Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Le ping

Could one of you ping me (Coren) on IRC at your convenience, please? — Coren ^(talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Handled by Deskana. Thanks all. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats and RFA clerical duties

FYI, an editor has raised the idea here at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks that bureaucrat responsibilities at Rfa be expanded. I happen to think it's an interesting idea. I'd like to see what you folks have to say about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think someone else already left a note about this at WP:BN. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, there it is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about Bureaucrats

Hi! I am writing a paper for class about Wikipedia, and wanted to know if there are any female Bureaucrats. I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. Hope C (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of bureaucrats who have never revealed their gender on Wikipedia, but I am fairly certain that Secretlondon has identified (or at least appears to identify in pictures) as a female and former bureaucrat Angela is a female. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is there any requirements to be a bureaucrat? And what will bureaucrats do? Thanks for the answer. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only actual requirement to become a bureaucrat is to achieve community consensus at a Request for Bureaucrat. As a practical matter, no one is going to achieve consensus who is not already an admin, all current crats are admins, and to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a non-admin crat. A description of the role of crats can be found at the top of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Monty₈₄₅ 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Similar to how there are no formal prerequisites for administrators, there aren't any for bureaucrats. Even the "must already be an admin" thing is, I believe, more of a "that's what the community expects" requirement than a technical requirement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well then, is being bureaucratship also allowed for Non-admin users or not? Just asking only. Thanks Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically, yes, a non-admin could become a bureaucrat. It's just incredibly unlikely to happen, which rests solely with the community's discretion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

SUL Ursupations?

Since on the 'correct' page nothing seems to happen...

None (SUL request) → Sarras

Status:     In progress

• Target username: Sarras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• For renamer use: Email target username, usurp user
• Datestamp: 09:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Confirmation link: [Primary user page here]
• Reason: Trying to complete SUL;
• Note: This request has been detected as an usurp only request.

178.112.24.211 (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Note:

• This user has made contributions on another Wikimedia project (dewiki), this may be a barrier to usurpation.
• Target user has 0 undeleted edits and 0 deleted edits. An SUL account (primary dewiki) exists for the target user, with 387 total edits on 29 wikis. The local account is NOT attached. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Current bureaucrats

The table does not appear to be up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears up to date to me... are you seeing someone who's a bureaucrat who's not listed, or vice versa? Note that "current bureaucrats" includes both active and inactive editors with the bureaucrat flag. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that RDSmith had been desysoped - probably due to inactivity, but checking on the rights log just now, seems that I was wrong. I assume desysoped (for any reasons) automatically means decrated). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall that he was about to be deflagged for inactivity, made a comment on the bureaucrats' noticeboard to the effect that it was OK by him, but by commenting inadvertently became "active" for the purposes of the inactivity criteria, so was not deflagged. That may be the conversation you are thinking of. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a technicality. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat statistics

See: here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, I think you may have editcountitis. You also had errors, Cecropia became a bureaucrat in 2004, 1, so did Rdsmith42. You also haven't looked at bureaucrats' RFA promotion numbers. Andrevan@ 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There may well be some errors. And no I didn't look at RfA closures - delibertately. Anyone is welcome to update the table, that's why it's in my user space and not in Wikipedia space. It's an informal work, done manually without the help of scripts, and took a hell of a long time to compile. At least it was done. Thanks for the thanks for the work - it took longer than some 'crats have spent on Wikipedia this year (or even longer). BTW, that page does have a talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You came to a page that many bureaucrats have on their watchlists to advertise this work you've done and you're going to call me out for responding to it here? I understand that your user page has a talk page but I think, since you came here and spend a lot of time on WT:RFA, your comment deserves a response in context. In my opinion, you are overly concerned with RFA if you spend all this time researching it. I don't think hat collection or process fascination is unhealthy - it usually doesn't take too long before you find out that WP:TINC and there's no magic in being a bureaucrat or an admin. If you want to be a bureaucrat, go ahead, I am sure many users will support you. I think you're overly concerned with edit counts, which in the days of automated editing tools like AWB and Huggle and the like (which I have not used by the way, I have ~20,000 edits but they are exclusively my own, unaugmented work) are easy to bolster. I don't spend tons of time trolling the policy pages here looking for games to play, but I do consistent work when I can, which is the purpose of the encyclopedia. Clients pay about $100/hr for my time and Wikipedia gets me for free. That means I may not make a ton of numerical edits but I get to do things like write new articles like Lemuel Diggs, written in 2011. Still today there are lots of new articles to be written and even more to be improved. Why don't you spend some time on that instead of trying to figure out if the bureaucrats are pulling their weight. Andrevan@ 05:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

After I made that comment I put my money where my mouth is and wrote Fred W. Stewart. By the way, you say that your user page is open for anyone to update, but the Wikipedia namespace is not. Since when? Basically everything in basically every namespace is open to anyone. Andrevan@ 16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The original stats by the way are here. Andrevan@ 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

I have a serious issue with an administrator whom I believe to be acting in a way that is totally out of order in defiance of natural justice and potentially supporting a person subject to WP:BAN. I am trying to get a blocked editor reinstated after he has been blocked indefinitely, instead of for a reasonable cooling off period, after he retaliated (admittedly badly) to extreme long-term provocation by the banned individual. Given the rudeness and arrogance of this admin, I believe the matter will need to be escalated. That being so, what "process" must I follow to propose removal of his "rights"? HCCC14 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As the administrator in question, I would point you towards Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship. Harrias ^talk 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As not the administrator in question, I would point you towards this horse. Any blocked editor is more than capable of sending an email to Arbcom to explain issues, they don't need you to fight their fight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrats backlog

Hello, I'm Anup. I recently found there's no such template as {{adminbacklog}} to attract attention of bureaucrats to pages not addressed since 48-72hrs. I wanted to create similar templates, {{bureaucratbacklog}} and {{no bureaucratbacklog}}. Template {{bureaucratbacklog}} would read as, User:Anupmehra/Bureaucrat templates. I actually felt need of such templates when I visited WP:CHU#usurpation where I found mine request pending since 42hrs. I'd love to see inputs from experienced editors. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice the line above your request that says "Requests left here should be addressed on or before March 22, 2014."? Usurpations are held for 7 days to give the target user a chance to object. In certain cases, they are fulfilled faster, but yours is a standard case. In cases of actual bureaucrat backlog (rare in recent times since we have recently added to the team), you can just post to WP:BN. But there is no backlog at usurp presently. –xeno^talk 00:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC (opinion) to devolve admin disciplinary matters from Arbcom to a Bureaucrat/Community process

Interested users are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Voting crats cannot close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In light of the debate over Andrevan's close of Northamerica1000's RfA, I am proposing that the following sentence be added to the 'Promotions and RfX closures' section of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats:

1. "If you have !voted in an RfX, do not close that RfX."
2. "Bureaucrats may not close an RfX in which they participated as an editor"

• Support #1 as proposer. In my opinion, #2 is too broad. If a crat reverts vandalism on an RfX, do well really need to prohibit that crat from later closing the RfX? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposed wording #2. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This should be common-sensically covered under WP:INVOLVED, and though I understand the impulse to codify something now to correct what went wrong, I'm more inclined to question the qualifications of anyone who would need this spelled out than I am to want to spell it out. This is the only time I recall voting-and-then-closing being an issue (though maybe it's happened before? If so, I'd like to see that history and then decide whether this needs to be codified), and I'm hesitant to create new policy to address a single case of questionable judgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose If we can't trust a Bureaucrat to be able to both participate in a RfX and close that RfX then we have serious problems far beyond the scope of visible !votes. As it is, Bureaucrats overwhelmingly exercise good judgement in the application of their exclusive prerogative and I think any limiting of their ability to participate in community discussions, even marginally, would be a net loss. The proposal to amend INVOVLED below is the easiest, least bureaucratic, and most drama free solution. GraniteSand (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per GraniteSand. Note that INVOLVED mainly deals with editing conflicts and also has exceptions for cases that are uncontroversial. It's also easy enough to revert inappropriate actions when the community complains, as has happened in this case. Andrevan@ 01:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Support on second thought. If the community wants to make this explicit even in uncontroversial cases, it seems like a good idea. Andrevan@ 01:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant. WP:INVOLVED already covers it, and the old expression "bad cases make bad law". Dennis - 2¢ 01:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning towards support. Where GraniteSand says "If we can't trust a Bureaucrat... then we have serious problems far beyond the scope of visible !votes", that's true, but it may mean that we currently do have such a trust problem. And seeing the crat who precipitated the issue showing up here to oppose, I think that we may indeed need to make the expectation clear, beyond what it says in INVOLVED. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  I get that, and I agree with the principles behind it here, but again, if we have to tell a Crat "don't close what you vote", then the problem isn't the wording. If we change the policy now, we are only validating what happened prior. THAT bothers me. I maintain that the points made in the RFC already exist, and Andrevan is disturbingly wrong if he disagrees. This isn't 2004, we don't play cowboy with the bits anymore. Dennis - 2¢ 01:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  One thing I've noticed, Dennis, is that you seem to like the letter of the law more than the get-things-done, ends-justify-means of the wiki-agile-IAR philosophy that we used to have around here. That being said, this change seems like it would solve any ambiguity. Andrevan@ 01:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not afraid of IAR, I use it and almost never quote policy in the mundane things I do as admin. I'm frustrated, and probably kicking you a bit, and I'm a (little) sorry because we hold the office of Crat as the highest possible office, and we expect you to not do what was done. The unbiased rocks of consensus who are unswayed by emotion. So yes, I'm frustrated by the circumstance as much as you personally, but still not sure this is really a good idea. Out of respect, I will strike my vote for now and sleep on it. Dennis - 2¢ 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, I think that's fair. I don't know if crats are really the highest office. It's a pretty minor job with few moving parts. I understand the frustration though. Andrevan@ 02:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  Crats require the highest approval, and enjoy the most trust, which is my point. Arbs require only 50%+1. We wouldn't even grant rollbacker with a vote that low. Dennis - 2¢ 03:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per Dennis Brown, I find this redundant to WP:INVOLVED. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that WP:INVOLVED involves disputed topics and exempts "minor" involvement, which a simple !vote or statement of (non)support arguably is. The proposal put forward here, on the other hand, are broader restrictions against basic, even uncontroversial, closures after a !vote. While there is overlap with INVOLVED this proposal is not synonymous or redundant. GraniteSand (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose Redundant with WP:INVOLVED. Every time an individual (choose one: 'crat/admin/arbcom/oversighter/rollbacker/editor/whatever) makes a singular error in judgement does not require us to write an explicit new policy. WP:INVOLVED covers this amply. A new policy would not have prevented a 'crat from disobeying it anymore than the existing, adequate policy would. People still make bad choices some times. No big whoop. --Jayron32 03:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This should be explicitly written into INVOLVED. I saw the link to this at WT:RFA. While I don't yet fully understand the role of Bureaucrats, the issue of whether voting in something and then closing it is okay shouldn't ever become a question. It's a prima facie case of conflict of interest and that Andrevan thought nothing of it brings serious questions about his judgment into question. Related to this, the comment from above "Bureaucrats overwhelmingly exercise good judgement" was not true in this case, and I'm not even getting to the question of a borderline promotion. In any organization, people in positions of power and trust should avoid even the appearance of impropriety (something politicians in any country need to learn). In my view, if Andrevan does this or something like it again he should lose his status. Everyone errs but a pattern is a problem. Allow the patterns to persist (admins who make whatever error repeatedly or whatever) and the wiki's problems only get worse not better. Accountability is the key, not ignoring the problem and pretending it is no big deal. HalfGig talk 03:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

