never understood the proposals for removing flags that haven't been used in six months, but there's no use having admins, much less bureaucrats, who haven't edited/preformed a logged action in several years. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Cprompt has never used his bureaucrat tools. Personally, I think we can just flat-out remove all the bureaucrats that haven't done anything before 2008 (which, at current count, would be ten of them). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I don't know why Cprompt has never used his bcrat rights. No offence to him at all, but I don't trust him one bit to close an RFA, rename a user or whatever. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone possibly could in today's Wikipedia. I don't know for sure, but I don't think he's even voted in an RFA since 2004. Bureaucrats go through the most excruciating process called an RFB. It requires 90% approval rate, the highest for any user right, anywhere. And yet, it's something that some believe should be stuck indefinitely, despite the user having no trust whatsoever in the community. Again, no offence meant to Cprompt, but that's how things are. Majorly talk 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't see eye-to-eye about Cprompt himself (though I don't know him, so I don't really have any opinion on him), but I'm 100% in agreement with you in that we both find the "lifetime appointment" concept a bit perplexing. The community that appointed him a bureaucrat is not the same community that is around now; the fact that he's never used the tools is confusing, and makes him, in effect, not a bureaucrat in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, agree with you guys. Bcrats who have not done anything for one year should be removed. AdjustShift (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Love this. About 1/3 of crats don't do anything and we need to prune the tree. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think when myself, Rlevse, Malleus Fatuorum and MBisanz agree on something, it must be worth doing... :D Majorly talk 11:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just have a vote of confidence

Let's just do a vote of confidence on them all, and see how happy the community is with our bcrats. I think making requirements and giving a "chance" that bcrats do not need is really not needed. Let's just put it to a vote and any that clearly have no confidence can be removed. If it gets to a stage where we have as many inactive again, we can do it again. It'll take two weeks. We can do it like the CU/OS election. That worked fine. Majorly talk 15:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. Anyone (read: someone more established and respected than me/majorly, no offence majorly) want to set that up? Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't like to see "all" the crats go through this, just the ones who are inactive. Synergy 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think any that haven't made an action since 2007 (or ever, in the case of Cprompt) should be removed without prejudince. Majorly talk 20:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say anyone that was promoted more than a year ago would/should be fair game (which would exclude myself, yes, but also Rlevse, Dweller, and Bibliomaniac15), but if we were to go this route, I'd want to start via the most inactive first. Maybe for fairness sake do them by date of promotion? Perhaps do them in bunches at a time, sort of like reconfirmations on other projects (Meta, Wikisource, etc), so we end up with four or five overall processes, rather than thirty individual ones. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, although I think it might be a good idea for those crats that were promoted before say 2008, that raises two other problems: a) the community has always opposed reconfirmation proposals before and I don't see how that would be different now and b) if we were to do that with inactive crats, we have to do it with admins as well where the same criteria apply. Because if we decide that the standards of crats have changed, we have to admit that the same is true for admins. SoWhy 10:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Good

This seems fine. I'm disinclined to do votes of confidence in the crats, as this process would probably smoke out anyone who's gone inactive. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like is the fact that, if this proposal is enacted, we must still wait an entire year to actually resolve this issue. While I think an expiry process is good and necessary, I do not think that we need grandfather in existing 'crats for an entire year. There are eleven 'crats that would be elegible for removal under this system. Obviously it is not appropriate to simply invoke an ex post facto policy that renders them elegible to be deflagged, but that doesn't mean that we must necessarily wait for the policy to roll around naturally. I would like to see the issue of "what to do with our inactive 'crats" considered separately to "should we introduce an expiry?". Obviously the former question depends upon the latter, but we can still treat the existing inactive crats differently to crats who may become 'inactive' in the future. Essentially I'm saying that, if we decide to introduce a one year expiry, we can handle the grandfathering process more elegantly than simply sitting back and twiddling our thumbs for a year. Happy‑melon 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

What is the purpose of removing bureaucrats? How is the encyclopedia improved by doing so? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we want to remove people's rights if they never use them. That's why. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. This is purely a management aspect. Asking lame questions like "How does this improve the encyclopedia?" don't help anything at all. Best wishes, Majorly talk 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You cleverly didn't answer the question. Every new policy / guideline / whatever should somehow benefit the project. So, what's the issue with inactive bureaucrat accounts? Is there some sort of problem with them? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, read above. Inactive bureaucrats do not have trust in the community. Majorly talk 20:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Because we want to remove people's rights if they never use them." - We do? Then why have all the proposals to desysop inactive admins failed? Who is "we?" Mr.Z-man 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly a security issue, as bureaucrats are the ones who assign administrator status. So is your (MZMcBride) question really "How is the encyclopedia improved by implementing a security measure designed to prevent administrator status being usurped?" --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So this is a security measure? You do realize inactive accounts are (for the most part) far more secure than active accounts, right? (Less likelihood of passwords being transferred on insecure wireless networks, password sniffing, etc.) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that more people are concerned with the "security" of knowing that the bureaucrat performing a 'crat task is up-to-speed and has current community trust than the "security" of knowing that the account won't be hacked and used by another individual. Useight (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MZMcBride in that the "physical security" argument is of little value. The issue of community trust is vastly more significant. Happy‑melon 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just a security measure. The fact that it is impossible to trust a bureaucrat who has not done a single bureaucrat action in 5 years. It seems pointless for such people to continue holding rights. There is a risk they may one day wake up, and decide to promote somebody, and to give someone who does not know what they are doing the ability to do that is a really bad idea. Majorly talk 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What I realize is that the claim is untrue. Not just for the "most part", but for every part. I said elsewhere that it may be necessary for someone to hack into one of these inactive accounts to shake some out of their half-remembered but only quarter understood dream world. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: see above, and all the people who supported the rejected proposals. There's clearly several people who wish for this to be done. Majorly talk 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"... I could find a healthy-sized number of Wikipedians to support killing my cat. And I don't even own a cat." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)So "We" is "the people supporting the proposals to remove inactive users' rights" Substituting that into that sentence that you gave as justification for the proposal: "Because the people supporting the proposals to remove inactive users' rights want to remove people's rights if they never use them. That's why." Circular logic is circular. Mr.Z-man 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give some justification for keeping inactive bcrats, instead of picking at semantics in what I say. Majorly talk 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're allowed to give blatantly illogical reasons in favor of it ("we should do it because the supporters support it"), but I have to actually give good reasons to oppose it? I haven't actually said that I oppose the proposal (it could be implied from my comments, but I haven't said it explicitly). At this point, I'm merely trying to figure out the reasons why it was proposed and to form my opinion, so far the rationale given has been rather unimpressive. In any case, pointing out logical fallacies in arguments is far more substantive than picking at semantics. Mr.Z-man 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. How apt. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave the reason, multiple times. Inactive bureaucrats have no trust in the community, at least not the level required in today's RFBs. That we have 11 or so sat around, effectively with the bureaucrat user right as decoration, and one with no experience whatsoever in any bureaucrat task, is a sign something is amiss. This is simply housekeeping. I can't believe all the fuss that's being made to prevent it happening. Majorly talk 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That essay would work, if it wasn't broken. As it happens, it is broken. We have eleven or so users who never use bureaucrat rights, and do not have the trust required for this role. Majorly talk 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) But activity level does not correspond to level of trust. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does. This is evident when an editor requests adminship with only a sporadic history. They fail. Like it or not, bureaucrats sort of set an example as some of our "better" admins (for the most part) - after all, they did pass the enduring process that is RFB. I personally do not consider an editor who passed in 2004 with 7 votes, and hasn't made a single contribution to that area since, as someone "highly trusted" (that is, a bureaucrat). There is no reason for them to be. Majorly talk 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point. Level of activity does not correspond to level of trust. This proposal attempts to quantify trust by pointing to activity level. You don't think Cprompt has the community's trust? Fine. But if he suddenly renamed six users, he'd be completely safe from any rights removals for at least a year. There's an enormous disconnect in the logic of this proposal. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal as it is. I think we should remove people like Cprompt immediately, and not give a useless "lifeline". Majorly talk 11:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A problem exists because our bureaucrat community is currently considered to be a group of the most trusted and respected members of the community, and RfB is now designed to ensure that. Having such a group is useful to the project because it gives us the option to give that group new technical powers or responsibilities (eg WP:FLR/T, desysoping, high-level consensus evaluation, etc) in the security that they have the respect and authority to fulfil those tasks successfully, or to use those tools responsibly. That situation is severely undermined by having a large fraction of the bureaucrat community consist of inactive or barely-active users who in many cases were promoted in an RfB process that was not designed to select candidates with the qualities we now expect. Essentially, when saying "a bureaucrat will do X", we are currently not able to say with complete confidence that X will consequently be performed by a user who has the respect and authority to do so. Resolving that problem will be a tangible benefit to the encyclopedia, and so should be done. This is in contrast to an equivalent expiry system for admins, which would fail (and has failed) because our requirements of the administrator group are not the same as for bureaucrats. We appoint admins, and have always done so, to have a high level of community trust, and to perform necessary administrative tasks. Those criteria have not changed since the earliest RfAs. By contrast, the requirements at RfB have changed enormously, as have the technical abilities (and community expectations) of bureaucrats. The contributors to the earliest RfBs were supporting candidates for a completely different role to the one that bureaucrats now fill on en.wiki. The fact that the products of those early RfBs are still here undermines our ability to have complete faith in the bureaucrat community. Happy‑melon 20:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the people who shoot down good ideas with lame arguments like "NOTBROKENDONTFIXIT", "NOHARM" and "DOESNTHELPTHEENCYCLOPEDIA". I'd like those people to give a reason why we should keep bureaucrats who do nothing. Just for decoration? Majorly talk 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Under this current proposal (the way I read it at least), if these people were to rename one user, they'd be "safe" for a year (and somehow suddenly regain the trust of the entire community). So, I'm failing to see your point. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, with the safe harbor clause, all they have to do is make an edit saying they want to stay as a crat during the "safe harbor time period." Mr.Z-man 20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I don't support this proposal as it stands. It is important to properly separate the problem (members of the bureaucrat group who were not appointed by a system that selects candidates with the qualities we now expect from bureaucrats) from the proposed solution (which I agree is not optimal). Do you agree that the problem exists and should be solved? Happy‑melon 20:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know that I see a problem, really. While it's true that past elections only had about 20 people participate and today's have far more people participate, that's a natural consequence of a growing community and little else. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Issue

To try to present an example of the issue as I see it, let's take a few examples. Picking largely at random from the earliest bureaucrats, here is the entirety of Ilyanep's RfB:

Ilyanep

Talk 14:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1. 172 18:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2. Danny 01:48, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 172 09:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) Seems to have a black/white view of conflict. Users who share his political biases are never in the wrong to him, while users who see things differently to him are never acting in good faith.

