Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

Status of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Moved from User talk:Xeno

Hi there. I noticed you tagged Wikipedia:Bureaucrats with {{information page}}. I don't think that's the correct tag for the page though, since it does not "clarify" or "supplement" other policies/guidelines but itself contains "rules" as to when and how crats should act. As such, it probably is both a policy (for those parts, like the new desysop rules) and a information page (for the parts that describe how to do things). Do you think we could split those parts, so that we have Wikipedia:Bureaucrats as the policy for crats (like WIkipedia:Administrators for admins) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' how-to guide for the info on how to do something (similarly to Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide)? Regards SoWhy 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The page has been an information page for over 7 years, so I do not like the idea of gutting it to be a policy page - too much would need to be removed - perhaps the very few bits that aren't covered by policies or guidelines on other pages can be adapted onto a new page that would be transcluded by Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. See [1] for a suggested start (in my opinion, the actual policy implications of removal of admins bits should be inscribed at Wikipedia:Administrators). It's interesting how long bureaucrats have managed without a {{policy}} to govern them. =) –xeno^talk 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe Wikipedia:Bureaucrats was part policy all along and it just lacked the {{policy}} tag? ;-) I disagree that those parts should go into WP:ADMIN though, since it does not describe anything admins should do but rather what crats can do to admins. Putting the parts into a separate policy page would work too of course but the standard is usually for policy pages to be at the title of the subject in question and how-to-pages designated as such (per WP:POLICY#Naming). Regards SoWhy 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It describes how the administrator user right may be manipulated by bureaucrats. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is currently a hybrid information page containing policy-like elements (what bureaucrats may do with their technical abilities), how-to elements (how they can do it), and strict informational elements (who are the bureaucrats, when are they available, who were the former bureaucrats, etc.). If there is some kind of tag that can be used to more accurately describe its hybrid nature, that would also be an option. But I think it should remain where it is, and mostly in its current form (as there is simply not enough there to require users to look at three different pages). –xeno^talk 15:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How about {{Purpose}}?

Seriously though, maybe we simply need to slap a hybrid tag on it? Something like this:

How's that? =) Regards SoWhy 18:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good start - see {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header}} (shown below). Tweak as necessary. –xeno^talk 18:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved discussion to WT:BUR. –xeno^talk 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the most recent version above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Can bureaucrats not add the IP-Blockexempt flag?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to involve crats in a de-adminship process

I've proposed a new process involving an extension of the RFA partnership between crats and community, at the other end of the adminship pipeline. If crats think there might be staffing or other problems in its operation, I'd much appreciate comments—here or at Wikipedia:Requests_for_Comment/Community_de-adminship_proof_of_concept/Proposals#RTDe_Discussion. Thank you all. Tony (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Username change

Resolved

Is this the right place to request a username change? If so I'd like to change mine from the current to just Gaba. If I'm in the wrong place, could you direct me to the right one please? Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gaba p. Since User:Gaba is already registered, please follow the instructions at WP:USURP and a bureaucrat will be able to help you. 28bytes (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late (really late) answer. Just a quick question, if I check the page User:Gaba it does not exist. Is it still not possible to rename my account to that one? Regards.

(PS: I removed the resolved tag to ask this follow-up question.) Gaba p (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved here Gaba p (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Hi, could I please change my username from Nnswf to Dslatts? Nnswf (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The user "Nnswf" has been renamed to "Dslatts". 28bytes (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And I've now added an editnotice which answers the first question asked. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

re-adminship proposals

In case you are not aware, there are presently several proposals regarding changes to policy/procedure regarding resysopping former administrators. See Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Restoration of the tools (proposal), Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Alternate proposal and Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Other re-granting proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Appealing decisions to (not) resysop

Reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Resysoping of FCYTravis/Polarscribe it seems that there is no de jure process by which Bureaucrats' decisions to resysop or not-resysop a former administrator may be appealed. I think that it would be worth ending this situation. Below are my initial thoughts, which I would like feedback on. I am explicitly not formally proposing them at this time, although others may of course do so if they wish.