−

• Support #1 and #2. Whatever WP:INVOLVED says, absolute common sense dictates that one does not close any discussion on which one has voiced an opinion. That's as clear as a bell to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. There's not much for Bureaucrats to do around Wikipedia these days - not much at all in fact, so when they do excercise their prerogatives, they have to get it right. That means they have a choice: either !vote on an RfA and recuse from closing and participation in any ensuing crat chat, or refrain from !voting if they decide to be the one to hover with the mouse over the RfA waiting to pounce fast to be the one to make the closure.

I prefer to believe that Andrevan genuinely forgot that he had alrady !voted, but his error was in trying to wriggle out of it by attempting to justify having both !voted and closed. His impatience with Dennis Brown also demonstrates the fragililty of his Bureaucrat status. Such an innocent error would have gotten any decent common or garden admin hauled by the mob up in front of Arbcom; I am not one to escalate (as my history as an admin shows), nor am I impatient to be a Bureacrat (as Andrevant wildly surmises), or an Arb, but we do now at least have to get this issue anchored in policy through this RfC for the future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary instruction creep. Tempest in a teapot, issue been corrected, time to move on. NE Ent 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:INVOLVED, it should be common sense that a 'crat who !votes in an RfA will be inclined to have a biased opinion when closing it. --Biblioworm 04:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose wp:involved covers what is necessary. This is unnecessary drama. When asked Andrevan@ discussed it. They eventually reopened it. Beyond that some of the users who freaked out at 'crat chat were some of the individuals who busted ass in the RFA to see to it that NA1000 didn't get admin rights. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support because apparently those who we most trust with discretion need to be told not to close debates they participated in. Even a regular editors need to recognize only a perceived conflict of interest is a problem, for a crat it should be second nature. Chillum 04:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support #1 - I think that INVOLVED needs to appply to RFAs. #2, however, is too vague - some edits (such as reverting vandalism) aren't an issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Kudpung. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per Kudpung. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:CRAT already says "... bureaucrats are also bound by the policy on use of administrative rights." Reacting to one crat's one-time policy violation by adding more words to existing policy/guidelines won't prevent a future error. The error was corrected and unlikely to recur. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Definitely bureaucrats should not close an RFA they've influenced by voting in it. That would basically be a "supervote" which defeats the whole purpose of having bureaucrats close RFA's. —Soap— 01:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, instruction creep, already covered by INVOLVED. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this should really be common sense; to avoid even the impression of impropriety and the cafuffle it generates, 'crats who have voted in an RfA should leave the closing of it to another 'crat. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, and having the sentence in the policy won't do any harm. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - needless instruction creep, situation was easily resolved without trying to make the existing maze of policies any more Byzantine. WilyD 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as a needless kneejerk reaction to one bad thing that happened one time, and then was fixed. There was a questionable close followed by constructive discussion with the closing crat and eventual correction of the action. That's exactly how this should work. Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's a no-brainer. Honestly, the fact that WP:INVOLVED exists should mean that this is automatically a "yes" - all it does is confirm that policy. I disagree that it is instruction creep at all; if we already have something that is basically the same, then make sure that there is absolutely no room for misinterpretation, like there was in this case. That also stops people potentially getting displeased and having negative conversations in the future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I propose that we edit WP:INVOLVED to include as an example closing an RfA you !voted in. This accomplishes the same goal as the original proposal, but without the redundancy. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: per discussion below WP:Administrators has been changed from "a bureaucrat will determine" to "an uninvolved bureaucrat will determine." NE Ent 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment firming up INVOLVED actually makes more since, as it is more than just "vote/close" but involved in general that is at stake. Dennis - 2¢ 04:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support this as well or instead of the prior proposal. Even if you are truly capable of voting and then being impartial it is asking for too much credibility from the community. Appearance of conflict of interest matters even if you are right. Chillum 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support this or perhaps changing the wording of INVOLVED. The wording right now makes exceptions for things deemed straightforward, minor, or uncontroversial, but there is not much of a test of what that might be or not be. Andrevan@ 04:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's where we're headed and it's a good idea anyway. GraniteSand (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - there is no difference between the issues of admins closing XFDs thery were involved with, and 'crats closing RFAs they were involved with. The necessary level of involvement with both is the same, and the reason is the same in both cases - both the fact that few can be truely neutral in a case where they have an opinion, and the fact that even those few cause the appearance of a lack of neutrality. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Seems the sensible way to go.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Chillum: this as well or instead of the prior proposal. No XfA, XfD, or even major RfC is straightforward, minor, or uncontroversial. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support this one in addition to the principal proposal. Both are good ideas and are not mutually exclusive. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Though I fully trust the bureaucrats to be able to stay neutral, it is better to avoid wrong appearences. In practice I do not expect anything to change, it makes this matter more clear to bureaucrats, and not doing this would most probably mean that at every next crat application people will ask the question anyway. I prefer this option since it is easy. Though I usually wish to see as little guidelines as possible and as much common sense as possible, this will not impact anyone except bureaucrats, and they are very capable of dealing with a single guide extra. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I've also added to WP:CRAT that bureaucrat actions are bound by the policy on use of administrative rights, because there was nothing to that effect even though this seems to be widely acknowledged. Cenarium (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  The above and now the explicit mention of uninvolved at #closing an RFA is sufficient. Cenarium (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - That's what I already said in the above thread. HalfGig talk 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm fine with with this one change; I'm not fine with editing INVOLVED every time someone crosses a line. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Makes the most sense, I think WP:Involved already covered the policy, we just need to make clear that it extends this far, this is a good way to do that. --Obsidi (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Wikipedia:Policy fallacy, makes wp:involved longer for an incredibly obscure one-off. Let's say we do that. Then someone has to watch wp:involved so that months or years from now when someone unknowingly trims it out the whole discussion gets rehashed. Does anyone actually think Andrevan, or any another bureaucrat aware of this discussion, will ever close another Rfa they voted in? NE Ent 15:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this is kind of a one-off. I also think the close that started this arguably falls in the area of "any reasonable actor would do so" of INVOLVED and also to the point, it's somewhat ironic that it all involves bureaucracy and bureaucrats - apparently the "vote" here, would have been fine as a "rationale." Nonetheless as it is a matter of apparent good order and to remove the "arguably", support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Upon reflection, Neutral Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - unlike Dank, I am of the view that this is already the start of editing INVOLVED every time there is an issue, and I don't see it being justified. The policy is sufficiently clear already on this point, and I'm not convinced that this proposed 'explicit clarification' will prevent such incidents arising in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Ncmvocalist, INVOLVED only mentions admins and (by implication) admin tools. Crats don't have to be admins and aren't in this case using admin tools. Adding a few words to INVOLVED on this point wouldn't be a bad idea IMO. Of course, we might get pushback from people who have been pushing buttons that aren't specifically admin buttons and don't want to see INVOLVED used in this way, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Dank, I'd hardly be surprised if INVOLVED only mentioned admins or admin tools as you say - given that INVOLVED is admin policy (and is entitled "Involved admins"). On the other hand, CRAT specifically deals with the procedure for closing RFAs (with inadequate provisions in respect of conduct). It could be some people lacked wisdom when it came to this proposal or simply left their common sense at the door, but whether such is better described as imprudent or misguided, I don't know. Either way, it turns INVOLVED into something that it is not, and is not positive for the project. If the idea was to make INVOLVED into a totally separate policy, then full disclosure of such should be given at the outset and the proposal should be floated properly - then those 'few words' might not be a bad idea, IMO anyway. I trust I've made myself clearer, also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant, and I replaced my oppose above as well. The core is "bad cases make bad law", and that WP:INVOLVED already covers it, else the event wouldn't have taken place, so it is already very clear that the summation above is already implied, thus adding it would be redundant. Also, it is unlikely that this will happen again. More important than all this, there is overwhelming evidence that the community already agrees policy prohibits involved closings. Adding any sentence will have zero effect on the future likelihood of this happening again, and that alone is worth rejecting the change. Dennis - 2¢ 17:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Policy is supposed to follow community expectations. Someone with 7 years experience really thought this was okay and there was consensus that it was not. I think it should be made more clear as apparently even an extremely experienced crat did not think this. Chillum 18:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I understand with your logic and don't see a flaw per se, but I would like to think that it is already clear in INVOLVED now. I do have a fear that the more specific we make policies, the easier they are to Wikilawyer, so much of this oppose is philosophical (instruction creep). And honestly, I would like to think this was a singular case of a major brain fart. Forever the optimist. In short, I don't think you are wrong, I would just like to think it isn't necessary. The blue marble will keep spinning regardless of how this turns out, this change pales in comparison to the event that inspired it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, paradoxically for pretty much the same reasons that Dennis just opposed it. It merely puts in writing what pretty much everyone already agrees about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dennis' rationale. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 22:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I agree with Dennis that this shouldn't need to be done. On the other hand.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - still redundant as all hell. Byzantium fell, there's no reason for us to chase 'em. WilyD 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't feed the wikilawyers. WP:INVOLVED does not list any specific discussion forums by name. It is neither desirable nor necessary to try to exhaustively spell out every single consensus-determining page on Wikipedia where WP:INVOLVED applies—it applies to all such pages. Administrators are expected to understand this, and bureaucrats – who are expected to exercise great common sense and restraint – should be doubly familiar with the concept. (The fact that we're even talking about spelling it out for this one specific case is because of an embarrassing failure of judgement by a particular 'crat, not a failure of the policy.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Both proposals as being redundant with commons sense and the spirits of existing policies/guidelines. It's fairly clear that this shouldn't happen, but there's no need for more instruction creep. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's a no-brainer. All this does is confirm that policy. I disagree that it is instruction creep at all; if we already have something that is basically the same, then make sure that there is absolutely no room for misinterpretation, like there was in this case. That also stops people potentially getting displeased and having negative conversations in the future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Shame this has to be spelled out, but there you have it... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support One would have expected that common sense plus WP:INVOLVED would have made such a an explicit rule unnecessary, but that was clearly not the case here. Put it in black and white for those who are needful of a clue-stick. Edison (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