The only argument I have ever had with you was about the addition to the beginning of an article having to do with the Soviet Union almost half a year ago. I do not think that that is a basis to form a fair judgement of me. Furthermore, people who share my so-called "political biases" are criticised by me too when I see the need (in that case I saw the need to critisize you, but not for the revision of the article, but for your very condescending and uncivil conduct [And by the way, the reference was provided and you still dismissed the edits to the article]). But that's beside the point, and I really do not wish to hold an everlasting grudge against you if you stop acting in such a manner as you have. Ilyanep 14:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're right. It is not a basis to form a fair judgment of you. That is why I am not using it as a basis. Rather, I oppose your candidacy because I have long gotten the impression that you've been harboring a nasty grudge, which is not a characteristic one wants to see in a nominee for admin or bureaucrat status. Recently, for example, you joined in on some personal attacks on a request for comments page (started by other users with transparently political motivations) and posted some nasty comments about on the mailing list. I saw these as signs that you were harboring a grudge. Otherwise, I would've long forgotten the conflict that you'd mentioned. 172 14:48, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not remember posting anything on a mailing list, but one short comment on a Request for Comments page...and I have seen a few revert wars that you have been captured in. If this looked like a grudge I was holding against you then my sincerest apologies to you. Ilyanep 17:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess that I meant the quickpolls. I saw that you crossed out your comments there. I'll do the same. 172 18:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you believe that this user is, by virtue of this candidacy, trusted by the community to have the necessary characteristics to be able to close difficult RfAs? To arbitrate complicated disputes? To understand the technical issues behind renaming users? How about Cprompt??

Cprompt

cprompt

I've been a sysop here for quite a while, and somewhat recently on the Simple English Wikipedia. I believe in the philosophy that being a sysop is "no big deal", and requests should only be denied if the community fears that a user will abuse the few powers given to sysops. I'm not a fan of sysops taking unilateral action, and I do not think that I have ever abused my awesome sysop powers. cprompt 18:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Lirath Q. Pynnor
2. It's all about trust, and I certainly think that cprompt is trustworthy enough to use the power that comes with bureaucracy responsibly. Metasquares 13:05, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Perl 23:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. RickK 04:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Trustworthy, and has gained Lir's trust. --Uncle Ed 15:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. --Jiang
7. Support. Meelar 01:12, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Crackshoe 17:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) (This is a sock puppet account →Raul654)
   • No, it's a friend of mine who I've introduced to Wikipedia today. Disregard the vote if newbies don't count. --cprompt 19:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
     • I'm not a sock puppet, and i've started entry on Slick Idiot and added a Misfits filmography. It just took me a few hours before i had time to start editing. Crackshoe 21:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
   • I apologize for labelling you a socket puppet, but under the circumstances, it was a reasonable thing to think. Please do not be discouraged, I meant you no offense. →Raul654 21:47, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose. Prone to making unfair accusations 172 02:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 8 support, 0 oppose -- ends 18:16, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cimon avaro's RfB closed with under 80% support, in a time when the bureaucrats' only task was promoting admins. If you have a look at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies, you see a huge rise in the number of contributors to RfBs between the 2004-era promotions and the more recent nominations (see graph to right).

The 'problem', to my mind, is not that there are inactive bureaucrats, per se, but that there are bureaucrats who would very conspicuously fail an RfB in the present community, because they were promoted in a time when we had different expectations of the process. Note that this is completely different to proposals for admin recall, where we note that admin X would perhaps now fail RfA because our evaluation of admin X has changed. Here it is the bureaucrat position that is has changed. For the record, we also have two existing bureaucrats who have not passed an RfB at all.

I'm going to investigate this further, and probably add to the table on the main page with details of when and where each 'crat was promoted. Then we can see just how well inactivity correlates with RfB rigour; as MZMcBride notes above, simple activity is not a very good indicator of continued community trust. Happy‑melon 21:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Were you talking about me? How have I changed? Xclamation point 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when do bureaucrats have to "arbitrate complicated disputes?" Also, if this really is the only good reason for a proposal like this, doing this with bureaucrats is rather silly. There's only a handful of crats who fit this description; there's probably dozens of admins (not to mention that all of the crats who would fail would likely also fail as admins). Mr.Z-man 06:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So we do it with all the inactive admins too? The fact it's only a handful is better - for those adamant keeping inactive people is a good idea, at least we won't be removing that many. Majorly talk 10:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Still seeing any actual problem being solved here. Maybe a diagram would help. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is lack of trust in the community, as explained multiple times. If you don't agree, you don't agree. Majorly talk 11:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite simple. The bureaucrat position requires (nearly) unconditional/unanimous trust in the community. One who has been promoted with a few !votes from users who are not even active anymore can simply not be called community trusted. This is a perfectly reasonable and valid point/problem, that should be solved. — Aitias // discussion 12:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "arbitrate complex discussions"; you're right that bureaucrats do not generally arbitrate disputes. I'm more thinking of the large-scale consensus polls; whenever there is difficulty in finding someone suitably trusted and respected to close and judge the consensus on such things, people call for the 'crats. As Aitias says, it's all about being able to consider the bureaucrat group as a whole to have complete community trust, which is simply not the case. Happy‑melon 13:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Here it is the bureaucrat position that is has changed." You don't think the admin position has changed dramatically in the last four years? --MZMcBride (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it has? How? Happy‑melon 11:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The admin position hasn't changed that much: additional things like ability to grant rollback, semi-protection etc. But not that much is different really. I don't know why MZMcBride has brought that up, because if he and others are making such a fuss over bureaucrats, I don't want to imagine what they'd think if admins were proposed. Majorly talk 11:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It has changed dramatically. The fair use battles, the nationalistic edit warriors, CheckUser evidence, socking, project size, libel issues, BLP issues, a wide array of new user rights and responsibilities, admins being stalked, site traffic, etc. Signing up for adminship today is far different than it was in 2002. I agree with Mr.Z-man here. If inactive accounts are such an issue, you'd start with admins. But that fails every time. There's no distinction between bureaucrat unattended accounts and admin unattended accounts (besides the 'zomg they'll promote everyone!1' nonsense). So I have an incredibly difficult time seeing the virtue of this proposal (or any similar proposal). --MZMcBride (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You realise most admins don't deal with stuff like that? And besides, the only reason past proposals have failed is because they have been poorly thought out, and have been shot down with lame arguments like WP:PEREN and WP:NOHARM. I've yet to see one good reason for keeping user rights on any user account. Majorly talk 12:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again you're confusing the two issues. For me at least, inactive users are not the problem; they just happen to correlate with the users who were promoted by processes that were not aimed towards selecting candidates with the qualities we now expect. There are two threads here, we need to keep them separate.

To respond to your comment, however, I don't think that most of your 'changes' have changed the qualities we expect in an administrator. How has the growth of the site affected that, for instance? Or the creation of CheckUser? Since when has sockpuppetry not been a problem? While the increasing public presence of wiki admins may have affected who steps forward for adminship, how has it affected who we accept for the role? Two points that I do agree have changed are the increasing controversy over fair use and particularly BLP, and I would be wary about trusting implicitly an admin working in these areas who was promoted before they came to prominence. But tracking down and identifying such admins is a monolithic task, and as Majorly says, there are few if any admins who participate in every one of the admin areas. The crossover between admins who were promoted pre-BLP, who actually work in BLP areas, is probably quite small.