• In all cases someone who disagrees with a decision to (not) restore adminship to a user is encouraged to discus the matter with the relevant bureaucrat(s) in the first instance.
• Any user not resysopped may apply for adminship via the WP:RFA procedure in the normal way, although they should (must?) note their application to the 'crats was declined.
• A decision to resysop may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Such an appeal must be endorsed by at least 3 (4? 5?) independent users, including at least one (two?) administrator(s) not involved in any community discussion about the request. The Committee may endorse the bureaucrat action, immediately desysop the user concerned or require them to undergo a reconfirmation RfA before undertaking any admin actions (The aim is to avoid frivolous requests by ensuring that at least this number of users agree that there is a case to investigate). Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreee to some extent, I do however feel that if a crat declines to resysop that should be appealable to Arbcom in the first instance, maybe even automatically (i.e crat says "No I don't think so and I have asked arbcom to review this). Mtking ^(edits) 02:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems premature, and may represent an unnecessary expansion of bureaucrats' responsibilities and powers to overlap uncomfortably with those of ArbCom. It is apparent from the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case‎ that the Arbs generally agree that they would have jurisdiction to desysop any admin – including one who was recently resysopped by a bureaucrat – if the circumstances so warranted it. If presented with a clear and unambiguous case, I would expect the ArbCom to handle such a case by motion and with relative alacrity.

The test that should be applied in determining whether or not a 'crat should pull the trigger on the 'controversial circumstances' clause is whether or not the administrator's conduct immediately preceding their departure (or resignation) could reasonably have led to desysopping. In the extant case involving Polarscribe, it appears that he demonstrated poor judgement with one article over the span of a few hours—making an out-of-process deletion which he then reversed an hour later, and making one ill-considered protection of the same article at the same time as he left Wikipedia. Had he continued to participate on Wikipedia at the time, it strikes me as very unlikely that his conduct in an isolated incident would have been sufficient to trigger the opening of an ArbCom case, let alone desysopping. (I can see him getting a finger-wagging 'admonishment' remedy.) If desysopping would not have been a plausible outcome of a given 'controversy', then it is not within the remit of Wikipedia's 'crats to impose such a harsh penalty on their own.