General comments

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99
The Night Watch	RfA	Successful	11 Feb 2024	215	63	13	77

• Comment Just to point out that at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process (third paragraph under the "Discussion, decision, and closing procedures" section), it says "Do not close any requests that you have taken part in...". This would seem to apply to crats and non-crats alike. Second comment, I abhor the use of "!vote". It's Wikipedia jargon and it helps distance everyday editors from the running of this site. Worse, it's used for at least two meanings that depend on context. It'd benefit the entire site if we try to discuss ourselves from traditional but opaque jargon like this. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this is adequately covered in existing policy and has been clarified in recent additions, but if the community does wish something like this to be explicitly spelled out, it would best and simply done by adding the word "uninvolved" at Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator: (After seven days, an uninvolved bureaucrat will determine if there is consensus to approve your request.), as that page is the actual policy to which bureaucrats are bound when granting adminship. –xeno^talk 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done NE Ent 18:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Mellowed Fillmore if this allays your concerns please feel free to remove the RFC tag. –xeno^talk 19:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Wait, I oppose adding "n uninvolved" to the phrase. What it means is that if all
  24 / 15 (160%)
  of the crats that have been active in the last 30 days are in any way involved, then the will of the community can not be carried out because there are no uninvolved crats. I think this is BURO CREEP and shouldn't be directly stated even if it is preferred. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see all the supports ↑ there for adding something somewhere. Xeno's most excellent suggestion would resolve those concerns with one word - hard to get less creep than that. I'll note that one of the opposes up there is mine, but no individual's preferences take precedence over community consensus. NE Ent 19:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see all the opposes ↑ there against adding anything anywhere. Ivanvector (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• If something must be added, then it needs to take into account that the process can't be halted or require an IAR implementation to carry out the will of the community. As such, there would need to be one of four things. Option one would have an "except in cases" clause that says that if all active crats have contributed, then any can close; Option two would say that if all active crats have contributed, then some other group would have to close (such as Stewards or ArbCom or the new proposed WP:ASC (if it, or something like it ever gains any traction)); A third alternative might be to add in parenthesis (preferably uninvolved) after bureaucrat; Option four would be to just leave it as it is worded now. I personally like options three or four here the best. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• "preferably" doesn't work; I am fairly certain that involved bureaucrats closing RfA runs counter to the wishes of the community. Option 1&2 are creep. As I said I am fine with the status quo, but I believe that NE Ent's edit reflects the will of the community and common practice. –xeno^talk 20:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the addition is already practice, simply that had not been codified. It is highly unlikely that every active bureaucrat would be capital-i involved on any given RfA. –xeno^talk 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• How many users typical comment on such discussions (especially with a potentially controversial candidate)? Based on the most recent it looks like 70-180+. Is it not probable that
  24 / 180 (13%)
  of them are crats? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's a list: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats, if Technical 13 is unwilling to accept Xeno's word I'd suggest they find an example where all bureaucrats participated. NE Ent 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• It is improbable, as bureaucrats are far less likely than non-bureaucrats to participate in RfAs in a manner that makes them involved. –xeno^talk 20:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you are overlooking the fact that the proposal is that involved in these cases means that any edit of any sort per "Bureaucrats may not close an RfX in which they participated as an editor" which means it wouldn't be improbable to have all 20-25 crats make an edit to a RfX page and there for be involved per the above proposal. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still think it is a bad idea to add wording that has a possibility to take an editor with 80%+ support and be unable to give them the tools because the only previous uninvolved editor fixed a WP:TPO issue without having to implement IAR. I'm still unconvinced anything needs to be added, crats should surely know better than to do something silly like close a discussion they are heavily invested in. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, my suggested addition refers to capital-I involved not subject to minor things of a purely administrative or bureaucratic nature like this. –xeno^talk 14:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I too thought it was silly to quibble about the promotion of a user with 200,000 edits, but the community clearly did not agree with me. However, I imagine if all bureaucrats were INVOLVED, a simple consensus among the bureaucrats to invoke IAR would suffice, or we could write in the exception for a bureaucrat consensus in case of total INVOLVEment. Andrevan@ 07:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed if your doomsday scenario where every active crat wilfully INVOLVED themselves in a single RFA, 1) we need more crats and 2) we could simply ask a Steward to implement the consensus if if were very obvious or 3) we could revisit the policy addition (or even 4) we could rustle up an inactive crat). We're just arguing about hypotheticals of minuscule probability at this point. My suggested addition wraps this whole thing up neatly and obviates the need for this RFC. You seem to the only one opposing it, could you consider self-reverting? Thanks,. –xeno^talk 14:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ahhh... There's your BURO CREEP, which is what we are trying to avoid in the first place. Now, since I seem to be the only one opposed to this BUROCREEP, and there seems to be a CONSENSUS that this specific color is needed for the BIKESHED, I will self revert because this is how it works. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, I'll revert and embellish to "n uninvolved" so that it is clear and reduces the chances for an IAR close being needed in some cases. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, very fair. BRD alive-and-well, thank you. Mellowed Fillmore if this clears up your concerns, please consider removing the RFC tag. –xeno^talk 17:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Activity requirement

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucratic activity for over five years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucratic activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

• I have been hesitant of such proposals in the past (someone may wish to post a link to previous discussions e.g. Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal). Since then there are less menial tasks for bureaucrats (renames are mostly handled via the global rename process) and believe such an addition may be worthwhile so the community has greater confidence in assigning new tasks to bureaucrats or appointing new ones.
  Disclosure note: I'm currently a bureaucrat. Workshopping for now. –xeno^talk 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. We did the 3 year for inactivity above on this page a while ago. It is a bit vague in one way, ie: if a Crat participates in Crat chats for a few RFAs, discussing eligibility to resysop and the like, but never flips the switch, I assume this means xe was active as a Crat? The above seems to say no. Not sure where to draw the line, and how to spell it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As written this should read as a low barrier to entry for bureaucrat activity. The footnote is meant to summarize all activities covered by Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal#Qualifying actions and more. So participating in a bureaucrat discussion is "active as a bureaucrat at WP:RFA (or WP:BN)" and these actions (even if they don't involve a log action) would qualify as bureaucratic activity. In my opinion, a bureaucrat could respond to a bureaucrat-related query on their own talk page and this would qualify as activity also. I've added "or commenting" to the footnote to clarify, hopefully that helps. –xeno^talk 19:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine either way, but with all that is going on, absolute clarity (although impossible) seems like a good goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please feel free to edit the above to add additional clarity. –xeno^talk 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure this solves any problem the project/community actually has. Inactivity thresholds have typically been justified for two reasons: 1) the concern that inactive accounts are uniquely susceptible to compromise, since an inactive individual may not recognize that compromise has occurred; and 2) concern that some of the initially-appointed administrators and bureaucrats may never have enjoyed widespread support of the community, may have been active only when the project was orders of magnitude smaller, and may not respect the current consensus as it has evolved over time. I check in occasionally. Like, I believe, all other bureaucrats, I believe I owe a duty of care and trust to Wikipedia -- project, community, and content alike. Over the course of years, hard times may come to the project, and it may be important to be able to identify those with uniquely deep roots and a legacy of trustworthiness. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with a check-in response sufficing for activity; added "or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureacrat tasks". –xeno^talk 17:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree that participating in a 'crat chat would be considered "bureaucrat activity". With so few people wanting to brave the gauntlet from hell that is RFA these days, and with 'crats no longer necessarily doing renames (though I know several of us here are also global renamers), I don't know what else people want us to do. Some people seem to want us to be "super admins", and others don't want us to do anything (at least that's how it comes across). So, the number of "crat activities" available are becoming fewer. I think keeping the definition very broad is a good idea. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  "at any venue" added to footnote. –xeno^talk 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• As the mailing list is not public, should this become policy, I presume one of us would have to comb 5 years of records to check if the 'crat in question participated in any discussion. Does a "+1" type response to a discussion on the list (of which there are very few, true) count as activity? -- Avi (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed it would be hard to track a bureaucrat who only contributed to the mailing list but never made any onwiki edits or log actions about it; in this case it would probably be best to invoke the recently added 'safe harbour' provision and note onwiki that they do continue to participate as bureaucrat on mailing list, etc. even if as an observer or rare caller. –xeno^talk 19:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  I have to ask, since all this seems very difficult to determine if someone qualifies: As currently written, has there ever been one person who would be removed as Crat under this rule? It could be I lack imagination, but I'm not sure how if this would ever even get used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  I think it would apply to a few bureaucrats, I don't want to single anyone out though. As written, it is very easy to qualify - this is by design; the goal here is not to create a quota system to force activity, but to give the community has a check-and-balance to ensure the bureaucrat team is still actively engaged. –xeno^talk 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  Fair enough. You damn Crats are so quiet, it's hard to tell when you're sleeping or working ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  -- Avi (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown - sadly, we have bureaucrats this would apply to even if the time period was 8 years. And one bureaucrat has the dubious distinction of never having used their tools at all (having held them for over 10 years). WJBscribe (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would certainly support this; rights are not a badge of honor, but are to be used. Another option might be requiring a higher number of edits per year than administrators are required to have, or requiring a certain number of logged actions. --Rschen7754 17:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• I may be a little naïve regarding how these steward requests normally go, but wouldn't it be hard if not impossible for a steward evaluating the activity of the bureaucrats to evaluate every single comment a 'crat made, or even to check comments on the mailing list? This seems like putting a lot of reliance on the stewards. Kharkiv07 (T) 17:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a former steward, we would usually have another bureaucrat certify that the inactivity requirements were (not) fulfilled. --Rschen7754 18:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, the steward would be acting at the behest of the bureaucrat. Though I've found they're pretty diligent - pointing out something we've missed in our own process once in a while - in the end, it would be the requesting bureaucrat who was ultimately responsible (and in such cases, it's easily fixed by re-adding the erroneously removed rights). –xeno^talk 18:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Increasing the activity requirement for retaining bureaucrat rights