With bureaucrats, on the other hand, the changes are fundamental. The 'old guard' of bureaucrats were promoted when the role had exactly one purpose: to close RfAs. Candidates at RfB were assessed on their ability to accurately assess the RfA requests of the time. These are the sort of RfAs that they were assessing. Do you think that a bureaucrat who could correctly assess those RfAs can necessarily correctly close a modern RfA? Can the community put complete trust in the bureaucrat to be able to do that? Personally, I think not; note I'm not saying that they necessarily can't judge consensus correctly, merely that they have not been through a process that is designed to guarrantee that they can do so. Happy‑melon 13:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• This looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. We're talking about taking away crat rights because they aren't being used? If they are not using them, it logically follows that they are not misusing them either. I strongly feel that such things should be handled on a case-by-case basis as opposed to "blanket solution," especially one like this with a huge loophole that makes it essentially toothless. If a crat is abusing their power and acting in a way contrary to community consensus, fine, take 'em down. I don't see any mention of that sort of thing in this proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's nothing to do with that. (And please read the page before making tired old arguments like "This is a solution looking for a problem", when it blatantly isn't). If a crat is not using their power, they don't need the power, in my view. Feel free to disagree with me. Majorly talk 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, aside from one really stupid decision from Danny a long time ago, is there some epidemic of 'crat powers abuse that I'm unaware of? If there is, then I will wholeheartedly support this. If there isn't... then all this does is shovel more bureaucracy into as system that has already has way too much of it. Trusilver 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will use whatever argument fits the situation, whether it's been used before or not. You still have not stated what the "problem" is, just repeated that you don't like it that some crats aren't using their tools. Fine, don't like it, but that does not justify making yet another policy to be followed. New rules for removing the rights of users need a compelling reason, and you have not provided one. Show me the problem, demonstrate that there is harm being caused by this situation, that it's not just something you don't happen to like, and I won't use that line of argument anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for discussion

Just as with the "give bureaucrats power to desysop" proposal also under discussion, I don't have a strong view on this proposal one way or the other, but I do have a couple of questions that might help guide the discussion:

(A) Have there been instances of long-inactive bureaucrats who suddenly became active again and started performing bureaucrat actions? (I can think of one or two instances myself, but someone must have a more organized recollection.)

(B) In the instances where long-inactive 'crats suddenly re-started 'cratting, was this controversial at the time, either because of the inactivity or because the tools were allegedly being used inappropriately or incorrectly?

(C) Has anyone raised this issue with any of the bureaucrats who have not taking any bureaucrat actions for a long time, and asked them if they want to remain 'crats or not, and why? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well working off of User:NoSeptember/crat stats, it appears that User:Secretlondon, User:Infrogmation, and User:Pakaran returned from lengthy absences in the past to perform crat work and that more recently User:Kingturtle has returned to crating. No idea about how these returns were viewed and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever contacted the inactive crats who are still editing. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They have actually. Example, WJBscribe asked TUF-KAT once, who refused because he didn't know what to do(!) I have also asked Cimon Avaro on IRC multiple times, but he has refused too. It's fairly maddening. Majorly talk 10:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Attitude to unused user rights

Just an observation, but there is and never has been any consensus that unused user rights be removed simply because they aren't used. There is no precedent for rights to be removed involuntarily without vote from Arbcom, an emergency due to a compromised account or following a failed reconfirmation RFAR. I doubt very much that when this discussion is listed to a wider audience the consensus will change. It strikes me that those editors seeking to have rights removed need a much clearer and more compelling arguments about why they want to do this if this is not to be yet another meaningless navel gazing exercise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of trust in the community isn't compelling?? And I think you should wait before making big assumptions of how people feel about bureaucrats who sit around doing absolutely nothing. Majorly talk 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to go not answering my points. I'm very sure how the communuity will feel about this. I looked at the whole adin rights issue last year and this is even less likely to gain traction. If you are so sure that the community backs you on this, do you want to put a bet on it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because there has been no consensus in the past, doesn't mean that'll be the same today. One of the biggest reasons this kind of thing gets shot down is because of comments like "It's never happened before, so cannot happen ever". Never a proper argument about what use inactive bcrats/admin have to this project (which is none at all). Majorly talk 13:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But we had this discussion recently over the removal of admin rights and it was clear that the community did not support the concept. Sorry but that's not ancient history and while consensus can change there is no evidence of any change taking place at this time. Now are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and take that bet? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, why would I bet on something like this? Silly idea. Majorly talk 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And the "discussion" took place on WT:RFA, which many people avoid as a rule. Many gave reasons like "We've never done this before, so we can't do it now" and "They don't harm anyone". Not exactly brilliant reasons for keeping a level of trust, that in today's Wikipedia requires 90% approval at RFB. Additionally, it was about admins, which is different. Most people on this talk page appear to think some sort of removal system is a good idea. I'm not really interested in "precedent" and "past discussions". Who cares what the community "decided" months ago? It doesn't matter. We can try again, and ought to be able to without someone pointlessly pointing out that yes, it has been rejected in the past. But then again, so were many things that we now take for granted (rollback comes to mind). Majorly talk 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree with Spartaz here. This is a solution in search of a problem. And yes, I have read the whole text in this page above and am unpersuaded by the rationale given by the handful of enthusiastic supporters of this proposal. The existing bureaucrats at one point were deemed to have the trust of the community according to the norms actual at that time. Since then, they have not done anything to lose that trust. One assumes that if they choose to become active again, they will be sensitive to the fact that they may not know any detail and proceed accordingly. Now, I could support some sort of narrowly focused policy that would suspend userrights from trusted users who do not make any edits for an extended period of time, assuming they could just ask for them back if they return.

Finally, Majorly asks in various places above for those who don't suppose this proposal to give a reason why not beyond "unpersuaded / unnecessary / etc." While I think that is unfairly putting the shoe on the other foot - it is up to the proponents of change to make a compelling argument for change, not the other way around - I'm happy to share my reason for the sake of the discussion. In rather overstated form, it's that for me, trust is built up primarily over an extended period of not messing up and being mildly helpful. RFA/RFB are a mechanism to give provisional trust because you have to start somewhere. However, that trust continues to evolve over time. Suppose bureaucrat A has been one for three years but hasn't done any bureaucrat actions for the last two. And bureaucrat B passed RFB with 9x% support a month ago and has since done multiple promotions and user renames since then. Which one do I trust more to do a user rename with all the technical arcana correct - of course B. Which one do I trust more to do the right thing for the encyclopedia - bureaucrat A. And that's why I actively don't want to remove A's bit. Hope this helps, Martinp (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by the last bit? How is being inactive (i.e. doing nothing) doing the "right thing", and how is that user doing the "right thing" more so than user B? They aren't. Not editing or not doing any bureaucrat work isn't doing the right thing - it's doing nothing.

You ask, "what have they done to lose the trust?" I ask "What have they done to keep it?" In answer to your question, the fact the project has clearly evolved, people have come and gone, bureaucrats' roles are significantly different today than when created, should clearly be some idea of why someone who hasn't shown they've moved with the times isn't trusted. How can you trust Cprompt to do a promotion today, when he was "trusted" by a massive 8 people in 2004, and he's done nothing since? Please explain, I'm really intrigued. I do not consider 8 people a sign of trust at all, and if Cprompt has shown no interest whatsoever in performing this role, he has no need to keep it. Majorly talk 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes not doing anything is better than rushing into action just to show activity. I've never encountered Cprompt before, but I looked him up just now. I see someone who clearly had trust 5 years ago, doesn't appear to have broken the wiki since then, makes a reasonable edit once in a while. You say he(?) has "shown no interest whatsoever in performing this role", yet on Dec 22 after a polite request on his talk, he edited the bureaucrat status page with an update. That's showing enough interest for me. If I had to field a team of 10 bureaucrats, would I choose him? No, because he's not performing the bureaucrat workload. But do I trust him to use reasonable judgement should he decide to do so - yes, why not? (Now logging off for a few days). Martinp (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating a status is hardly performing a role... Majorly talk 13:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, some of these people have never done a RFB? Brion gets a free pass, as having any access anyway as head of all WMF IT, and Tim, as our (lead?) developer but the rest? No and no. Just because something was tolerated in the early days as well, doesn't mean it has to be now or forever. rootology (C)(T) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No of course not but by the same token there is no evidence that the community wants to remove these rights just becaise they are unused. The standard test is whether they are being abused and they clearly are not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can say there is or isn't a concensus to remove, but until a very wide number of people weigh in, there's no way to know for sure. ;) rootology (C)(T) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CENT

Is this ready to be listed at central discussions yet? Strikes me the proposal is quite mature and that its time to let the community have their say. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been advertised in quite a few places (RfA talk, bureaucrat noticeboard etc), but I don't think it's ready, as I actually disagree with it in its current form. My preferred method would simply to remove the bureaucrats who have done nothing at all in the past year, two years or whatever, without waiting a year, or giving a lifeline. Removal of inactive user rights has been needed a long, long time, and it's dismaying to see the amount of people who enjoy shooting it down with poor/non-existent arguments. Majorly talk 13:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And of course, the other side of the coin, people demanding the removal of rights with weak or poorly articulated reasons that don't mesh with our traditional approach to such matters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What weak reasons are these then? Majorly talk 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Crats with no election or community-endorsed vote?

Brion and Tim get a free pass as the WMF's principle tech employees for business reasons, in my opinion--but where were Angela, Secretlondon, Stan Shebs, and TUF-KAT approved by the community for local project 'crat access? rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably on wiken-l which is where such stuff used to take place in the dim distant past. Why not ask them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No community approved them. They were all promoted by Eloquence (chosen by him), and the community had no say whatsoever. Majorly talk 18:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Brion and Tim are both members of the global "system administrators" group, which is essentially a blank cheque to do anything on any wiki (they have full access to an interface that allows them to cherry pick what permissions they want to have at any given moment!). Consequently there is actually no need whatsoever for them to have explicit bureaucrat access here; there's not even any real reason for them to be global stewards. I also fully agree with the sentiment here, that the other four 'legacy' crats are on very thin ice in terms of community support. Happy‑melon 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Have any of them (Angela, Secretlondon, Stan Shebs and TUF-KAT) ever performed any controversial action? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Angela and Secretlondon have both been fairly active in the past, Angela still is moderately today. TUF-KAT made his last bcrat action in 2004, and Stan made his only one in 2007. But that's besides the point. It's extremely simple: If they are not using tools, they do not need them. Nothing else to it. Angela has earned trust and respect as a bureaucrat by doing some work. As has Secretlondon, during 2007 mostly. The other two have done no such thing, and therefore have not earned any trust at all in the community. Majorly talk 13:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The obligatory evil thing.

