Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal

more discussion July 2010 WP:BN

See (archived at) Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_20#Inactive_bureaucrats. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat removal revival

This request follows on from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Inactive bureaucrats, and is designed to gauge community support for the idea of removing highly inactive bureaucrats. A proper definition of "highly inactive" is yet to be determined; such a discussion should probably wait till the basic principle is adopted. The intention is rather that we discuss the merits and faults of the idea, as well as potential alternatives. Thanks in advance for your participation. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Participants are asked to consider the notion of removing bureaucrats without a great deal of regard for the merits of the content on Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal – in other words, with a fresh outlook. As a result of these discussions, much of the content on that page might be changed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds of lack of evidence that this is actually a problem, much less a problem of such magnitude that we need a process specifically to deal with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. There are two ways of framing this (see AD's raising of the topic at WT:BN). First, driven by a sense that inactive bureaucrats can now "reactivate" themselves at will and could misjudge consensus given changing mores of the community - i.e, a specific issue for this role. While possible, this does not seem to have been an issue, and our selection of bureaucrats in general expects of them to be clueful in all situations, including if they are coming back from hibernation. Idly following WP:BN, I've seen examples both of long-tenure, not-very-active bureaucrats raising somewhat anachronistic viewpoints, as well as such bureaucrats acting as a welcome counterweight to active more recent bureaucrats who were getting too caught up in complexifying processes. So on this count, while AD doesn't like the wording, I agree with others saying this is a solution in of a problem and so unnecessary. Second, one can be of the philosophical persuasion that all admin functions should have term limits or inactivity limits and bureaucrats as a good starting point. I tend to be slightly opposed to this as well, though I see the point - but if that is the approach, I think we should debate and come up with an de-admining protocol first and then debate what it should mean for bureaucrats. Martinp (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Martinp raises an important point here; "old hand" bureaucrats often supply useful institutional memory: even if semi-active/rarely active, they may be able to provide insight into aspects of a situation that newer bureaucrats have overlooked.