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for adding the text. There is also consensus for the wording to reflect 3 years instead of 5. Even some of the oppose comments did so on the basis of 5 years and thought 3 would be better. The minority discussion centred around WP:CREEP and suggested that there was no problem to fix. But the consensus opinion cited the fact that there is a need to remain up to date with policy and security concerns considering the power these editors have. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Since a similar proposal is running regarding administrators, I think now is a good time to solicit wider opinion on whether the following text should be added to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats document:

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over five years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

–xeno^talk 21:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Good idea. Bits are not a trophy. I'd even support something less than five years. --B (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support While this is more controversial for Admin, being a Bureaucrat has the highest standard for approval at Wikipedia, higher than Arb, higher than Admin. This just ties into the accountability expected of Crats. Also support 3 year limit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support. I'm very glad this came from a respected current 'crat. (Three years would be fine, too.) BMK (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Support This seems sensible to me. Chillum 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Sounds eminently reasonable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
6. Support and would be happy with 1 year. However, I'd suggest 3 years to match adminship. Worm^TT(talk) 11:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
7. Support, and also support one and three years. (In order of preference, I prefer one year, three years, and then this proposal for five years, based on the wide definition of bureaucratic actions.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Support, and also 1 and three years (in order of preference, 1 year, three years, five years). Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
9. Not perfect, but it at least does something to solve the problem. --Rschen7754 01:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
10. Support and thanks to Xeno for taking the initiative to put this together. 28bytes (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
11. Support Three years would be even better, just like WTT noted above. Widr (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
12. Support. I frankly don't think the issue being addressed here is a high-priority problem: I don't recall many, if any, incidents of a long-dormant bureaucrat returning and taking a controversial action, and unlike the case with checkusers or oversighters, having extra, inactive people on the bureaucrat roster doesn't create security or privacy issues that I can think of. However, since the issue has been raised, it is hard to argue that people ought to retain userrights they haven't used for five years, and therefore I will support the change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

    Well, one could argue that the contents to the bureaucrat mailing list are private as they have all the old right to vanish requests, and occasional ones that are sent there out of habit. --Rschen7754 02:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

13. Support although I'd prefer a term system similar to that which exists for administrators. Also, as I asked below, since the numbers of past and present bureaucrats is more limited than admins, have there been instances of bureaucrats who were inactive for two or more years who came back and returned to a reasonable level of activity? It would be useful to have some data here to see the extent of this problem and frequency of this issue coming up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
14. Support, weakly. 5 years is a good common-sense line to draw, but I do wonder how often this would be invoked and whether it really solves a specific problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
15. Andrevan@ 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
16. Support A three year limit would be better, given the gravity and power a bureaucrat has. Leoesb1032 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
17. Support, seems quite sensible and reasonable. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
18. Support, but would prefer 3 years (if there was a reasonable warning e.g. 3 months). As an aside, I think this bit of the proposal could perhaps be phrased better: "The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month and a few days prior to the removal." I originally read this as "they will be warned [a month + a few days] before removal", rather than "they will be warned a month before removal, and then a few days before removal". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

    On the aside: thanks, clarified. –xeno^talk 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

19. Support... but I would also support and prefer much less time. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
20. Support per NewYorkBrad above. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
21. Support I've been around RFA for quite some time (and while crats do other tasks) RFA seems like the big one. There are quite a few that haven't been around for awhile and I think they should stay engaged with the community or they lose touch in the areas where they have those additional buttons. I wouldn't want to see this reduced significantly, but 3 years from 5 doesn't seem like a big jump but an important one. Mkdw^talk 05:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
22. Support - Seems a sensible idea although I'd prefer 3 year limit instead. –Davey2010^Talk 05:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
23. Support, but prefer 3 years. (Do we have enough support for 3 years to make 3 years the result?) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
24. Support Per Newyorkbrad, and I'd also back a shorter period.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
25. Conditional support Only with 3 years. Doug Weller (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
26. Support Five years? Totally. Absolutely. Three years? Sure. --BDD (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
27. Support, better than current position. But I remain of the view that this doesn't go nearly far enough. I would prefer 3 years to 5 years, and would prefer if we narrowed this to require actions as a bureaucrat, not just a statement of availability to perform such actions. If you aren't using rights, you don't need them. WJBscribe (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    PS. I agree with Avi that "I do not see the benefit of creating a new policy solely to ensure that every five years, the cicadas bureaucrats arise from their slumber to note "still here to do bureaucratic actions" and then resume their slumber." I trust my fellow bureaucrats appreciate how damaging it would be if they adopted such an approach to meeting this activity requirement if it passes. WJBscribe (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    This is definitely a point that's been running through my head too. Isn't this proposal essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? (Or in other words, shooting one's self in the foot?) - If the goal is to keep those who we think may not be "up" on "current" wiki policy from acting in a bureaucratic fashion, aren't we, by this, forcing those same bureaucrats to do just that? - jc37 15:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    The point that I understood Xeno to be making to me below is that we shouldn't presume that anyone will say they plan to participate bureaucrat tasks when they actually don't. In the past, some inactive crats have been fairly open about their lack of willingness/ability to use the tools (e.g. this question & its response, noting that it took another nearly 4 years after that exchange for the crat in question to lose the rights under the current system). WJBscribe (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Those rights were not abused until their removal. As there are less than 40 bureaucrats, I think the project members do not have any issues keeping track of use/abuse of these tools. I don't see the need for new bureaucracy to keep track on the less than a dozen people the proposed policy will affect. -- Avi (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

28. Support 3 years or even shorter (but 5 too, if that's the best we can do at this time). You are entrusted with a role to do the work, if you are not doing it, there is no good reason to be entrusted for it - not holding on, as if it's a status that you need, when you have demonstrated you don't need it (and are not fulfilling it) is sensible. The idea that it would force the Bureaucrat do do what's bad, can only mean they are unworthy of the trust. It's not in any way a punishment. Just let it go, if you cannot or will not do the work, and thank you for what work you did. Come back, and ask for it, when you are willing to do it again. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
29. Support, but only for 3 years (or less). Not 5. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
30. Conditional Support Two or three years only. Oppose five years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
31. Conditional Support For 3 Years and per WJBscribe 's view below that is should require at least one use of bureaucrat permissions (or participating - not including recusal - in a WP:CRATCHAT).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

    And let us say that three years go by without a chat, or, for that matter, a chat is opened and closed within a dozen hours not allowing those sleeping or traveling to take place? We 'crats already hover like vultures at RfX. Should we start closing early for fear that we will otherwise be evicted due to circumstances mainly out of our control? -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

32. Support This sounds like a good proposal. According to WP:CRATS, bureaucrats are trusted humans tasked with the responsibility to judge approvals for adminship, bureaucrat user right, and bot group approvals to accounts. These humans are in positions of trust. As some other comments in this discussion say, if your not going to do the tasks ever, then why should you have this user right. This should be unless you have other tasks to do, then you can balance them and come back to this task as soon as you can. I think increasing the activity requirement would reflect that. 5 years sounds good; 3 would be better, but we should still give bureaucrats enough time to accomplish their tasks. Sam.gov (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
33. Support. If you've got the tools, and are active infrequently, you are wasting the community's trust. North of Eden (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
34. Support Three years would be even better. Having too much inactive admins or bureaucrats reduce the visibily and the legitimity of the others admins or bureaucrats. --Nouill (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think the idea behind this is to encourage bureaucrat activity, but I think it could also encourage "why bother with maintaining this permission?". I also feel it is solution in search of a problem and an example of instruction creep. So I oppose, but if carried (very likely) I think five years is a reasonable minimum. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose futile pro forma opposition to WP:CREEP. If you can't identify the problem your new rule is intended to address, then there probably isn't a problem at all and you should probably find something else to worry about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   The problem being addressed is the community currently has no mechanism to ensure bureacrats remain actively engaged in their role and cognizant of community standards. A bureaucrat could make a single edit per year and retain their permissions forever. If the community feels that a non-zero percentage of bureaucrats are out of touch with the community, they may be reluctant to assign new tasks to the team or concerned when a long-inactive bureaucrat pops in out of the blue. Specific examples can be identified, but I would prefer not to single anyone out. Perhaps you don't think this is a problem (that someone can hold onto advanced permissions forever without using them), but the motivation for this process is written directly into the text of the proposal. –xeno^talk 09:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, the motivation is clear - what's not clear is the evidence that the problem you're motivated to solve actually exists. I understand not wanting to single people out, but I don't think it makes sense to ask people to judge a possible solution to a problem you've presented no evidence of. Apparently that's a minority opinion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   There are bureaucrats who have either never used their permissions (literally never acted as a bureaucrat, or only performed a single or limited number of renames) or not used them in nearly 10 years. It would very much cause problems if one of these users were to come out of the woodwork and take a poorly considered action because they were not up-to-date with community standards. It's even possible that this action could not be reviewable, given the policies concerning the removal of administrative privileges. If that prospect doesn't unsettle you, and you think that the proposed text is too demanding upon these users who aren't using their tools, then I suppose you can say this is a solution in search of a problem.