Let's have a straw poll, as a simple gauge of community sentiment. Just put Yes or No slot four tildes after the statement with a simple statement of your reasoning - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed the formatting a bit. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Poll advertised on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Poll_on_Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_removal, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Poll_on_Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_removal and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Poll_on_Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_removal. — Aitias // discussion 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Principle

"I agree with the proposal in principle"

1. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2. — Jake Wartenberg 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Icewedge (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Xclamation point 20:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Majorly talk 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Skomorokh 20:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
10. iridescent 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
11. --Giants27 TC 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
12. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Synergy 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Malinaccier (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
17. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
18. I feel dirty. Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
19. rootology (C)(T) 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
20. iMatthew // talk // 11:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Strongly - AdjustShift (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Rje (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
24. I would go so far as to say even three months is too long of a period. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
25. VX!^talk 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
26.  GARDEN  22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Secret ^account 15:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Patton^t/c 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Majoreditor (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
30. - Robofish (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
31. hmwithτ 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 14:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with the proposal in principle"

1. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Chick Bowen 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
5. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Trusilver 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
9. — Moe ε 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
10. faithless (^speak) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
11. — neuro^(talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Community trust

"I believe that the community has trust in the bureaucrats at any time, regardless of activity (or lack thereof)"

1. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Mangojuice^talk 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
4. I still trust those editors, even though they are inactive Secret ^account 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Somewhat, VX!^talk 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
6. I will actually describe why I feel this way instead of simply signing my name. This is a solution looking for a problem. I do not see how this would help Wikipedia, but I can see it leaving Wikipedia with less 'crats which hurts it. Such a policy would need a very good reason and I have not seen it presented. This poll is also no laid out well, polling does not have to be evil but it is when it pigeon holes the available options. Chillum 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bureaucrats can lose the community's trust by being inactive"

1. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2. — Jake Wartenberg 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Icewedge (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Xclamation point 20:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Majorly talk 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
8. iridescent 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
9. --Giants27 TC 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
10. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Synergy 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Malinaccier (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
14. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
16. rootology (C)(T) 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
17. iMatthew // talk // 11:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
18. AdjustShift (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Of course. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  GARDEN  22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
21. — Moe ε 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
23. faithless (^speak) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
24. — neuro^(talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
25. hmwithτ 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 14:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

"I believe that bureaucrats should undergo periodical confirmation of some form"

1. — Aitias // discussion 18:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
3. — Jake Wartenberg 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Mailer Diablo 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Icewedge (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Xclamation point 20:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Majorly talk 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Skomorokh 20:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
11. iridescent 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
12. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Synergy 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
16. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
17. rootology (C)(T) 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
18. iMatthew // talk // 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
19. AdjustShift (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
20. All major positions of power should require this. Positions for life are detrimental to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
21. --Giants27 TC 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
22.  GARDEN  22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Recently come to this opinion and would support similar for admins. Davewild (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
24. 100% for crats, absolutely not for administrators. Secret ^account 15:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"I believe that bureaucrats should not have to undergo periodical confirmation of some form"

1. Malinaccier (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Rje (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Tiptoety ^talk 15:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Trusilver 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Mangojuice^talk 19:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
9. VX!^talk 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
10. — Moe ε 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
11. For the same reasons we don't do it for admins. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
12. If only because it'll start a slippery slope as to why we shouldn't do it for sysops. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
13. faithless (^speak) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Don't fix it if it is not broken.(Am I double voting? Is this a different poll? It is hard to tell.) Chillum 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
15. — neuro^(talk) 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
16. It's not needed. If they're making mistakes or are inactive, we'll notice. Otherwise, they're doing everything just fine. hmwithτ 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

'Crat comments

I would be particularly interested in hearing what the existing bureaucrats themselves have to say on this issue, particularly the less active ones. I shall post a little something on each 'crat talk page, and direct responses to this section. Happy‑melon 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now posted to the talk pages of all the 'inactive' crats, that's up to and including Secretlondon in the table. Any that haven't responded within a week or so I'll e-mail. Happy‑melon 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an active Crat. I've responded to this section below, under Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal#"Community trust". --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the "inactive" bureaucrats. I'm still active in Wikipedia, but my attention in recent years has not been on bureaucrat tasks. I have a note on my user page saying I haven't done much bureaucrating lately, but should another Bureaucrat be needed,give me a call. I became a bureaucrat years ago when I was spending a lot of time on Wikipedia and it was a smaller project making keeping an eye on a broader range of things here was easier. I view bureaucrat status as one of tools I have for working to improve Wikipedia. I appreciate as a special tool, even though I haven't recently taken it down from its special hook in my virtual tool shed. When I use it, I use it appropriately and carefully, as I try to do with all my tools. For bureaucrats like me, who have always used their powers responsibly when they used them and there is no reason to think they would suddenly start using them irresponsibly, I see no harm in allowing their bureaucrat to remain even if generally inactive, and possible benifit in having what might be thought of as backup troops already armed who could be called upon if need should arise. That said, I won't be personally offended if the community decides to adopt the proposal. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Jimbo this sort of thing won't be happening. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and without comment on the proposal itself), I don't see how Jimbo's comment there translates into "the community cannot decide to remove inactive bureaucrats". He simply said that the community is not the only body that can bestow rights. –xeno^talk 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal in preparation

I have been giving some thought to an alternative approach to this issue and will post some ideas within the next 24 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't there been enough wriggling already? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but I don't see how it could possibly be a helpful comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know what it means, then how can you be so sure that it's not a helpful comment? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how making the comment "Hasn't there been enough wriggling already?" was in good taste, productive or relevant to Newyorkbrad stating he was making an alternative proposal. — Moe ε 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Safe Harbor

I dunno if I like that term for this. How about simply that anyone who asks to not to be "de-cratted", not be? - jc37 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole concept makes no sense in context with the reason for the proposal. The proposal is to de-crat them because they don't have community trust anymore, yet somehow making an edit that says they want to remain a crat, or doing one uncontroversial crat action (flagging an approved interwiki bot, closing a unanimous RFA, doing a simple rename) somehow restores all that trust for a year. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not very good, which is why I disagree with that part. Majorly talk 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the point was to "de-crat" due to inactivity. A simple request should be enough to indicate potential activity? Or perhaps we should be clearer, and suggest that anyone "decratted" in this manner may freely re-receive the tools upon request of any steward. (Presuming that the tools weren't removed "under a cloud".) - jc37 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several who are fairly active, but just aren't interested in helping out in this area. They're obviously active, just not where they're needed. And I completely disagree with them just being able to ask for them back whenever - that completely defeats the point of removal. They should go through RFB like everyone else. Majorly talk 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I too disagreed with that, which is why I signed my name in the "I'd like to see reconfirmations, please" section. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) - Well, I think that bureaucratship should be as similar to adminship as possible. So if they request the tools be removed, they should be able to re-receive them upon simple request, presuming that the removal wasn't "under a cloud", as it were.

And so this proposal, which proposes that bureaucrats may be arbitrarily desysopped due to inactivity, should be treated the same way, the only difference is that someone else is doing the requesting for them.

Why should we claim that inactive editors have "lost trust" of other editors? As a volunteer project, we're all welcome to contribute as much or as little as we see fit. But activity level doesn't equate to "trust". It's what we do, not how much we do. (I seem to recall that another page - one which listed things like adminship requiremenmts based upon edit counts - was marked historical for these and other reasons.)

So if this page is about labelling bureaucrats as not trustworthy due to some arbitrarily demarked time period, then (for whatever it's worth) I'll strongly oppose it as simply lacking in WP:AGF... - jc37 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As things currently stand, bureaucrats are apparently trustworthy based on either a) An RFB with fewer than 20 votes in 2004, which does not reflect today's community whatsoever or b) No RFB at all. I do not trust an inactive person. Feel free to disagree. Majorly talk 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you list those users, please? There can't be too many, and I think it would help the discussion. — Jake Wartenberg 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See the WP page. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Majorly) - Then it would seem that you're more interested in setting up periodic "reconfirmation". If so, I'd be interested in that, depending on how it was implemented.

(And as for "how often", I think re-confirmation every 2-years would be better, based upon some discussions I've had concerning arb's terms...)