Generally speaking, if the 'crats are unsure about whether or not a former admin's conduct would have warranted such a severe sanction, they should refer the request to ArbCom: the Wikipedia body that is elected and explicitly empowered to compel desysoppings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• If the 'crats are unsure, then the user should be referred to RFA. ArbCom shouldn't get involved unless 'crat behaviour, conflict of interest, or similar is in question. ArbCom may then take action against the 'crat, but questions of granting account privileges should be referred back to the 'crats. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As has been noted, such an editor might have a difficult time at RFA - but the point of sending it to RFA is that it becomes a community decision, not a simple one of a crat deciding how much drama constitutes a cloud. If the former admin is sufficiently convincing and shows sufficient clue, they should have no problem getting re-sysopped. If they've been topic-banned from RFA for some reason, then do you really expect arbcom to grant the tools? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe the complete set of successful re-RFAs is: Geni, Crzrussian, Keilana, Carnildo, MZMcBride, PeterSymonds, Everyking, with the possible inclusion of SarakOfVulcan and HJ Mitchell. That composition of that group, or I should say the lack of any pattern in that group, would tend to indicate to me that re-RFAs are even more arbitrary than initial RFAs. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• I think we should wait for what ArbCom has to say. But to your points: point #1, contacting the bureaucrat, is not useful since bureaucrats cannot reverse their decision, which is the true reason there is no appeal; crats cannot take an appeal because they can't, even if they agree with it, do a thing. So, yes, even if a crat clicks on the wrong button and makes somebody an admin and goes to sleep not noticing the mistake, by a strict interpretation of policy we will be stuck with the new admin. On point #2, current policy already allows this (except for the requirement that the crat's decision be revealed). I am not sure the added restriction means anything, since these requests are made at a noticeboard anyway. As to #3, this reads more a way to block appeals than facilitate them; editors who are following the process and have concerns are likely to have made their views clear, and requiring that they not be part of an appeal is an extraordinary restriction. Churn and change (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A quick clarification as I think you have misunderstood slightly point 3. This is not intended to prohibit anyone from being part of an appeal, it just requires that at least one admin not previously involved is also part of it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is overly hasty.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would prefer to see desysoping due to inactivity being permanent, which would solve all of this. Anyone gone for a year but in good standing is very likely to get voted back at RfA. However, the community doesn't agree with me on this point. As to the idea on the table, I don't want to start a pattern of appealing Crats decisions, personally, even though I was forced to file this one single case at Arb. Honestly, it seems the biggest problems are two-fold: Haste, and not enough flexibility for the Crats to refuse to resysop. If we are going to allow resysoping after inactivity and the Crat has any question, they should be able to require that an editor go through RfA. And we should never, ever resysop in less than 48 hours from time of request. There is no emergency that requires a long lost admin get his bit back today. Let the community dig up info and help the Crats, whose job is to make the call. In the rare cases where an individual left under questionable circumstances, the Crats should happily review any diffs the community offers up. Most of the time, there will be zero response from the community, this just protects us from problems like we have today. If we add more patience and flexibility into the existing system, it is doubtful you will need to ask for review very often, making the proposal moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would disagree on the flexibility side. I recently handled an AE request that already had a considerable amount of material written on it. After reviewing it, I decided to sanction an editor. He protested that he needed more time and explanation of why I had decided to sanction him. No matter what I said, he wanted more explanation and more time to submit additional edits. Putting more flexibility in the system means people will continue to yell that the crats haven't considered their evidence enough, that the crats could benefit from more evidence, and that the crats are wrongly interpreting their evidence. Absolute rules are easy to enforce and lead to inequitable results, but flexible rules are utterly unmanageable in an applied setting (at least that's what my advanced contracts professor says). MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• That makes perfect sense. Perhaps a hard time for waiting, 48 hours, then it is up to the Crats to decide as soon or as slow as he chooses. I do think you guys need the flexibility to say "no" when your better judgement dictates. And the community needs to at least be able to have a little time to point out potential problems, the 48 hours (the crat can ignore or choose to delay if valid information is forthcoming). I don't want the community making the decision, voting or debating every decision, but sometimes the community can HELP you buy simply putting many eyes on the issue. Cases like this, where it is 4 years old, are perfect examples. Had this waited a couple of days, and Nihonjoe has said "I saw the ANI, it was a problem, but after reviewing I've decided to restore the bit" and I knew he has the option of NOT restoring it and it was just his judgement, then I would have walked away, even if I disagreed. We all disagree from time to time. We don't want to bog down Crats with process, I completely agree, but we do need to find a way to take the time so the community knows it wasn't a forced action, or a knee jerk reaction. The biggest problem, and I think you will agree, is that there is no clear cut criteria for how to deal with resysoping under less than textbook situations. Again, I keep apologizing but I sincerely hated dragging this to Arbcom but felt it needed clarification and review. I can't believe the policy was supposed to be seen as so rigid and unworkable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be easier to discuss this after the current ArbCom case concludes. If / when it does get discussed here, a crosspost to BN would be worthwhile. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree this is premature. We've got ArbCom looking at the current situation and several policy proposals at WP:VPP intended to close some loopholes, I don't think an entirely new process is needed for something that is pretty rare. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There are policy proposals at wikipedia talk:Administrators but I can't see any at WP:VPP? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is premature at all, as it isn't about a specific case, rather its overdue. I say this because as it stands, a 'crats flipping the admin bit is (afaik) the only action on Wikipedia that cannot be appealed. Even WP:OFFICE actions can be appealed, even though the circumstances in which an appeal will be appropriate are rare and where one would be successful are rarer still, the possibility exists. It is far better to have a procedure in place that is almost never used than to have a dramafest through lack of preparedness for a foreseeable circumstance. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 bureaucrats RFC

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.