   It's not that I don't trust these users, it's that I simply don't know them. They don't use their tools, they don't turn up on the bureaucrats' noticeboard or for bureaucrat chats, they don't respond to a request to workshop activity requirements or a gentle suggestion that if they don't plan to use their bureaucrat privileges anymore that they might relinquish them. Even if they said "Oy, sod off Xeno, I'm watching the project and I'll spring to action when the moment requires" (they'd probably say it more politely, like UninvitedCo did above), I'd at least know they were tuned in. But radio silence? I don't know why they need to retain privileges in such cases. –xeno^talk 03:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Too long. One or three. I am surprised there are so many crats whose names I've never heard because they're never here, in article space or elsewhere. In addition, crats, like admins, need to be editors. Lots of things have changed in the last couple of years, including at RfA, and crats need to be aware of this. If they pop in for their seventh edit of the year and decide if Cyberpower or whoever should be an admin or not, then I can't trust their judgment. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

   Surely you're aware your opposition could lead to users instead hanging onto their permissions indefinitely instead of being reviewable at 5 years of dormancy? –xeno^talk 03:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

   This is really a "support but only if the consensus is three years", is it not, Drmies? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

   Sure. This glass is totally half-empty for me. I do not support inactive crats hanging to bits, of course--it's just that I want a more clear and meaningful idea of what "inactive" means. Five years, on the internet, is more than a lifetime. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose - As a community we have a long tradition (going back nearly to the start) that - as we are a volunteer community - we don't assess an editor based upon the types of edits and ways they contribute to the project. Further, we also have a long standing practice that once the community decides that they trust an editor, that editor is treated as if the community has continued that trust up until the community decides they no longer trust that editor (AN/I, arbcom, etc.) - Due to privacy and other issues, I can understand why CU and OS may have particular "use of the tools" activity requirements, but bureaucrats? If they have never used the tools and responsibilities, then let's discuss that. But absolutely no to editcountitis of any type or form! We already have an inactivity policy - one that is neutral to the type of contributions. This is clearly not neutral. That aside, it seems rather clear from reading the discussion that the actual concern here is that several on this page have decided they do not trust certain bureaucrats to close an RfA. If that is the case, this is the wrong way to go about it. If the community doesn't feel that they can trust all bureaucrats to singly close RfA, then let's address that. But to suddenly say we no longer trust you to close a discussion based upon some arbitrary value just violates several rules - AGF in particular. This is just wrong. And the thing that is so sad and disappointing about this, is I think you all know it is wrong too. - jc37 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm with Drmies here. Five years is so long that this will most likely never be applied. BTW, I don't really understand why crats who log something like two dozen edits/year (or even less) actually want to hang on to that bit. Status? --Randykitty (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I mentioned this in another thread recently, bureaucrats are all wise enough after an absence to review policies and procedures. Also, there is already a procedure to remove a bureaucrat for tool misuse. And all those misuses are easily reversible. I know of no evidence that unlimited terms for bureaucrats has created problems. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose I've gone back and forth about this a number of times. What it seems to me to boil down to is that this is a solution in search of a problem. Yes, if it is implemented, it places almost no additional burden on the bureaucrats, so why not? And that is what I thought originally. But now, I feel that I'd rather make a stand against bureaucratic creep (no pun intended). What is the problem to be solved? I can think of only one significant situation, and that is a poor close of an RfX. Well, that can happen now, even for someone who has performed many recent bureaucratic actions. Bureaucrats can misread consensus because bureaucrats are human. I think the bureaucrats would like to think that they are experienced in these matters, and the community has trusted us them in this, but I do not see how the performance of one action in five years is any significant indication as to their overall competence. Remember, that according to this suggestion, even saying "I'm here and available" once every five years is sufficient. Do we need a new policy to enforce a semi-decadal check-in? If a bureaucrat makes an egregious enough mistake that the community has reason to seriously consider their extension of the trust, then the RfCU-->RfAR option exists. If the tool isn't being misused, no harm; if it is, we already have a process to address it. If a bureaucrat does not adhere to the minimum activity standards that already exist, their access to the toolset may be removed. While it is not an enormous burden, I do not see the benefit of creating a new policy solely to ensure that every five years, the cicadas bureaucrats arise from their slumber to note "still here to do bureaucratic actions" and then resume their slumber. -- Avi (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Oppose Avi's comments are spot on. I actually did an analysis of this. At the five year bureaucrat inactivity level, I found 6 bureaucrats: User:Bcorr, User:Brion VIBBER, User:Cimon Avaro, User:Cprompt, User:Infrogmation and User:Stan Shebs. At the three year level I found 4 more: User:Ilyanep, User:Raul654, User:Secretlondon and User:UninvitedCompany. So, on the surface it seems like we'd reduce our bureaucrat corps by 6 - 10 (of 33). But, are they really inactive? Of those 10, 6 of them have performed an admin action in the last three years. Of those 10, ALL of them have edited this year. I also fail to see what harm this new policy would be trying to avoid. Can anyone cite any example of a bureaucrat who failed in the proper administration of their tasks after coming back from a period of inactivity? As an aside, the case of User:Cprompt is curious; I can find no records of any bureaucrat or admin actions by this editor at all. Though, he has indicated an intention to return to activity in the bureaucrat role in the "near future". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Is the correct adjective "bureaucratic"? --B (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the alternative? (See first sentence of Bureaucratic drift#Structural for example of this usage) –xeno^talk 21:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No idea. --B (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. isaacl (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer "bureaucrat actions" in this context. The term "bureaucratic" ties to the everyday meaning of "bureaucratic" (i.e., relating to a bureaucracy), whereas "bureaucrat" as an adjective ties at least in my mind to the specialized Wikipedia meaning. (In wiki contexts I prefer to use "administrator action" rather than "administrative action" for the same reason, though I'm not sure the distinction is widely observed.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Would "bureaucrat activity" work? "Actions" could give the implication that a log action is required. –xeno^talk 13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds all right to me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

← I have made this word choice change ("bureaucratic" -> "bureaucrat"), there is no net effect on handling. –xeno^talk 14:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Second question: for the sake of eliminating a future argument, can the proposal clarify that this is on top of any requirement to maintain adminship? In other words, bureaucrats will still be de-adminned (and thus de-cratted) after one year of doing nothing whatsoever - being a bureaucrat doesn't let you go away for four years and 364 days before losing the bit. --B (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, added. –xeno^talk 21:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, though it may be worth linking it to Inactive bureaucrat accounts (the section header). It took me a minute to figure out that that's what it was supposed to be in reference to. --B (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, we can link it. –xeno^talk 22:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Question: so if a bureaucrat does not edit for 370 days and asks for the rights back afterwards, would they be given the rights back? --Rschen7754 01:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, the proposal is not intended to change the current "pure inactivity" process. –xeno^talk 01:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps that should be made more clear, as the current phrasing is "Permissions removed for activity requirements" which could include both. Also, how would this be implemented? I recall that when the 3 year requirement for admins was put in a while back, there was a grace period which caused a lot of controversy. --Rschen7754 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Yes, makes sense. I hadn't thought about implementation yet. What was the cause of the controversy? –xeno^talk 02:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

      • • This can be found in the BN archives, but essentially a notice was sent out to all the admins that this would apply to that they had until January 1 to regain their admin rights, or they would need to run at RFA again. However, a lot of inactive admins came out of the woodwork, which upset people since it looked like they were going to just ask for the rights and then go inactive again, they might not be up to date on current practices, etc. One bureaucrat questioned a few of the returning admins to cause them to reflect and think about their request, but this also caused controversy as it looked more like the crat would be making the decision to resysop based on the answers to the questions. --Rschen7754 02:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

          • I'll look it over in the morning. Obviously the number of users this would affect is much smaller, and they were all invited to workshop the proposal so it won't be coming out of the the blue if it does move forward. –xeno^talk 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Too weak

I was minded to oppose, but I guess it's better than nothing and I appreciate that Xeno has worked hard to frame this in a way that will be acceptable. This just feels too watered-down for me. Hunting through five years of contribs (both on wiki and on a mailing list) is a waste of time and the signalling of availability for tasks is not in my view activity. I also don't think we should count activity as a global renamer - that is now a separate user right, and global renames have their own activity requirements. Would support if amended to require at least one use of bureaucrat permissions (or participating - not including recusal - in a WP:CRATCHAT) within the preceding 5 years. WJBscribe (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Let not perfect be the enemy of good; indeed if enough users support with a comment they feel the restrictions should be tighter, then we can tighten them. Or do so later after getting a minimum bulwark established.

Yes, as framed, it's gameable, but my hope is that it will not be gamed. –xeno^talk 11:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The idea that someone doesn't give up user rights they've found no use for in half a decade + is pretty unfathomable to me. I've always been amazed that the community tolerates it. WJBscribe (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think normalizing them with admin inactivity at three years is a good balance. I know they aren't the same kinds of inactivity, but still, three years is enough. Use it or lose it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning implementation: if an editor's last bureaucratic action is so well-buried that it can't be found by machine or cursory glance, they should point it out upon receipt of a notification.