But yes, I disagree about trust. Yes, the community should be able to suggest "no confidence", but to just remove tools arbitrarily, well, that seems wrong somehow. - jc37 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd be happy with a vote of confidence if it means a chance to remove inactive people. If consensus says to keep, I'll live with it. But I think it should be given a chance, without people asking irritating questions like "What purpose does this serve?" and "You do know a similar proposal failed over 9000 times before?" Majorly talk 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this entire thing because Majorly challenged me to write it and it was easy to do, so I think it is an ok idea (obviously), but I'm not tied to it (hence why it is in the projectspace from the beginning). The reason I put the safe-harbor in is that I figured if I did not, people would say the proposal motivates crats to act even if they are unsure of what they are doing, just to meet the activity levels, and therefore would encourage more mistakes/errors. I figured a safe-harbor is a nice way of letting people who really want to keep the crat bit, but know they don't know how to use it, from doing something that would cause an problem. MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Activity can come and go

In the past, it has sometimes happened that one or two very active bureaucrats have abruptly quit, and others who have been inactive for a while have stepped up to fill in the gaps. This can be clearly seen at User:NoSeptember/crat stats--when Cecropia quit in March of '06, for a while RFA closes were much more evenly distributed, with a few old 'crats--Angela, Secretlondon, and Tuf-Kat--rising to the occasion. Naturally, that particular problem is much less likely to come up with RFA so slow these days, but I'm not convinced that the very small risk involved in having an old Bureaucrat hanging around outweighs the small benefit. Incidentally, I'd also like to point out that all of the most controversial RFA closures were done by quite active bureaucrats, so let's not kid ourselves that this proposal would solve that problem (on the contrary, it's a very active bureaucrat who has the confidence to make a tough call--and that's as it should be). Chick Bowen 00:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just some points: you make a few errors in your comment. First of all, barely any have abruptly quit, and then come back. TUF-KAT last involved himself in 2004, Cprompt never has, and others have stopped since 2006 and 2007. When Cecropia resigned, none of the above people did any promotions, apart from Angela, but that was several months afterwards. Secretlondon became active a year after Cecropia resigned. So really, no one "came alive" again. Instead, the current active bunch worked harder, and there was the new bcrats Essjay, Taxman and Redux who helped fill the void.

And your point about controversial closures is simply untrue. Example, Danny closed two controversially, and he was never very active. Raul654 closed another, and while he's not totally inactive, he doesn't strike me as a very active bcrat. In fact, Danny come out of inactivity to close Sean Black's RFA, which he'd supported, something accepted back in 2004, but absolutely not in 2006. It caused outrage. Majorly talk 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The last one is an excellent example of why this would be a good thing to implement. What is and is not acceptable on wiki changes, and while we can say "well, any reasonable person would read up on current developments before taking an action they haven't taken in two years" Danny's closure of Sean Black's RfA shows that reasonable people don't. Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right about T-K--I misread the chart. I was considering Raul as active by the standards discussed on this page, which is why you and I saw that one differently (in fact the close you have in mind is the main one I had in mind when I made my initial comment). Obviously everyone has agreed that the action of Danny's you discuss was deeply problematic, but I don't imagine something like it happening again in the same way. But I have a broader question: I have read this whole discussion more carefully now, but I'm still rather confused about the aims here, and your comment confuses me further. This is not a challenge or a rhetorical question (addressing Majorly here), but a real question and one I can see both sides on--do you see this issue as being fundamentally about inactivity and limiting userrights to those who use them (as is the practice on meta), or about limiting highly controversial bureaucrat decisions? If it's the former, I can absolutely see the logic. If it's the latter I'm suspicious. Chick Bowen 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I just don't see the point of removing someone's rights for any reason other admin/crat abuse of power. If they are not harming Wikipedia by their actions or lack thereof, what is the point of stripping them of the tools? Yes, some of them got in by means that would not be allowed today. Does that mean anything they do is wrong? I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just the principle of it, and housekeeping. You don't see the point in removing tools? I don't see point in keeping them. We disagree. In response to Chick Bowen, the former choice mostly. It's simply a matter of accuracy and trust within the community, which inactive people lack. Majorly talk 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of not removing inactive admins or crats. Why should you keep the tools if you are not going to use it? What if inactive accounts get compromised? RickK's account was blocked indefinitely from editing because it was compromised. Let's say we have an admin or a crat who was active on WP in 2005. He retires and returns in 2009. WP in 2009 is quite different from WP in 2005. AdjustShift (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's different doesn't mean one can't adapt to it. I left early in 2006 and only came back about three months ago. There have been changes, yes, but nothing so drastic that you can't figure out what's going on if you have any clue whatsoever, and I trust that bureaucrats do have that — that's part of the reason they were elected/appointed/what-have-ye. Hermione1980 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you are proposing yet another rule for Wikipedia, there needs to be a compelling reason. You need to justify it with something more than an unproven suspicion that some of these crats might not understand how things work anymore. In short, you need to prove that there is harm being done, instead of speculating that there might be some mistakes in the future. I think that as more and more "rank and file" editors like myself become aware of this proposal, you will find that attitude more and more prevalent. There are more than enough rules and policies in place already, and there is no evidence that this is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that one can't adapt to it; some people may not be able to adapt. And what if inactive accounts get compromised? I also think that people should be committed to WP. If you become an admin or crat, you should stay on WP. If you want to stay away from WP for few years, you should give up the tools. We make people admins and crats so that they can help WP. You can't help WP by staying away from it. AdjustShift (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the section below started by Dweller reflects my concerns. Housekeeping is all well and good, but I still suspect that somewhere behind this proposal is continued raw feeling about old RFA closures. If that's true, this is the wrong way to go about it. If not, fine. I am not claiming that bureaucratship needs to be considered permanent, only that bureaucrats should not have to go through a periodic trial by fire because of controversial decisions. Chick Bowen 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Community trust"

Is there community trust in the active Crats? --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I trust all the active crats not to mess up or perform an action out of process, and of course, the most recently promoted bcrats have not done anything to show they aren't suited. There are some of course others may feel different about. Majorly talk 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just puzzled by the logical jump between "Bureaucrats can lose the community's trust by being inactive" to the far broader "I believe that bureaucrats should undergo periodical confirmation of some form". The latter does not specify inactivity, but includes all Crats.

That so many people have signed below "I believe that bureaucrats should undergo periodical confirmation of some form" therefore implies to me that there is a lack of trust in the active Crats.

Perhaps it has been assumed by some that "I believe that bureaucrats should undergo periodical confirmation of some form" is only referring to inactive ones, but assumptions are even more evil than polls are. --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

@Dweller: I suppose that this sentence implies that, while the inactive crats should undergo a reconfirmation immediately, the “newly” elected ones (after 2007) should undergo those reconfirmations at some point in the [remote] future. — Aitias // discussion 12:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's no lacking in trust in Crats who remain active, I don't understand the purpose of instituting reconfirmation for them. If the community has trust in them, leave them alone to get on with doing their jobs. And worse, if you don't have trust in an individual active Crat, why wait an unspecified period of years before raising it?

This smacks of important text not being properly wordsmithed. Context demands that the discussion is about inactive Crats, but the statement is unspecific. It's my guess that different people are therefore inferring different meanings in the statement "I believe that bureaucrats should undergo periodical confirmation of some form", which makes the results it's generating irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I agree with this. I just like the principle that we should be able to confirm we still trust our bcrats. I'd like the same to happen with admins, but that idea has been shot down too many times I care to count. Hopefully if a system is implemented for bcrats, people will be more inclined to agree it is a good idea for admins. Majorly talk 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid that you understood me wrong. I was just interpreting that sentence, not giving my own opinion. I for one do trust every crat elected after 2007. — Aitias // discussion 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)]

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I suspect that most of those who've signed in agreement with "I believe that bureaucrats should undergo periodical confirmation of some form" have faith in the active Crats, but their signatures in that section imply otherwise. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have faith, but still, I think an opportunity just to be certain is a good thing. I can think of at least one moderately active bcrat who would almost certainly get opposition from the community. Do you agree ensuring bureaucrats are still trusted is a good thing? Majorly talk 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

<- I think that if anyone's doing a bad job, they should be tackled now, not waiting for x years for a process to tick over. Anyone who's doing a good job should be left to get on with it. This is not a good way to weed out whichever individual or individuals you think do not have community trust.

Further, we have too few Crats, not too many, and RfB is unpleasant enough without the thought that it'd be repeated periodically. If we institute processes that deter RfB candidates, that is A Bad Thing. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I said this in the context of admin reconfirmation, but I personally think it should be applied at all levels of the admin/crat/oversight/checkuser/steward/Jimbo pyramid; I don't support a full reconfirmation RFA/RFB after foo months – too easy for a gang of malcontents to derail – but a straightforward "speak now or forever hold your piece"-style "has anyone had any serious problems with this person's admin/crat/whatever actions" talk page. I trust the community to filter out the "POV-pushers with a grudge" from the "genuine concern" comments, and if nothing else it would alert the admin/crat to issues that they might not have realised were seen as a problem, and hence avoid things spiralling out of control further down the line as they did with Elonka, Majorly etc. – iridescent 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent. My point is that if someone has got a serious problem with one of our Crats (now or ever) they shouldn't be hanging around for the next iteration of the policy cycle before they air it. For that matter, I don't think they would. Which makes this a pointless process that just deters RfB candidates. Incidentally, I'd welcome some candidates running the gauntlet - we're shorthanded right now. --Dweller (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in practice that doesn't happen. I don't think anyone would seriously deny that the Wikipedia setup works against people raising concerns about people in "authority" – users who think an admin/crat is acting abusively can

1. go to the talkpage and likely get accused of trolling and ignored (yes, it doesn't always happen, but you know as well as I do it happens often enough), with the possibility of finding a {{uw-npa4im}} gracing their own talkpage as a reward;
2. go to ANI and get ganged up on by the usual suspects who seem to spend their entire day hanging round there abusing good-faith newcomers;
3. go to WQA and be ignored;
4. start an RFC/RFAR and get a patronising lecture from someone about "failure to exhaust other processes first".