---

Should bureaucrats be able to remove the bureaucrat flag?

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.

---

A bureaucrat may remove the bureaucrat flag of another bureaucrat in the following circumstances:

1. Upon request from the Arbitration Committee following a decision or motion.
2. Self-request. In this case, a bureaucrat may remove their own bureaucrat flag, but should notify WP:BN as a courtesy.
3. Upon death, per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines.
4. Inactivity (If a bureaucrat goes inactive with no edits or logged actions for an entire year).

This does not preclude the stewards acting in emergency situations according to their policies.

Should this proposal pass, a request should be filed at Bugzilla to allow the developers to make the change. This is technically possible, since some other WMF sites do allow the option for bureaucrats to remove the bureaucrat flag. --Rschen7754 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support the situation when User:X! resigned just admin and where a steward came in and removed crat was a bit confusing. --Rschen7754 01:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, I've thought about CBM's point, and it's just too compelling. I feel weird about withdrawing this, just in case the consensus does go for turning the switch on, but it doesn't make sense to me anymore. --Rschen7754 07:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Historically, the reason that bureaucrats cannot remove the bureaucrat bit is to somewhat limit the damage that could be caused by a compromised bureaucrat account. It may be that the attack is less concerning now, but I would like to see some comment by the devs or stewards about that. Personally, I don't see why we cannot simply ask the stewards to handle it in the very rare cases when a bureaucrat bit needs to be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Granting the ability. Carl's concerns above say to me that we should have as few people as practical with the ability to remove the crat flag. If the proposals below pass, the burden on stewards to remove the crat flag would be very small in light of the small crat population. No comment on the other parts of the proposal. Monty₈₄₅ 02:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering that now bureaucrats can remove admin powers, I'm not sure how much more damage a hypothetical scenario could cause. --Rschen7754 02:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That is a separate issue, and is an even more significant attack vector. It means that we can expect any compromised bureaucrat account would immediately remove the sysop bit from every admin on the wiki (which would take very little time, as it can be automated). If this passes, they would also remove the bureaucrat bit from every crat, leaving us hoping there is a server admin who can put things in read-only mode and clean up for us. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, a crat could remove all admins, but then the other crats could restore. If a crate removed all crats, then they would be in a much more damaging position until stewards could be brought in. Monty₈₄₅ 02:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Hmm, that's a fair argument. I suppose that we should wait until the stewards make a comment. --Rschen7754 02:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I don't like the idea of bureaucrats removing their own, even voluntarily. it should require another bureaucrat to do it. And the reciprocal should be true, restoration should require another bureaucrat to do it. And the inactivity part should be clarified to be reflect the policies concerning adminship removal due to inactivity. - jc37 02:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Well, restoration would have to be done by another bureaucrat on technical grounds. Stewards can remove other stewards, and bureaucrats make other bureaucrats... --Rschen7754 02:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  As these specifics (and the others I noted) are missing in the proposal above, I still Oppose as written. - jc37 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  This isn't part of the proposal; you have to be a bureaucrat to regrant bureaucrat powers. If someone is in need of being regranted the crat flag, then they can't do it themselves because they don't have the crat flag yet... --Rschen7754 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand. I particularly oppose points #2 and #4 as written. #2 specifies a bureaucrat can remove their own bureacratship. I oppose this. At least one other person should be involved in this step, for security and procedural reasons. And I oppose #4 due to lack of clarity. Also, your example doesn't cover cases where a bureaucrat may also be a steward... All I'm suggesting is that this proposal should be reworked and some of the possibilities more fully considered. - jc37 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  What's to stop a crat from de-adminning themselves under current policy? Also, a steward regranting themselves admin or crat would be a violation of the steward policies. --Rschen7754 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  First, that's something that that I might support preventing, in an RfC. That aside, that's not a true comparison, as admins cannot remove adminship from themselves. They require bureaucrats to do so. As for steward rules, those are on meta. We're discussing proposed policy on en.wp. Not to mention that WP:CCC, of course. So I'm for placing a roadblock on this now. - jc37 02:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  All steward actions are done through meta. --Rschen7754 02:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Please see m:Stewards, not that it matters. Apteva (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Not convinced by the oppose rationale. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• What's broken that will be fixed by this change? I suspect that since the founding of the English Wikipedia, there have been sufficiently few de-crattings that I could count them without taking off my socks. Aside from letting our 'crats gleefully steeple their fingers over a shiny new button they will likely never use, what's the point? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• There have been 23 de-crattings in the history of en.wiki. MBisanz ^talk 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stewards are readily available, and there is no reason for not asking them to do the action. Apteva (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as per the wording by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. De-bureaucratting has to be rare enough that we're not talking a major time sink for the stewards. I additionally am quite uncomfortable from the security point of view. We have to have some sort of position that has the technical right to appoint itself or to remove itself (otherwise we'd have no way to get additional people into that position or to remove problematic people), but since we already have such a position in the form of the stewards, let's leave them as the only userright with the ability to remove (or add, but that's not in this discussion) their own rights. Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Considering how few Bureaucrats there are and how rarely someone is de-'crated, I don't think it's worth the security risk to allow 'crats to de-'crat. I'd like to see some evidence here as to how exactly giving 'crats this ability will benefit the encyclopedia; if it seems reasonable, I might change my opinion. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 07:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need that outways the drawback. Agathoclea (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Carl. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2012 (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.