Regarding renames: enwiki bureaucrats (along with the rest of the global renamers) still have a role to play in coordinating the global renaming and ensuring that local policies and guidelines are still observed. –xeno^talk 14:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As usual, WJB's input brings helpful clarity. I'd be minded to support something that described activity in those kinds of terms. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  Keep in mind that one could support the proposal as currently framed, and then initiate a subsequent discussion (either consecutively or concurrently) for adjusting the footnote (which is what the whole "bureaucratic activity" line turns on anyway) or timing.
  The footnote was composed after soliciting bureaucrat opinions in the workshop above, so it shouldn't necessarily be seen as my recommendation of the optimal definition of bureaucratic activity.

  5 years was chosen as the RFA process (and other bureaucratic processes) do not change so rapidly that someone who has been away for 36 months would be bewildered upon return. –xeno^talk 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The one concern I have about what WJB suggests (which, as usual, is thought-provoking and well-reasoned) is that promotions and cratchats are relatively infrequent. I know that I have, at times, lurked for months at RfX wanting to promote, but have been scooped time and again. This doesn't mean I am not following or not engaged; it means we have a relatively active 'crat corpus (and that times seem to end when I'm sleeping 8-) ). We can go a year or two without a cratchat. So, it is feasible, especially if the time-frame is condensed, that someone can be alert to all the bureaucratic on-goings and yet not have the opportunity to promote/participate. At least with renames, checking the CHU/S, CHU/U, and the global queue daily will almost certainly afford someone the ability to rename at least once in 3–5 years. If there is a consensus not to consider renaming as part of this activity, then I think we need to provide some alternative method of showing activity that is not an actual promotion/chat participation that allows a greater opportunity for us to show EnWiki that we are still active and engaged as bureaucrats. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed there are many bureaucratic acts (even observing or tending to ongoing RFAs) that do not result in logged actions (perhaps not even edits); and as you noted, successful RFAs are often closed rather quickly at the exact time of their conclusion (e.g. all Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal#Qualifying actions, currently summarized in the existing footnote). –xeno^talk 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

One consideration: what are we trying to achieve? With the administrator requirements, I believe that we have two purposes in de-adminning inactive users: (1) there is a concern if someone disappears and then comes back that the account may have been compromised (an active user's account can be compromised too, but presumably an active user is more likely to notice it and say something) and (2) someone who goes away for a long time is less likely to keep up-to-date with our policies and practices. Neither of those concerns are the reason that we as a community are considering adding the additional requirement for bureaucrats to maintain their active status. Rather, I can think of two reasons for this change: (1) to discourage badge-collecting - if you're not going to do the job, you don't need the position and (2) so that we can more accurately know how many bureaucrats we really have (unlike with administrators where we could always use more and are never in any danger of having too many, we only really need a certain number of bureaucrats - if we have 20 nominally, but only 2 are really doing stuff, then we need more and this will help us get a better accounting of how many we really have). Personally, my preference would be to drop the number down to 1 year (but perhaps exempt someone who is currently serving as an arbiter, steward, or maybe some other similar positions where they may wish to avoid bureaucrat duties during the time they are in their other role). This would better serve both purposes. --B (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you feel that "someone who goes away for a long time is less likely to keep up-to-date with our policies and practices" is a not a potential motivation to implement such a requirement? –xeno^talk 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

They're already covered by the fact that they will be de-adminned. (The policy doesn't catch the people who check in once per year to maintain their bit, but the new bureaucrat policy will still allow them to do the same thing. It doesn't help with that situation.) --B (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone could still edit once in a while (and avoid WP:INACTIVITY permissions withdrawal) but still be away from bureaucratic (or even administrative) activity for five years.

In this case, and with the proposal as framed, only if they make a fresh affirmative edit somewhere indicating they still consider themselves to be up-to-date and capable of bureaucratic activity would they retain the privileges.

And if someone were to merely do this 'check-in' edit but never return to bureaucratic activity, questions could be raised at that point. We don't know yet if this process will result in individuals doing just the bare minimum check-in, allowing the privileges to lapse, requesting their removal, or returning to active bureaucrat duties.

Once the process is in place, modifications can be implemented as usual, by community consensus. There is no requirement at all right now except continuing to make at least some edits, of any nature, once in a while. –xeno^talk 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia's standards

According to Wikimedia's policy, The maximum time period of inactivity without community review for holders of advanced administrative rights should be two years and inactivity for this case is defined as zero edits and zero administrative actions on the wiki where the rights are maintained. This policy applies to administrators, bureaucrats, oversight, checkusers and stewards and according to the policy the stewards will contact inactive bureaucrats.
Is this notification not occurring? Is there a good reason to lengthen the inactive term from 2 to 5 years? Has any bureaucrat been inactive for 2-5 years and then returned to a normal level of activity? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this applies to our project (or any "wikis with an active Arbitration Committee, e.g. English Wikipedia, as such projects can decide about their inactivity removals"); even if it did, it only applies to pure inactivity, which we already cut off after 1 year already. –xeno^talk 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, xeno, I appreciate the explanation. Five years still seems like an awful long time to wait to remove the user rights. That means that if a bureaucrat didn't take any more crat actions after today (and none after), they would keep the right until 2020. I think it might be fairer to current bureaucrats if there were new, active bureaucrats appointed to share the responsibilities rather than having bureaucrats go years without taking any bureaucratic actions. If the bureaucrat qualifying actions include participating in a bureaucrat discussion, renaming an account or declining a request to rename an account, it seems hard to imagine not being able to do one of these activities over two years.

It was interesting to compare policies across projects and see, for example, the Commons standard which is An "inactive admin" is one who has made fewer than 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months. I know this involves bureaucrats, not administrators, but there is such a variety of policies about what constitutes "inactivity". Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think two years is a bit on the low side, especially if the user is otherwise actively editing/administrating; I wrote about why I selected five years above. The timeframe is not set in stone; it can be modified by consensus. –xeno^talk 17:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Xeno, the scathing response referred to the reaction I received to the table when I made it over a year ago. The caustic comments did not come from you. The table wasn't delivered to the bureaucrats with any specific purpose in mind other than purely informational. It was a spin-off from something else I was working on, namely a possible solution to dysysoping involving a new task for them coupled with an incentive for users to run for Bureaucratship. One needs to read the pramble to the table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The one month warning

It is my understanding that a global renamer has to handle renames (simple and usurpations) and that a bureaucrat who is not one cannot rename accounts. If those are off the table, and there is a crat chat every six months or so, that leaves the twenty or so annual successful RFAs and the every-so-often "No consensus" RFAs, along the occasional requests for re-sysop/de-sysop on WP:BN, which has a twenty-four hour waiting period. There is also bot-related work.

If a bureaucrat were to receive the one month warning message via talk page and e-mail, is there enough workload in a given month that the bureaucrat wouldn't have to really focus on beating another bureaucrat to the punch, so to speak, in order to meet the activity requirement within the one month?

If there is so little bureaucrat work required, then perhaps the one month warning should be extended to a five month warning (being that administrators have an activity requirement of one year and a warning of one month, a five month warning would be the same ratio).

On the flip side of the argument, someone could feasibly say, "Well, if the bureaucrat didn't do anything for four years and eleven months and then couldn't find something in the 11th hour, then (s)he should've done something bureaucratic before waiting four years and eleven months." But that could be said for any inactivity duration (e.g., "if the length were X years, then the bureaucrat should have done something before waiting X * 12 - 1 months.")

Long story short, I saw there was discussion regarding the length of the inactivity, and I thought it might be good to also discuss whether the warning period was also of an ideal duration. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure; we could always give more advance warnings. 6, 1mo, 3days, for instance. –xeno^talk 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If written into the requirement, this would allow a significant grace period following approval. There is always the 'safe harbour' statement, at least if it remains in the text. –xeno^talk 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I forget the exact timing for admin desysop for inactivity warnings, but I would suggest simply using the same. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Warning does allow gaming the system, but if someone games, they shouldn't be Crat, which is a different problem with a different solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Who?

There are apparently 33 editors with this user-right. The 5 years timeframe didn't just fall out of the sky. So who is this intended to affect?

Or to make this a more neutral question: If this were in place now, who would be immediately affected by this? - jc37 06:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure naming names, if any, being obligated to ping them, etc. is all that good of an idea. Either the proposal has merit, or it doesn't. And if they don't see it anyway, they aren't paying attention to the very board they were given bits for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  This isn't done in a vacuum. These kinds of changes should only be done in response to a problem. When we discussed inactivity before, it was in response to particular situations. And again, 5 years was apparently picked for a reason.

  That aside, transparency should very much be the watchword here. Why is asking who this would affect, not "...all that good of an idea". Good faith is good faith. And if it spurs editors back to helping in the project, so much the better. - jc37 07:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  It's being done at the main Bureaucrats page and it was advertised all over the entire Wiki. Any claim that this process lacks transparency is simply unfounded and irresponsible. As for the term 5 years, all you have to do is simply READ the above. If you disagree, by all means, oppose it. Demanding a list when you have the tools to easily do that yourself seems gratuitous. As you pointed out, there are only 33 possible names. This debate is about policy and limits, not individuals, anyway. We have activity limits for admin and crats as it is, this is not much different. Crats already lose their bits if they don't edit for 3 years, same as admin, this is about Crats that don't USE the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  transparent as in free-flow flow of information. And I did read the above. The subttext too. I'm not sure why it's necessary though. It's not like we only have 33 sets of these tools. Nice thing about virtual sets of tools, we can hand out more. There's more that bureaucrats do than mere tool usage (the link above wasn't a bad list, but still not all encompassing.) And they are respected members of the community. Still not seeing the problem which needs fixing. Are we worried that someone will suddenly do a batch of renames? What exactly are they supposed to be out-of-date with? - jc37 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  Probably not, they would need separate userright for that now. But what if an editor who had never closed an RFA (or not since the old laissez-faire days) popped in to close one of the recent RFAs (that went to bureaucrat discussion) as successful without a closing rationale? I'm sure drama would ensue. These requirements as written are incredibly easy to fulfill, all you have to do is one single bureaucrat action in 5 years. It's not a big ask. Or one can even say "Oh yes, I'm still here and available for bureaucrat tasks, and I'm up to date". That's it! Invoke safe harbour and hang onto the tools for another 5 years . –xeno^talk 10:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  The change is proposed to ensure the community can be confident that individuals who hold the bureaucrat flag remain cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks and available for bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 13:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  As I said above, what things have so changed that these respected editors can't be trusted to not blindly wade in? - jc37 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  We no longer appoint administrators and bureaucrats based on less than 10 users' say-so, for one. One does not have to look far for comments critical of the actions or comments of lightly active bureaucrats. –xeno^talk 10:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  So this comes down to "We don't trust them." - ?