It shouldn't be this way, but it is. I'm sure this is why so many people raise issues on Wikipedia Review rather than here; because editors have the perception that they won't be listened to on Wikipedia, and enough people have experience of a conversation along the lines of "I have a problem with your actions here" "Fuck off" that they don't want to take the chance. How much unpleasantness would we have been spared if we'd had a quiet process by which people could say "I have a problem with User:Foo", instead of foul-tempered timesinks like Elonka's AOR, Majorly's RFC, pretty much anything involving Betacommand, the RFC that Abd is no doubt writing as we speak on myself and JzG… – iridescent 16:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right for admins, but for Crats, the atmosphere at BN is usually somewhat less frantic and contentious than some of the other fora you mentioned, perhaps because RfB is so hard to pass, editors who easily get heated don't tend to pass. I maintain that I have enormous trouble with the idea that a Crat who has lost community trust should be left without challenge for any length of time and introducing this proposal is therefore a bad idea. To which I add my other concerns, about any extra reasons for putting people off running at RfB and the fact that all of this is tangential to and misleadingly overlapping with the topic at hand, which is inactive Crats, misleading to the extent that I don't know what to make of the results of one of the straw polls above. If someone is interested in proposing reconfirmation for all Crats, the proper place to do so is not on a page which is about removal of buttons from inactive Crats. (I remind you, and anyone else reading this (!) that that the sole topic of the associated project page is inactive Crats) --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they crossover; automatic reconfirmation is one way to automatically tally who thinks a given inactive crat should be demoted. I can easily imagine it varying from crat-to-crat – Secretlondon, for example, has always come and gone so I wouldn't see any given vanishing as an issue, whereas were some others to vanish and reappear a year later things might be different. As I'm so fond of repeating in the context of auto-desysopping, policy and practice changes, and people who were great in the context of 2005 aren't necessarily suitable now. (Watch any of the flameboards, and a disproportionate number of those being complained about are in the 2 years+ category.) Yes, this is about crats not admins, but one is just a specialist form of the other – and it's precisely because the group of crats is so small that it makes a good test group for any proposed reconfirmation process. – iridescent 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the idea of reconfirmation been repeatedly shot down by the community at large? We don't need more contentious processes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It has, but usually in the context of administrators; as iridescent points out, the number of bureaucrats is small enough that we're a fairly good group to test with (easier to handle 15 reconfirmations than 859 of them). Yay for being guinea pigs, I suppose... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world, I would say sure to the idea of crat renomination. In Wikipedia as it currently exists, I say hell no. Crats are put in the position where they must occasionally close difficult RfA's. It makes it much harder to do that if you have to worry about defending yourself from the childish, the zealous, the immature and the just plain stupid who are going to be out for revenge on the next RfB just because you committed the sin of "not agreeing with them". Trusilver 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of heliocentrism was also shot down many, many times over the centuries. Didn't make it a bad idea though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very good analogy. We aren't talking about science here, we're talking about adding another bureaucratic process to an already overly-complicated system of rules. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an excellent analogy. We're talking about what people choose to believe. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus had scientific evidence of his proposals, and was still ignored. Where is Copernicus now? Where is the evidence that these inactive crats are causing harm? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I was hoping for a few short comments while the votes are placed, but oh well.. This proposal has some momentum because of the proposal in giving Crat desysop powers - should both proposals are mutually exclusive, there is no way either is even going to fly. I'll be blunt here - While I trust most crats, I don't trust every crat, and have opposed those who lost my trust and subsequently tried to run (and lost) in elections for higher office. This is what is preventing me from supporting any proposal that gives crats a lot extra power. Updating the standards across the broad would help ease my concerns. While reconfirmation may be something I personally think is still very far away, in the absence of other viable alternatives this is the next best thing we have. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree these two proposal are mutually exclusive. You can not simultaneously say that you trust somebody to do a sensitive action, and then on another page demand reconfirmation of those "highly trusted". Ruslik (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaiiiieeee!!!!! The bureaucracy is out to lynch the bureaucrats!

Sounds fairly incestuous.

Seriously; reconfirmations? Earning trust after years of being a bureaucrat and not doing something stupid? The bureaucracy lynch mob is out to get you! Holy Hanging Chads Batman!

Jeebus H. Christo...is there some problem here that needs addressing other than raving red tape wonks trying to make hay over something that's never ONCE caused a problem??????? Have the bureaucrats done anything to DISearn your trust? Ooooooo that bureaucrat hasn't done anything in years! Lynch him! Lynch him! He's evil! Oooooo that bureaucrat didn't go with an RfB! UNCLEAN! STONE HIM TO DEATH OUTSIDE THE CASTLE GATES! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When you stick your head in the sand your arse makes a good target. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to take a "softer" approach with my remarks, but I have to admit Hammersoft's remarks reflect fairly well how I feel about this. It's more rules for the sake of more rules, without any clear demonstration of an actual problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For a lynch mob, we seem awfully polite, civil, and calm. Maybe you have the wrong talk page Hammersoft. Proposals don't need to outline "solutions to problems". "Seems like a solution in search of a problem" has got to be one of the worst forms of arguments when dealing with proposals such as this. Synergy 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• THE worst form of problem is creating bureaucracy where NONE is needed. Where the aych ee double toothpicks is the flippin problem here? "Qualifying Actions"? "Process"? "Safe Harbor"? "Re-promotion"? "Transition"? Unreal. Next up we're going to have an instruction manual to wipe our collective back sides with Mk IV class A featured toilet paper (that went through a re-confirmation process...*shudder*...). The people pressing hardest for this proposal really need to go find something productive to do. Creating needless bureauCRAZY helps no one. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that proposals that involve the creation of substantial rules, structures, and discussions do need to justify themselves before they "pass." It's not like implementing this would be completely trivial: it needs a thorough community discussion for one thing, because proposal or no, a Steward would have to agree to de-flag de-promoted 'crats, not to mention this whole safe harbor system, and the overhead implied by even one bureaucrat having to go through RFB again. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Justify itself, yes, of course. But not every proposal needs to be a solution to a problem. Thats just an absurd idea. We can't propose a process now unless it "fixes" something?
  • Also, a steward will agree (i.e. remove a bit) if there is a consensus to do so. I've already been through a process that strips inactive bit holders of their tools. Its a pretty easy process, save the above cries. Synergy 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "fixing a problem" isn't a good bar for a policy, but how about "accomplishing something concrete" as opposed to "more rules for the sake of more rules." Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is why if you disagree with an aspect of this proposal, we can achieve consensus and remove that part (I suggest starting with the safe harbor section; based on the number of complaints thus far). This proposal, like all others, are never set in stone. Tweaks are made even after being accepted. Synergy 02:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that I don't see any benefit in removing rights from inactive crats. I don't get how that is supposed to help Wikipedia, and no one has presented any evidence that leaving those rights in place will harm Wikipedia. So it seems I have a fundamental disagreement with the underlying concept of this proposal. You're certainly right about the safe harbor thing though, that's a loophole you could drive a truck through. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This proposal..

Is a little.. unnecessary. Take for example TUF-KAT: he hasn't performed a bureaucrat action since 2004-03-17 according to the front page, but yet he remains semi-active as an administrator, a editor and as someone who participates in discussions. According to this proposal, all he has to do is perform one task as a bureaucrat. If he doesn't perform an action as a bureaucrat he is untrustworthy, but if he does one thing, he is? Seems a little flawed in theory along with 'safe harbor' which they don't even have to perform a task, they just need to state they wish to continue as a bureaucrat. My prediction if this is implemented, is that bureaucrats will either willingly give up their bit, discouraged at the community loosing faith in them, and leave Wikipedia all together, or they will unwillingly perform a task so that they can keep the bit and remain semi-active as they were before (preceded by unneeded stress caused by a mob of editors coming to remove their bit).

Personally, someone who doesn't perform a bureaucrat task but is still an active editor, is alright with me. Now if the proposal was for bureaucrats who had a stated intention to leave Wikipedia or have mysteriously disappeared from Wikipedia with their real life situation being unknown, this might be different. — Moe ε 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up questions and thoughts

I had indicated yesterday that I would try to work out an alternate proposal that would achieve the gist of this one while eliminating a few of the drawbacks, but on further consideration, I have to agree with some of the commenters above, in that I'm not sure that we have even limited agreement on what the objective is here.

For example, I'm not 100% sure whether the perceived problem (if there is a problem) is that:

(A) Long-time inactive bureaucrats might resume 'cratting at any time and take bureaucrat actions without sufficient knowledge of the current norms or without clear and current community trust; or

(B) Long-time inactive bureaucrats are unlikely to resume 'cratting, and therefore give the illusion that we have more bureaucrats than we effectively do; and/or

(C) It's unfair for long-time inactive 'crats to keep the title of bureaucrat without sharing in the workload.

In this regard, I see that Happy-Melon is pursuing the sensible idea of asking the inactive bureaucrats for their input. However, it occurs to me that I'm not sure what the best responses from the non-cratting 'crats might be....

(X) Would it be "I haven't taken any bureaucrat actions in XX years, but I reserve the right to do so at any time, so please leave my status intact"? That would satisfy the letter of the current proposal (it would be equivalent to invoking the safe-harbor), but it wouldn't solve the concerns of commenters such as Majorly, for whom reasonably contemporaneous expression of community trust seems to be the focus.

