Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat activity/report

Dump

@Xeno: I dumped the current list of crats and last dates, but I'm not seeing a good way to automatically mine for all the things that could qualify - may been to be manual. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the "easy" ones (rights log of +/- sysop/bot) — xaosflux ^Talk 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's xaosflux - poke through the botreq here: User talk:Madman/Archive 9#Bureaucrat activity table and see special:Permalink/691208262 for other ideas. Might wanna skip the rename bit, it's been a while since that's been considered core. –xeno^talk 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to include the renames - that was included in the policy even though it was created after all renames moved to meta, so I think [1] counts... WJBscribe (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2018

@WJBscribe: thanks for filing in some gaps. @Xeno: looks like there is nothing to "do" right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks both. –xeno^talk 17:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we should check this again in ~~August 2018 (Pakaran & EVula)~~, September 2018 (Addshore), and March 2019 (Kingturtle). After that, there's no point looking at this again until March 2020 (Deskana)... WJBscribe (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the August date - EVula is no longer a bureaucrat, and Pakaran has qualifying activity from Dec 2016. WJBscribe (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Addshore of the pending removal. –xeno^talk 20:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2019

I see that Kingturtle has been notified. Next times to check this: December 2019 (Pakaran) and then April 2020 (Cecropia & Bibliomaniac15). WJBscribe (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Pakaran was removed for simple inactivity in Oct 2019. Now the 3-year no BURACT is also reached, do we need to send the notifications besides? –xeno^talk 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: we don't normally notify former rights holders that they pass a threshold where they would need to use the standard process to re-request access. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being bureaucratic, aren’t the notifications a necessary action to make the change in eligibility effective? Or do we just refer to NOTBURO and the fact the affected user should be aware? –xeno^talk 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: I don't think so, at least according to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts. My analysis of clause 1:

Bureaucrat accounts that have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (without any edits or other logged actions) may have their bureaucrat permissions removed.
This is declarative, provides authority for removal.
The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page and via email one month before the removal of permissions and again several days before the request is made.
This is a conditional requirement prior to removal of access being authorized.
In this case it was satisfied.
Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions.
This is a process direction. It was followed.
This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools.
This is informational.
If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years.
This is declarative, and also contains a conditional disqualification.

In clause 1, statement (5) already includes a disqualifying condition - in this specific case that condition has now occurred. This condition does not have a requirement for any additional notification processes.

The path for removal available in clause 2 was not needed, as clause 1 became relevant first. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux: ah. In Special:Diff/919200196, I believe you conflated two different paths to removal which were formerly as follows: a) 1 year total inactivity (i.e. no edits whatsoever)/dead at 3 and b) 3 years no widely defined bureaucrat activity, and the bureaucrat was warned about the removal for missed activity requirements. This is all likely academic, but does that scan? –xeno^talk 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was just explaining the current practice, notably - in case #2 the notification only occurs "before removal" of permissions, however if access was removed under case #1 the notification wouldn't occur in case #2 as there would never be a "before removal" of the permission. The crat not-quite-a-policy is usually open for interpretation, by us crats. As far as your original question goes, I think it is easy to put this in the same scope as we treat admins: if an admin looses permissions (by inactivity or resignation) we don't then chase after them to inform them when they would need to use the standard request process - and this happens constantly. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. –xeno^talk 04:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]