24 hour wait

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 the event that a bureaucrat has their bureaucrat flag removed, and they wish to regain bureaucrat access, there should be a 24 hour wait to ascertain whether the former bureaucrat still remains in good standing. If there is a currently open discussion regarding the request, regranting should wait until the discussion closes. --Rschen7754 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (24 hour wait)

• Support - jc37 01:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I sould assume that an editor trusted with those tools would be trustable with this as well. --Nouniquenames 01:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Rschen7754 02:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obviously sensible if the above proposal passes. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, reasonable and prudent. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I roundly disagree with consensus on requiring a wait for admins, but it would be downright stupid to require a waiting period for admins but not for bureaucrats. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - makes sense. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but what does "good standing" mean. What does "still remains" mean. To me, "good standing" means not blocked or banned or similarly (heavily restrictively) sanctioned, but I have seen others think it means a higher threshold. I guess "still remains" means that the user has not, since resigning, engaged in conduct suggesting a loss of trust, respect or ability. It suggests a possibility of being able to loose the right to return due to something not well-defined. Do these things need elaboration in the Wikipedia:Under a cloud essay? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree that the erm "in good standing" still has a vague definition, but this specific change is a good thing. MBisanz ^talk 15:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - We have just approved this for admins, we should definitely implement it for 'crats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Makes sense to mirror the situation with the admin flag. CT Cooper · talk 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No reason to treat bureaucrats differently than admins in this regard. Jafeluv (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - consistency is a good thing here. Legoktm (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment there is a comment that this would make sense if the above proposal passes - it still makes sense even if a steward has to flip the switch - please note my new alternative proposal below which brings the two propsals here in harmony with admin policy. Agathoclea (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - this make sense regardless of the decision of the above proposal. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see why not. I hear this very same requirement applies to administrators now? If so, then it follows that bureaucrats should most certainly be subject to this as well. Kurtis (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yes, makes sense. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with the recently approved waiting period for readminship. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support For consistency. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2012 (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.

3 year inactivity

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.

---

If a former bureaucrat is inactive (with no edits or logged actions) for three years, they will need to have a successful RFB to regain bureaucratship. --Rschen7754 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (3 year inactivity)