  Sounds an awful lot like setting up a sort of "reconfirmation RfA" for bureaucrats. - jc37 11:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  I don't see how that follows. Basically this is setting up a poke check. Poke the bureaucrat see if they are alive. If they respond by returning to bureaucrat activity, they keep the tools. If they do not respond, they are withdrawn. Nothing so sinister as reconfirmatons. –xeno^talk 11:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  If you don't perform some (un?) specified action, within some specified timeframe, you will be forced to go through another RfB. Sounds exactly like a reconfirmation RfA.

  I don't doubt the sincerity of this Xeno, but "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley" after all. - jc37 11:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  No one is forced to run for another RfB - only if they want the tools back - and I'm not sure why someone who didn't use the tools in 5 years will suddenly find a need for them if they get withdrawn while they're not paying attention (even after two notes and emails warning them of the impending withdrawal). –xeno^talk 11:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  5 years is a straw horse. Even now they're talking of changing it to 3 years, and who knows later? And no one is "forced" to do a reconfirmation RfA either... - jc37 11:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  Re: "These kinds of changes should only be done in response to a problem." that's exactly why I cancelled my life insurance, cut the seatbelts out of my car, and refuse to get vaccinated against diphtheria. I will wait until I get sick, get into an auto accident or die, and then I will take those so-called "precautions"... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  Chuckle : ) -- note that all those are issues which one might consider a problem : ) - jc37 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, not a one is a response to a problem, like this RfC, they all anticipate possible future problems. I have never had any problem that my life insurance policy was the solution to. Unless you consider possible future problems, all the money I have spent on it was a total waste. Likewise with most computer security issues (and allowing users to have rights on a server that they don't use is a classic computer security blunder); you try to fix the vulnerability before someone exploits it, not "in response to a problem". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't create a table but you could look at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal#Current activity and see if any of the bureaucrats who were not active in 2010 have had bureaucrat activity since then to see if this applies to anyone. –xeno^talk 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just over a year ago (Nov 2013) as part of a research for something completely different I was working on at the time, I created this rather rough and ready table. Thinking erroniously that it might be of interest I dropped a link to it on this page. It was taken totally out of context, received in very bad faith, and even resulted in a PA - uncharacteristic for a bureaucrat. It might be of some interest now, but please take it on face value and spare me the vilification this time round - we're all volunteers and some of us are doing our best for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for your efforts. By looking at edit count alone, though, this table doesn't highlight bureaucrat activity: many of those edits could be bureaucrat activity or none of them. A user could have high edits with no bureaucrat activity or low edits but much bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - just as in the same way that far from all admin tasks are actually logged as such.The closest one gets to the table being representative is the 'Edits in the last 30 days' column. Also important to understand is the number of edits a single renaming action can generate. The table wasn't created for the purpose currently under discussion, but when taken together with each bureaucrat's monthly edits displayed at X-tools, a rather accurate picture of overall current engagement in Wikipedia emerges. Despite the scathing response I received for making that table, based on the length of tenure of some bureaucrats since their registration, it's perfectly natural that the circumstances of each individual may well have changed by 10, 12, or even 13 years later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But tracking bureaucrat activity should be much easier given the limited number of venues, and a table that showed last rename, last bn comment, last (+/-) bot flag, last (+/-) admin, edit to WP:RFBAG, (e.g. representative of Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal#Qualifying actions) these data would be more useful than just edit count and number of renames, which I do not think are representative of a bureaucrats' engagement with their role. So perhaps the response was not intended to be 'scathing' ,but as to point out the table wasn't really serving the purpose for which it was intended. –xeno^talk 20:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It is startling to see one bureaucrat who seemingly never used the tools and has only about 1600 edits in total. I guess the bar for qualifying has risen substantially. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A number of the early bureaucrats were appointed by some combination of mailing list, arbcom or Jimbo, but I don't remember the details. Andrevan@ 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies#2004: only 2 of the original 17 February 2014 appointees still have the tools, and I don't think Liz is referring to one of those. WJBscribe (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we trust them or not?

With the moving of the renaming, the bureaucrat user-right is essentially adding or removing admin or bot-related user-rights (and adding bureaucrat user-right)

And so now bureacrats are being treated with a similar distrust that some apply to the RfA process.

admin-for-life, and done by the decision of one individual (setting aside "crat chats").

So the fear is that some older bureaucrat will stumble in blindly and give the tools and responsibilities of admiship (or bots) to someone not deserving? or are we just saying that they won't know how to read consensus?

Heck, if we don't trust them, and this is all that's left, maybe we should just deprecate the bureacrat user-right. Ask stewards to "flip the switch" after an RfA/B is closed or Bag approves a bot.

Of course, good luck with the followup RfC on the who and how of closing RfAs : )

This whole thing feels like an end run around dealing directly with what most people on this page appear to see as a problem - the difficulty - once given - of removing adminship, and the potential havok of the "wrong person" (wrong version?) being granted the tools.

So instead we're going after the fear of not trusting those that the community trusted in the past? Sounds rather wrong to me.

If this is what you really want, how about just follow the practice that's already in place - for contentious RfCs, we often discuss in advance who the closer(s) may be. Would anyone disagree that RfA tends to be contentious?

And during the 7 days of the RfA, people volunteer to close in advance. Maybe ending the "Surprise, so-n-so closed the RfA" will help.

It certainly would be much easier to implement than the above, and definitely less 1984-ish. - jc37 11:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What is Orwellian about implementing some minimum activity standard? –xeno^talk 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

We already have a minimum activity standard. This is different. And (in my estimation) much more subjective. What is a "crat action"? who decides? And for that matter, Quo vadis?

And will we suddenly have bureaucrats fighting over who gets to close an Rfa so that they can keep the user-right? ("Sorry we're taking your tools because Xeno closed every RfA at one second after 7 days, never letting anyone else, and so forcing everyone to lose bureaucratship.") - jc37 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat action is described in the footnote. There is enough non-time sensitive work for bureaucrats that someone can easily find something to do at least once every 5 years, or they can invoke safe harbour. I don't want to overwhelm this discussion with my responses. You are free to oppose this proposal if you don't think it's wise or necessary. –xeno^talk 12:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I understand you tried to broaden it to more than tool use, this comment by Dennis Brown still pretty much applies to this proposal as well. - jc37 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The answer is no. I do not trust a bureaucrat with five or even three years of inactivity. I don't think we can assume he/she has kept up with evolving standards, and we know that the bureaucrat doesn't care about Wikipedia needing bureaucrat help. If there is a rare exception, let her/him reapply and make a case for having kept up. And unused user rights are always a security issue. Just because we cannot see any harm in retaining them doesn't meant that an attacker won't figure something out. Being active means you are much more likely to notice if something is being done using your (compromised) account. This is a basic principle of computer security security that pretty much everyone agrees on. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  We already have an inactivity policy for bureacrats. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts. It is neutral in assessing the editor and their edits. This proposal is neither. - jc37 15:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  There is a strong consensus that making one edit a year with no requirement for any bureaucrat activity isn't enough. As I said, this is a security issue. Let's fix it now instead of waiting until a compromised inactive account causes widespread disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  In the over a decade-and-a-half that Wikipedia's been around, has that ever happened? - jc37 17:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  In the 40 plus years I have been living in Los Angeles, I have never had an earthquake knock down my house. Should I stop paying for earthquake insurance? Vesuvius hasn't erupted since 1944. Want to move to Pompeii? Computer security isn't about reacting after an attack. it's about plugging holes before attackers find them. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Not to mention that anything a 'crat can do can be undone fairly easily. Only one thing they can do requires a steward to undo, and there are plenty of them around to fix things, including several regulars here on enwiki. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I can think of at least one action that cannot be easily undone: closing a borderline RFA as successful. –xeno^talk 10:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Well, the action can be easily undone. Whether it would involve a really long discussion and all kinds of drama...that's another question. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  I know we have large backlogs of admin tasks requiring attention, but is there a backlog of bureaucratic tasks? Do we need to encourage some editors to run for bureaucrat? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  We could probably use more hands. Especially folks who want to actively work to improve RfA from the ground up, maybe try to streamline the process. –xeno^talk 21:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Never used the tools

Is there anyone currently entrusted with the tools who has never used the tools? - jc37 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Cprompt from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"may"

Xeno, the current language creates some questions that need to be cleared up before this is added to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats document. In particular, I am referring to the word may: "their bureaucrat permissions may be removed" and "another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions". Do you mean shall or will? If you mean may, then what process will be used to decide/determine if the permissions are or are not removed? Seems like some important gray area to clear up. Thoughts? Kingturtle = (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Since no one on this project can remove bureaucrat rights, the language is reflective of that. Also no one can force a volunteer as regards 'shall' or 'must'. Regarding implementation, I envisioned something similar to WP:INACTIVE that tabled activity and could be double-checked before any actions were taken or requests to Stewards made. –xeno^talk 16:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No consesus

I wonder if there is anyone who believes this has consensus.