(Y) Would it be "I haven't taken any bureaucrat actions in XX years, and I don't anticipate ever doing so again, but I like having the title of bureaucrat as it reflects a role I once had in the early evolution of the Wikipedia community, so please leave it alone"? That would provide assurance that the inactive 'crat won't theoretically spring to life tomorrow and pass an RfA at 51% support, or rename someone to "User:Newyorkbradscommentsaretoolong", but I don't suppose it would satisfy everyone.

(Z) Or would it be "Oh, my gosh, I had half-forgotten I'm still a bureaucrat and didn't realize this was an issue. Therefore, (Z1) I will resume closing RfAs starting right now, or (Z2) I resign"?

No matter how this is handled, if at all, it should be done without hurting anyone's feelings more than necessary.

So, depending on what the goal here is, one possible rewording would be:

A bureaucrat who does not take any [or, who takes fewer than XX] bureaucrat actions during a given calendar year shall automatically be tranferred to Bureaucrat Emeritus status. A Bureaucrat Emeritus shall be temporarily removed from bureaucrat access [i.e., the buttons], but shall be restored to active bureaucrat status upon request [perhaps add: if the request is made within YY time period].

On the other hand, perhaps we want the opposite...

A bureaucrat who does not take any [or, who takes fewer than XX] bureaucrat actions during a given calendar year shall automatically be tranferred to Bureaucrat Emeritus status. A Bureaucrat Emeritus shall be removed from bureaucrat access, and may be restored to active bureaucratship only through a new RfB.

There are a million variations and sub-issues (retroactivity is one), but the question whether the de-cratting is permanent or not is the key ... of course assuming that the consensus is that there is an actual problem, which is not all that clear.

Perhaps the thing to do is to table this for a week or two until the current/inactive 'crats have chimed in. Anyway, hope this helps guide some thinking.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you have fundamentally misunderstood the issue being discussed here. It is not "whether the de-cratting is permanent or not"; it is whether the cratting is permanent or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to bring semantics. The proposal is about removal of bureaucrat status, not about the bureaucrat status itself. Bureaucrat status is at present, permanent; hence the proposal about it not being permanent. Clear enough? — Moe ε 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the word "semantics"? I suggest that you might consider referring to a reliable dictionary before offering your opinion on semantics in future. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My next comment to you would be to stop using Wikipedia as a battleground as your comments, edit summaries and demeanor have shifted to a uncivil manner. — Moe ε 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, as is your evident lack of a dictionary. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted with your lack of maturity. — Moe ε 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are hardly in a position to make judgements about other editors' maturity, assuming that you actually know what that word means. Please keep your personal remarks where they belong, to yourself. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're so knowledgeable then why don't you act it? I'm not the one making pointless edit summaries and making irrelevant, sarcastic statements with an uncivil attitude. I refuse to be in a war of words, because Wikipedia is not a battleground, I'll let you shoot yourself in the foot instead. — Moe ε 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to M.F.:) You may be right that asking that question first might have produced a more logical or focused discussion. But, the proposal currently on the table effectively assumes that bureaucrat status generally is permanent provided the bureaucrat maintains some (not very high) level of 'crat activity. Instead, the primary (albeit not exclusive) focus has been on removing rights from the inactive bureaucrats, which treats removal as the exception rather than the rule, and hence raises the question as I posed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I remain unconvinced by your arguments, I do tend to agree that a preliminary discussion about whether crat status is for life or not might be a way to break the inevitable deadlock. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I personally like your proposal Newyorkbrad and I thought of something similar to the Bureaucrat Emeritus myself. My train of thought though was that this would be a sort of new user group that places inactive bureaucrats (my idea I never proposed was for admins originally) in a seperate usergroup after X amount of time being inactive without coming on Wikipedia/not using the tools (as opposed to the community deciding whether their tools should be removed or not.) — Moe ε 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is also another problem that you seemed to have not included, which this proposal doesn't really seek to solve but others have brought up, is the issue of bureaucrats who passed their RfBs ages ago. Some bureaucrats passed their RfBs with less that 40 votes; others with less than 10. To many people, those bureaucrats were not voted on by the same community as today, and so the bureaucrats who were elected under those elections with such few people voting should probably be reconfirmed some how. If I were a bureaucrat in charge of dealing with Bureaucratius Emertii, having one come back in 2010 after a 5 year absence would not be good enough, as I would be unsure if a bureaucrat who was elected in 2003 or perhaps never at all, and who left in 2005 still had a mandate with the community. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that RfBs in earlier years involved a much smaller community than more recent ones has been amply demonstrated above; but I'm actually not certain that it's actually relevant when one thinks through the current issues. I don't think anyone is proposing that an active bureaucrat whose RfB passed in 2004 be treated differently from one whose RfB passed in 2007; nor that an inactive one whose RfB passed in 2003 be treated differently from one whose RfB passed in 2006. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I do certainly propose that (see here for example, and my comments in "Community trust" above) and am certainly not alone in that – and realise that I'm drawing close to the 2-year deadline I propose. The reason it's not being discussed here, is because this is a discussion specifically about inactive crats. – iridescent 01:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, fair enough, but I don't think that implicates the references to a sea-change in selection dynamics and methods, which probably evolved more in the 2004-2006 time frame. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, it (the first suggestion) is (mostly) what we currently have now with admins (and presumably with bureaucrats):

Any admin (or bureaucrat, or anyone entrusted with tools), may give them up at any time, and presuming that they did not give them up "under a cloud" (or whatever the current arbcomm definition for it is), then they may have them restored upon request (Usually by posting a link to the RfA/RfB/whatever). NYB as arbitrator would be an example of that, btw : )

Now if we want to add a "duration" (rather than "for life") to how we entrust certain tools to editors, then that could be discussed, but there are definitely issues which could be involved which could preclude such.

One way this has been done elsewhere is to make the duration "yearly", and have confirmation/reconfirmation once a year. (This would seemingly eliminate RfB, btw.)

Another way this could be done (as noted by NYB above), would be to automatically remove the rights after a period of non-use, and restore them upon request (or alternatively upon successful RfB/reconfirmation).

Personally, I don't favour the latter, because it could needlessly bloat the user-rights log.

And (as I mentioned above), if reconfirmation for bureaucrats is implemented/enacted, I think that it should (at least) happen every 2 years, rather than yearly. (For several of the reasons already noted above.)

And by the by, if reconfirmation is enacted, we should definitely lower the percentage required for approval.

As an aside, I wonder: rather than go through all of this, has anyone considered just starting an RfC about the 2 or 3 inactive/semi-active bureaucrats that seem to have spawned this discussion? - jc37 09:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are eleven of them, with an average of 25 contributors to their RfBs (almost half the total contributors were to one RfB, Linuxbreak's). I do agree it could perhaps be best handled somewhat separately. Happy‑melon 09:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in the U.S. we should have senators have to go through reconfirmation halfway through their six year term. Afterall, three years is a long time and certainly their constituent base has changed significantly during that time. Or better yet, how about reconfirmation hearings for all the judges on the Supreme Court of the United States? I mean come on, one of the judges on that court took office in 1975. That was during the FORD administration! 34 years! He must be batshit crazy insane now, and probably 95% of the people involved in his confirmation aren't in office anymore.

In short, I agree. Any bureaucrat elected more than 15 months in the past is certifiably crazy and incapable of dispensing their duties and must be forced to stand for reconfirmation. How could we have ever let this massive loophole exist for so long? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed. Why vote for senators more than once? Why not make it a job for life? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court justices are just that; appointed for life. What were you saying about flawed? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The United States is 233 years old. In the original Constitution, Senators were appointed by the state governments, not directly elected. This process did not change until 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which mandated that senators be directly elected. The last Senator to take office before that Amendment, therefore, took office in 1912, and so has been out of office for 97 years.

So in fact your analogy is rather apt, although not in the fashion you intended. In a rather similar manner, in the early days of wikipedia bureaucrats were not appointed directly by the community, or by very small numbers of contributors. Now the process has changed such that RfB is an extremely stringent process. Even were the US Constitution to mandate that senators served for life, I believe it is a certainty that the 'old guard' of Senators would not have been allowed to persist through that transitionary period. The role of the Senate has changed, and so have the Senators. Here, the role of the Bureaucrat community has changed, but the Bureaucrats have not.

Your separate analogy of the US Supreme Court is also interesting, but again I don't think it actually suggests what you think it does. Supreme Court Justices serve for life, from which it is axiomatic that, once dead, they cease to serve, and a new justice is appointed. What would happen if a 'dead' Justice were to somehow stop being dead is a question that has never been considered; but it would certainly be controversial, especially since their seat would have been taken by a new Justice. The reason that it has never been considered is, of course, that it is usually fairly easy to tell when someone is dead, and that death is usually an irreversible change :D.