• Support - presuming this includes that 1+2=3 as well. - jc37 01:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Actually, thinking about this, it seems to me that, compared to adminship, bureaucratship is much more fairly straight-forward in policy interpretation for the most part. I don't think that this is necessary in this case. - jc37 01:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - If there is that much inactivity, it seems a good idea to me from a precautionary standpoint. --Nouniquenames 01:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support If the crat is trustworthy, they should pass at RfB again. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I could see an argument for making it contingent on the RFA passing, but this is something the community should discuss so we don't have a crat that is not an admin. --Rschen7754 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nyttend's argument is convincing. --Rschen7754 07:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no requirement that a crat be an admin. They perform very different roles. Apteva (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Then maybe we should consider making adminship a requirement to being a crat, because it would be a huge hindrance (or flatly impossible) to be a effective crat without the admin tool kit, as you can't view deleted contribs of an editor, or of deleted articles, or a number of other things. That would resolve most of these issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Crat's have the toolkit of an admin, but that is not their function. The function of crat is completely different from the function of an admin. I submitted an RfB because I wanted to be a crat, but I had less interest in being an admin, or functioning as one. Similarly, there is no requirement of being an admin to be a steward - stewards can only act as admins on a wiki with no active admin, but they have the tools of an admin even though they do not normally need to use them on the English wiki, as there are hundreds of admins here. So for example, if I was or was not a bureaucrat, I could close an RfC, but I could not call it an admin close if I was not an admin, even if I was a crat. Do crat's close RfC's, AfD's etc., as crats? No, they close them as admins. The fact they are a crat is irrelevent, but if they were a crat but not an admin, they could close an RfA or RfB, as a crat closure, but could not close an RfC as an admin closure. Apteva (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't understand Apteva's comment — my point was that additional userrights shouldn't have reduced levels of security policies. Since we say that bureaucrats must wait a day before re-adminning someone, and since bureaucrats are at a higher level of responsibility (and potential destructiveness if they go rogue), they shouldn't have reduced standards for comparable situations. I would say the same thing if we had lots of non-admin bureaucrats. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, prudent and reasonable. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just another good form of site security to remove the rights (although perhaps we already did that? I'm not sure), and by requiring a new RFB, we're ensuring that the user is familiar with current standards rather than just coming back and getting going on a completely different project from what he left. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Don't forget "or she". Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - should match admin procedure. Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. see comment/proposal below which might force us to tweak this proposal. Agathoclea (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support and maintain that bureacrats must be a subset of the administrators. Non-performance of the perceived normal admin role does preclude maintaing admin status. The responsibilities, the standard of conduct, of a bureacrat includes all of the responsibilities and standard of conduct of an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support This does fix a gap in policy that I noted a few years ago. MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is important that a bureaucrat is active. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I would say the inactivity should equal that of the admin rules, or even a year, but this is a good start. Kumioko (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Seems reasonable enough, though three years might be a bit excessive, given the responsibilities and additional capabilties of those holding bureaucrat tools. dci | TALK 02:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - To mirror the position with admins. CT Cooper · talk 17:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The admin policy talks about 3 years with no edits, with no reference to logged actions. I would strongly recommend using the same criteria for both admins and bureaucrats. With the proposed wording, someone with zero edits and one logged action in 3 years would get the bureaucrat tools back on request, but would require an RFA to regain adminship. I don't think it would make much sense that way. Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I consider a logged action to be a type of edit. Is there disagreement to this in terms of this proposal? - jc37 12:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  The admin policy actually refers to the three years starting with the time of the de-admin so there will be no logged actions. A lot of people supporting here are supporting a matching rule, so I am sure a reworded proposal will go through fine. Agathoclea (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that this isn't clear concerning the 1+2 situation. Perhaps an additional RfC should be started to address this so as to be abundantly clear. Honestly, I wish this all had just been phrased "just like the adminship inactivity policy", which is, I think, what most presume when commenting here. - jc37 21:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - it seems prudent that a crat who is inactive for so long should be reinstated. As one who tends to take long wikibreaks myself, getting back into the swing of things shouldn't be something done lightly. Although a good ex-crat shouldn't have much difficult going through the process again. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, of course, Easy as pie! Could you provide me a list with all the successful RFBs in say... the last couple of years? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• WTF? "With current dropping admin numbers and no outlook on how to fix the problem, what shall we do? I know, let's figure out a way to have even less admins and bureaucrats!" Err... WHAT? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC) see: Wikipedia_talk:RFA#New_chart, for statistics
• Support Seems like a good idea, and Nyttend's rationale explains why. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with the recent implementation of such a rule for admins. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (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.

alternative proposal

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.