"What?!" say the vote counters.

Well, read the "votes". Foe example, WTT states "However, I'd suggest 3 years to match adminship". And they're not the only one. Funny thing, this proposal doesn't exist for adminship.

Wait, maybe you think this refers to the "other nom" that the nominator linked to in the nomination above: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Increasing_the_activity_requirement_for_retaining_administrator_rights?

Guess what? It doesn't propose this at all. it suggests raising the number of edits from zero to 10.

No, what WTT and others are rather obviously referring to is that they think this is due to Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. It's why so many want it to be 3 years to match admins.

Problem with that is: a.) this actualproposal isn't just like admins. and that's because b.) the "just like admins" policy already exists for bureaucrats! - Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts.

I think people are misled by the frequent use of the word "inactivity" and are presuming it means something that isn't being nominated. I can understand that. As someone who has put forth many community-wide discussions, I've had experience with those who want to comment but for whatever reason haven't taken the time to actually read the nom, much less the discussion.

As far as I can tell, there's consensus to implement the inactivity policy already in place, but there's no consensus to approve this new proposal to start count specific "types" of edits.

I also think it's interesting that very few of those at the Village pump discussion have commented here. making me also wonder at whether this discussion does truly represent the community's wishes. I personally dislike the "walled garden" arguement, but comparing the list of editors from both discussions, there seems to be very little overlap, which I think would make any neutral observer wonder at the very least.

Now I won't be surprised to have IWANTIT to attack me, J'accuse of bad faith and so on. But at the end of the day the text of the page is the text of the page. - jc37 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Rotation

I have opposed this suggestion as a solution in search of a problem which creates more problems of its own. If, however, it passes, I would strongly urge us bureaucrats either set up a rotation and not have "first-come-first-close," or at least, for those of us who have not "acted" in a while, be allowed to schedule a close, so as to "comply." Personally, I maintain that either we retain the trust of the community or we don't, but if we have to demonstrate it actively, somehow, we should do so in a way that allows all of us to remain in "compliance" will relative ease. Sigh. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if we need something formal, but perhaps we should come to an understanding that after closing an RfA as successful, we should allow at least a few more successful RfAs to pass by before stepping in to close again so that we can spread the workload more (with a nod to our most enthusiastic colleague who has closed 77% of the 31 successful RfAs since their appointment ;>). –xeno^talk 18:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Announcement: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC closed

After 30 days of discussion, Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC was closed by Dank with a bi-faceted consensus. The request for comment (RfC) proposed a system of clerking for the requests for adminship (RfA) process. The system designates a certain group of editors to maintain decorum and cleanliness of RfAs.

The closing statement is four paragraphs long. Here are the two key points:

• The community is against the idea of designating a group, whether based on editor permissions or appointment, to act as a clerk for RfAs, with one exception:

• Most participants in the RfC did not have any objections to allowing bureaucrats to act as a clerk for RfAs. The editor who closed the RfC noted that most of the participants trusted the bureaucrats to deal with decorum and order at RfAs. The specific powers of bureaucrats acting as a clerk in RfAs are currently poorly defined; it may be the the subject of future bureaucrat and community debate.

Of course, per the talk page guideline, editors not in the bureaucrat group may perform non-contentious cleanup and—in exceptional circumstances—revert inappropriate votes and comments. Administrators may use their tools, including blocking, protection, and revision deletion, as outlined in the relevant policies governing their use, but administrators are advised to take caution in using the tools as the participants in the RfC were strongly opposed to allowing admins to perform clerk actions in RfAs. Esquivalience ^t 03:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Interface administrators

I have started a discussion about the new interface administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've just noticed a (since withdrawn) request for interface administrator posted on WP:BN. Is there a handling procedure or guideline for granting this permission, in event of future requests? –xeno^talk 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Xeno: Not yet, it is being actively discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators. We had a mini-discussion that closed with (21/0/0) for a temporary grant of 6 users to provide a stop-gap while the community finishes creating a policy and process. I'd be inclined to issue further temporary grants with the same conditions and support levels in the interim (c.f. Special:PermaLink/856934313#Stop-gap_users_nominated). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Procedure to restore privileges

Following up on this comment on the procedure to restore privileges: since this page is an informational one describing the procedures followed by bureaucrats, can I suggest the bureaucrats update this page to reflect their actual practice, to resolve any contradictions with Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal? isaacl (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that they are in conflict. They differ in wording and emphasis, true. What contradictions do you see? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The changing role of stewards

The m:Stewards are generally no longer willing to take actions that could be performed by local bureaucrats, particularly here on very large projects like ENWP. This is an evolutionary change in thinking rather than a formal change in policy, but see this page on meta for rationale.

I would suggest that we update policy locally to reflect this reality, since it is not practicable to rely upon stewards becoming involved here.

See also: Wikipedia:Global rights policy, m:Stewards policy, and m:Steward_handbook#User_access

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As the person who wrote that, let me comment. I think that stewards would have intervened if they had been flagged down as the wheel war was occurring. Speaking for myself (I was but am no longer a steward), I did not see the wheel warring until 2 hours after the fact. If I had made the request then, it is possible a steward may have acted... but also very likely the request would have been declined because it was 2 hours old and we have an ArbCom for emergency removals. --Rschen7754 19:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of bureaucrat tools

Does anyone object to me adding a note in the policy page saying that bureaucrat tool use is subject to review by the Arbitration Committee? Something similar to what exists over at WP:ADMINABUSE. I hadn't realized prior to this conversation that this was the case, so it might save other folks the same confusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: the bureaucrat "information" page (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats) references "actions by bureaucrats" to the Wikipedia:Administrators policy. I don't think there is anyone that would object to the practice - just that we don't really have a distinct "bureaucrat policy" so it might not be the best place to update. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Noting also that Bureaucrats cannot remove the Bureaucrat user-right (IIRC!) - that needs to be done by the stewards, so I do think there is a need for some explanation somewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 16:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrats and 2FA

A month or so ago there was consensus that administrators should not be recommended to have two-factor authentication and some discussion on the arbitration committee talk pages about it as well. Do these conclusions apply to bureaucrats as well (i.e 2FA is voluntary there too)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 2FA is still optional for 'crats. I don't think it should be, but I think it should be "per WMF" for beany reasons. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Procedural policy or not?

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 4#Status of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is placed in Category:Wikipedia procedural policies. However, instead of {{policy}}{{procedural policy}} the page uses a custom {{ombox}} as its hatnote, located at /Header subpage (permalink). In particular, the hatnote says This page contains information about bureaucrats, relevant policy ... (emphasis mine), but does not assert that the page is a actually a policy (although it does contain the recognizable File:Green check.svg). Am I misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the hatnote? Or should it be replaced with {{policy}}? Or should the page be recategorized into Wikipedia information pages (and checkmark replaced with File:Information icon4.svg)? —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You handily stopped the quote where it says the page is about policy and guideline considerations (emphasis mine) - most things on this page reference other policies that are just followed, it is mostly a mashup of lots of things, thus the odd classifications. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: to add some context to my questions: I was refreshing my memory about different user flags and what I found can be summed up with this table:

Flag \ Page type	Requests	Policy or guideline	???
rollbacker	requests	guideline
sysop	requests	policy
checkuser	requests	policy
bureaucrat	requests		mashup of lots of things

This is a bit confusing, hence my question(s). —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And note, even in there, some are "policy" and some are "procedural policy". — xaosflux ^Talk 23:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've re-read the thread and realized that I did not make myself clear. I claim that in its current state, page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is broken and:

either A or B is correct

A	The hatnote on the page WP:BUR is broken	⟹	Proposal 1:	Replace hatnote with {{procedural policy}}
B	The categorization of the page WP:BUR is broken	⟹	Proposal 2:	Remove page from Category:Wikipedia procedural policies

—⁠andrybak (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a policy; it’s an information page that sums up policy. –xeno^talk 10:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

xeno, thank you for clarification! —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019

Per discussion above (permalink):

On the page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Change [[Category:Wikipedia procedural policies]] to [[Category:Wikipedia information pages]]

 Done Special:Diff/903682002. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

On the page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header

• Change value passed to parameter "image" of {{ombox}} from [[Image:Green check.svg|30px]] to [[File:Information icon4.svg|30px]]
•  Possibly change value passed to parameter "text" of {{ombox}}

from

This page contains information about [[wikipedia:bureaucrats|bureaucrats]], relevant [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy and guideline]] considerations concerning the use of the bureaucrat privilege, and details concerning the use of the bureaucrat tools on the English Wikipedia. Changes made to it should reflect [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]].

to

This page sums up information about [[wikipedia:bureaucrats|bureaucrats]], relevant [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] considerations concerning the use of the bureaucrat privilege, and details concerning the use of the bureaucrat tools on the English Wikipedia. Changes made to it should reflect [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]].

or

This page contains information about [[wikipedia:bureaucrats|bureaucrats]], relevant [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] concerning the use of the bureaucrat privilege, and details concerning the use of the bureaucrat tools on the English Wikipedia. Changes made to it should reflect [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. See linked policy and guideline pages for more information.

or some other wording with similar meaning which would clearly assert that this page is, in fact, not a policy in and of itself. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the 2nd option reads best. Not sure the need for the ep request, you are free to edit the page. –xeno^talk 11:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording and image. Anyone's free to revise with or without an edit request. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Further tweaking. I also considered "This page summarizes information about ..." —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

WJB resigned on 26th, not 25th. 82.132.221.229 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of policies and guidelines#Status of WP:Office actions and WP:Bureaucrats

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of policies and guidelines#Status of WP:Office actions and WP:Bureaucrats. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

“remove userrights made redundant by the sysop flag”

N.B. This cannot always be completed by a bureaucrat at present; it requires administrator privileges. –xeno^talk 23:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose those super-oddball non-admin 'crats can go post at WP:AN like anyone else who needs the help of an admin ;) — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I do think xeno's "the rest is left as an exercise for the reader" is a good response! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)