Now consider the situation on wikipedia. What constitutes a wiki "death"?? It seems that a full physical loss of life is not required; we generally consider a departure or permanent absence from editing to be 'fatal'; vide the way ArbCom seats are refilled, new CheckUsers/Oversighters are (now) appointed, Toolserver accounts are revoked, and Steward permissions are removed. So the situation we actually have at the moment is that Bureaucrat status is "in perpetuity" - it endures even after 'death', in a manner more akin to honours or awards. Why should this be the case? That's not a rhetorical question... Happy‑melon 17:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Supreme Court Justices sit for life, and that there is one appointed under Ford still sitting/serving (what is the word, actually?) is irrelevant. A bureaucrat does nothing as important as a Justice. They decide matters trivial in the grand scheme of things, normally quite well, and make little permanant impact. I think we all worry too much! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For life, not in perpetuity. The question you were asked and have avoided is what constitues a wiki "death"? The proposal being discussed here is based on the quite reasonable assumption that inactivity over a defined period constitutes "death" in the wikipedsia sense. Whether or not the job of Supreme Court Justice is more or less important than any other is irrelevant; they are not appointed in perpetuity. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to Treasury Tag) There's a certain truth to what you say. Bureaucrat status is conferred rarely and reflects a high degree of community trust, and yet many of the bureaucrat tasks (RfA closures, bot flagging, renames, usurpations) are often ministerial. The number of truly discretionary and potentially controversial decisions, such as deciding whether a "borderline" RfA has attained consensus for promotion, is a relatively small proportion of the total number of bureaucrat tasks—although, to be sure, there is high potential for drama when one of those calls comes into question. Although I would not say the issues on this page are trivial, I would say that whether currently inactive bureaucrats should have their 'cratship revoked or not is probably not one of the fifty most pressing issues facing the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it a reason to sweep the proposal under the carpet and hope that it just goes away. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that I have written several thousand words on this page looking at the issue from a variety of angles, I don't think I can fairly be accused of seeking to sweep the proposal wunder the carpet and hoping that it just goes away. I wouldn't mind in the least, however, if it were the consistently confrontational and offensive tone of your comments that were to just go away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall having accused you of seeking to sweep anything under the carpet, and looking at my comment above I see that my memory is correct on that point. I strongly suggest that you consider the wisdom of taking your own advice. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a major topic. I mean, these people went through an intense vetting process, and have the community trust. Lord knows we can't trust them! They might suddenly kick the grey matter out of their skull and decide to promote someone under 50%! Oh the horror! I still have yet to see a rational argument as to what the problem is that is supposedly being solved. All I've seen so far is people saying that a solution looking for a problem is not a reason to not make the solution. Ok, how about I solve the problem of how to play tennis on the Moon. That'll help Wikipedia just as much. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't think it's a problem that long-inactive bureaucrats don't have the trust of a significant number of editors? Fair enough, but you have to accept that many do see that as a problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can I accept there's a number of people worrying about something that isn't a problem? Sure. 70,000 people also claimed to have seen the sun dance at Miracle_of_the_Sun. Doesn't mean it happened. It also doesn't mean I have to accept these people have a real issue that needs attention. Can any of you cite even a single case where a bureaucrat returning from a long absence did something insane or otherwise bad for Wikipedia???????????????????? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're clearly not all looking in the same direction. I would suggest that this very topic is symptomatic of the problem that's only going to get worse if proposals like this one are repeatedly dashed because some can't see the point. The problem is a potentially very serious one; the corrosion of trust in wikipedia's governance. Once it really sets in it'll be very difficult to eradicate.

It's sadly all too clear though where this particular effort is headed though, so I've already wasted enough time here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear to me is that about 20 of Wikipedia's several million contributors feel there is a problem here. I strongly feel that if this were advertised like some other recent policy decisions and elections, we would find that most users do not see a real issue here and have not "lost faith" in the crats. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The corrosion of trust? Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Are we supposed to assume these trusted individuals have somehow had their trust corroded...when the very proponents of this proposal haven't been able to demonstrate a particular case where this supposed corrosion has resulted in damage to the project? Bureaucracy creates barriers. Wikipedia is all about NOT creating barriers. If you want to create bureaucracy, there should be a very good reason why. If this is supposed to solve corrosion of trust, then show us how trust has been corroded and how the people whose trust has been corroded have caused damage to the project. Otherwise, it's bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• To Hammersoft: there are a significant number of editors who have already indicated that long-inactive bureaucrats are no longer trusted. The more that active bureaucrats stall on addressing that perception, whether it's a justified perception or not, can only mean that the lack of trust will slowly spread to them as well. I can see this is a filibustering exercise though, so I've nothing more to add to my already expressed view. Time will tell which of us is right.

• To Beeblebrox: it's as well not to confuse registrations with active editors.

--Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• You say they've lost the trust of the community. Yet, there's no evidence that anything bad has actually happened. How do you expect people to agree to this if you can't point to a problem? This system has worked fine for more than five years without any problem happening from a long inactive bureaucrat. The only problem here is one of perception, and I don't see the Sun dancing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this mountain looks more like a molehill. Or even perfectly flat ground. This proposal, if accepted, wouldn't accomplish anything. It won't help Wikipedia improve, and it won't stop it from being harmed. I can't believe the attitude of some of the people supporting this proposal. I'm sorry some of you proposing this don't agree that rules need a purpose, but they do. It's not a waste of time, or whining, or whatever you want to call it, to ask for a clear demonstration of purpose for a new policy. Why should anyone support a new policy that doesn't do anything? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I have pointedly stayed out of this discussion; I decidedly recused myself from it. However, I feel compelled to respond to this: "The more that active bureaucrats stall on addressing that perception, whether it's a justified perception or not, can only mean that the lack of trust will slowly spread to them as well." A) My silence on this matter should not be construed as stalling. I am not stalling. I am steadfast in my remaining recused. B) My silence in this matter is because I remain recused, and please do not read into my silence with phrases such as "can only mean." Duke it out however you like, but please do not make assumptions about opinions that have not been offered. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for this comment, Kingturtle; it's good to know that you are at least aware of the discussion. I agree that 'blaming' the bureaucrat community for this situation is not productive. Happy‑melon 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"The more that active bureaucrats stall on addressing that perception, whether it's a justified perception or not, can only mean that the lack of trust will slowly spread to them as well." You see blame where I see an observation. Why don't we all try speaking the same language? I suggest English. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets treat each other with respect. Malleus, I think Melon speaks fine English. Chillum 02:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also reading this. I just have nothing to add, at present. --Deskana (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rejected

Per Jimbo's comments on userrights' removal, I've tagged this proposal as rejected. Given I am the person who proposed it, this doesn't seem controversial. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Chillum 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just dense, but how does Jimbo's comment translate to a rejection of this policy? He seems to be saying that the community aren't the only ones who can promote/demote admins. That doesn't say anything about bureaucrats, and even if it did, simply because other people (arbcom, stewards, Jimbo?) can also promote/demote, doesn't mean the community can't. Finally, if he did in fact say "the community can't remove bureaucrat rights", is Jimbo's word law on Wikipedia? I hope I'm not opening a can of worms by asking that.... -kotra (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with his decision, but you can read Jimbo's rationale in a post here. As for Jimbo's word being law...only if people believe it is. Right now, that is the case. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 06:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining... though it still doesn't look to me like he's actually rejecting this proposal. In that diff, it sounds like he might even tentatively agree with the proposal in principle, albeit only for temporary desysopping that is reinstated "without much quibble when the user shows up again". And again, he's talking about admins, not crats (probably his opinion would apply to crats as well, but he didn't actually say that). So with a mostly positive straw poll (32-11 is such a small sample size; it seems reasonably possible a consensus in support of it might result with greater participation), I think it's premature to call this proposal "rejected" on the grounds of Jimbo's vaguely negative comment. If the community turns out to be for it, but Jimbo is merely wary of its misuse... well, I think calling it "rejected" at this stage is premature. -kotra (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Much in the same way that Krakatoa was a premature volcano. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I might be biased, but I don't see the kind of support for this that would warrant continued discussion. Mr.Z-man 16:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

32 supports and 11 opposes (74% support) seems to me like it would merit continued discussion. I could see it being considered stale/inactive at this point, but not rejected. -kotra (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cecropia Comments

I see that this proposition has been rejected per Jimbo's intervention/opinion. However, I have always tried to let the community know of my thinking. Since I was forwarded three reasonable questions by [User:Happy‑melon], I am glad to have the opportunity to respond.

Q. * Do you consider yourself to still be a wikipedia bureaucrat in spirit, or is the flag essentially just a legacy? Do you have any intention of ever returning to being an 'active' bureaucrat?

A. I consider myself to be a bureaucrat in spirit and fact. However, I would examine the current state of RfA and community norms and attitudes before resuming 'crat duties that require discretion. I intend to return to 'active' status.

Q. * What do you consider your position to be in terms of your 'mandate' from the community, in comparison to more recently-promoted bureaucrats?

A. I might have to think about that, but my ready response is that I don't think of bureaucrats (or admins, for that matter) as having a 'mandate' in the sense that politicians like to claim. I ask of myself what I would ask of any 'crat, newly minted or superannuated, that I take the responsibility seriously, always use judgment and try to discern community sentiment.

Q. * Would you be amenable to surrendering the bureaucrat flag, or participating in a reconfirmation RfB, if asked to do so? In what circumstances would you consider such an action?

A. I did surrender the flag when I resigned several years ago. I felt it was the right thing to do, for myself as well as Wikipedia, since I wanted to make a clean break for R&R; to separate myself from RfA for awhile without "lurking" and sticking my nose into things when it suited me. When I was ready to return I could have asked for my bit back (at the time) but felt I should stand a new RfB, which I also did.

That said, I would not voluntarily relinquish the flag now unless I intended to never resume my duties. I am mostly off Wikipedia now for personal concerns that keep me very busy, but I don't expect that to be a permanent situation.

As to whether I would be willing to stand a new RfB now or in the future, I have advocated yearly reconfirmation of both admins and 'crats. This hasn't been a very popular proposal, and I see the point of its critics; including that it could become a circus for some who have a grudge against an admin or 'crat; however, if annual reaffirmation nevertheless became a policy, I would happily participate.

Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)