---

For reinstatement of de-crated buerocrats admin policy will be applied. Agathoclea (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

comment That will save having to worry about details and future changes and this will replace the above two proposals. Agathoclea (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: As the closer of the previous RfC, if this proposal comes to pass, it will override the top two proposals and every single policy change made to administrators will apply to the bureaucrats as well.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 12:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: All policy change proposals applied to the bureaucrats will not be applied to administrators.

Discussion (alternative proposal)

Support as proposer Agathoclea (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Any requirement passed for admins shows what the community feels necessary in order to trust former admins who come back; 'crats, if anything, we need more trust for - and not less. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the alternate proposal retains the value and benefit of the earlier proposals, while providing for a more simple and consistent standard for removing and regaining access. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (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.

Removal and restoration of Bureaucratship

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.

---

This proposal suggests that the policies and guidelines concerning the removal (and/or restoration) of the tools and responsibilities of adminship, should also apply similarly to the removal (and/or restoration) of the tools and responsibilities of Bureaucratship. This includes but is not limited to: removal of the bureaucrat tools after 1 year of inactivity (of zero edits); and 3 total uninterrupted years of inactivity (which is intended to include "1+2=3") following removal of bureaucratship for any reason, subsequently requiring an RfB to re-request the tools. - jc37 21:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, 1+2=3 refers to removal due to 1 year of activity, which thus means that only two more years of inactivity are required to meet the 3 year criteria. This is just as is noted for adminship. - jc37 21:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (Removal and restoration of Bureaucratship)

• Support - Let's just be clear about all of this, so to prevent confusion and/or rules wikilawyering. jc37 21:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - hopefully unnecessary, as we should all be mature enough without this, but supporting anyway --Nouniquenames 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. I don't think it serves anything to have the (almost) same things worded slightly differently in the two policies. It's simpler to define the rules in one place and reference that where necessary. Noting one difference, though – because the proposal above was rejected, bureaucrat right removals will still need to go through Meta while removal of adminship can be handled locally. Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not a difference. Admins cannot remove the admin flag from themselves or another admin; and bureaucrats cannot remove the bureaucrat flag from themselves or another bureaucrat. So it's still a similarity. - jc37 07:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's symmetrical in that sense. However, as a result the removal procedures are different: If a non-crat admin wants to be desysopped, they can make a post at WP:BN and a crat will take care of it. If a bureaucrat wants to be decratted (is that a word?), they need to log into Meta and make the request there. Not sure if it matters for this proposal, though – one could think of it as a technical limitation (which happens to be backed with consensus) instead of a policy issue. Jafeluv (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• WTF, Given our current issues with editor and admin retention, of COURSE we need an admin policy to help people who drop the flag to stay away even more. And let's apply it to bureaucrats too! This is perfectly logical. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC) this is perfectly sarcastic

If someone has been gone 1-3 years, retention is no longer the issue as that train had already left the station. Security and stability is, which itself affects retention of active editors. You can't "lose" an admin who isn't here to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

To an extent that's true. OTOH, leaving the door open does mean they can come back. I just feel that discussing throwing people's flags out the window is -at this point in time- possibly not the most useful&productive avenue to be pursuing. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC) there's more I can say about the reasoning many people are using here, but that's a good start ;-)

And if they come back bitless, then we will welcome them back with open arms. We love to see this at WP:WER, trust me. Odds are, if they have been gone that long, they need to edit a bit to get up to speed anyway. Likely, if they ran for RfA again after getting up to speed, they would have a very good chance. Having the admin tools granted instantly after being gone 4 or more years can be problematic. The other side of editor retention is that the average editor has faith in both the individuals with the bits and the system responsible for granting the tools that can block and delete. The 3 year standard is pretty lax, after all, and acts solely as a fail-safe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons it makes sense for admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2012 (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.

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.