I'm of the mind that any proposal like this should come from without, not from within. Any removal of inactive bureaucrats will create a hegemony in the remainder. –xeno^talk 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this point relatively unimportant. Wikipedia and its community change quickly, and old practice is old practice for a reason. I for one can't recall a recent situation in which an "old hand" has provided unique insight. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The "institutional memory" is nonsense really - there's nothing really an inactive bureaucrat would be able to do that an active one couldn't. This is why we appoint new ones, under ridiculous scrutiny. I think they are plenty capable, but the old ones, who for one reason or another never use their tools, or use them badly, I believe are not so much. Bureaucratship is completely overrated for what it is, so I don't see why it should be a big deal for inactives to have it taken from them. If they never use it, they won't miss it. Aiken ♫ 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support As nobody has ever provided a single solid argument in keeping inactive bureaucrats, but plenty of good arguments for removal, supporting is the only way to go. Aiken ♫ 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support on principle. As with sysops (which I also support and have supported in the past), this would go a long way in dispelling the notion that we have some cabal, group of elite, etc. This would also reflect the ever-changing and evolving community that we have. –MuZemike 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support but willing to listen to counter arguments. I've seen 'crats rise from the dead and wondered who the hell they were only to drift back into obscurity after performing a few 'crat actions. I would not be opposed to a simplified re-cratting process. But I do think it is ridiculous that somebody who ceased to be active 4 years ago can come in and simply regain the 'crat tools today. As for institutional knowledge... if they haven't been active for 4 years, I'm more worried about their current understanding than how things used to be. Plus, we have plenty of 'crats who have been around for years and have that institutional knowledge already.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would like to, at minimum, discuss it further. There are some good points for removing inactive bureaucrats. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose solution looking for a problem. Has any inactive bureaucrat ever created a problem? Why on earth even propose this solution when no problem has been identified? The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes actually, they have. Can't recall details though, can anyone? I assure you, there very much is a problem, and not just the problem they continue to hold rights they never use. Aiken ♫ 15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, a very memorable, catastrophic problem then. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't need a catastrophe to implement a new idea. We also don't need a problem to introduce a new idea. There are what, 30-something bureaucrats? It'll take about a minute to remove inactive ones. That's it. Hardly bureaucracy. Just simplistic housekeeping. Aiken ♫ 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's creating bureaucracy to manage a 'problem' that doesn't exist. It isn't just the mere minute it takes. You have to come up with standards for removal. Then you have to come up with a process for removal, including notifications via talk pages, e-mails, etc. Senseless addition of bureaucracy. What problem does it solve? And why on God's green earth create more bureaucracy when there is no problem? Just for the hell of it? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the inactivity. You don't find it a problem, I do. I think it's disrespectful to the community to ask for such rights and never use them (or stop using them without good reason). RFB is probably the hardest thing to pass on Wikimedia projects, so it's inappropriate that someone who got the bit in 2004 with 8 votes (all from people who haven't edited in years) and never used it, still has the right to use them, but someone just as capable editing actively today will be turned down for "not been an admin a year, not enough featured articles"-type thing. Aiken ♫ 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Or stop using them without good reason? What? So, bureaucrats will have to come to a review board to determine if they have a good reason to stop using them, or else suffer...what? The rest of your arguments don't suggest bureaucrat removal, they suggest reconfirmation. That's a different beast entirely. For what its worth, I believe Jimbo himself has previously shot down both ideas. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer reconfirmation actually, but seeing as it's unlikely any inactive bureaucrat would pass such a thing, that sounds like a bigger time-waster than simply removing them. Aiken ♫ 16:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Aiken is referring to Cimon Avaro coming out of nowhere to close his first RFA in five years. During his closure, he moved a support to the oppose section, which resulted in an edit war and temporary page protection. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• That small of a problem??? That was a landslide promotion. Creating a bureaucracy to deal with a niggling problem like that? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I only said perhaps. That was the first thing that came to mind. There may be more problems, or a bigger problem, that I'm not recalling at the moment but someone else might. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've been saying this for years now. MBisanz ^talk 18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, at least support for exploring this further. I'm broadly sympathetic to the idea that such positions should not come with tenure. On the other hand, I'm not seeing evidence that this has been a major problem. Based on the discussion so far, I'd say that any workable proposal should count all editing activity as being active, and should only allow removal after the person has been contacted and been given a fair opportunity to respond that they are still active. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal of access for crats who aren't editing much at all. If a crat is still a reasonably active member of the community, participates in discussions, edits, etc. and makes a crat action just occasionally, I'm fine with that, but if they barely edit at all, then I'm not sure how they can keep up with policy changes and whatnot. —fetch·comms 21:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditionally support the concept. Conditional on taking a markedly different approach to the one that Commons takes with admins. For the record, I do not understand why this is being restricted to crats. But if this is to be brought in, it should be based on inactivity of all kinds, not just a lack of crat or admin edits. --WFC-- 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For the exact same reason I opposed this the last time it came up, it is a solution in search of a problem to solve, nobody has demonstrated that there are significant ongoing problems caused by inactive crats. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• There has been discussion bubbling under for a little while that the community should have the opportunity to review the activity of admins, bureaucrats, stewards, et al, at regular periods to ensure that the community trust is being upheld. I'm not sure that inactivity in itself is cause for me personally to lose trust in someone - each case would need to be examined on its merits. So I am not in favour of removing inactive people, but I am in favour of the principle of a periodic check up. SilkTork *^YES! 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure this is the right solution to the underlying problem. Activity is only part of the picture. I suspect there are fairly inactive crats who retain community confidence and there may be active crats who do not. I would prefer a recall system for bureaucrats so that any crat who no longer enjoyed the confidence of the community (whether due to inactivity or otherwise) could be removed. I think there is merit in what SilkTork proposes - a yearly reconfirmation requirement for bureaucrats makes sense to me and may be a better option than recall. I'm not saying a new RfB every year, but that a certain level of community confidence would need to be demonstrated (even if it is just 50%+). WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support such a reconfirmation process as well. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm against that. A !vote should only be resorted to in the case of perceived misuse of the tools. We shouldn't be wasting our time on them just because it happens to have been 12 months since the last inquisition. --WFC-- 11:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Strong oppose to annual dramafests. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Sometimes I worry that "avoiding drama" has become a goal in itself. Where that means that issues fester unaddressed, I think it's unhealthy. As others point out below, there will only be drama if there is an issue with the conduct of a bureaucrat being reconfirmed. If there is one, I'd like to hear it. As to the point about there needing some sort of misconduct, it's a shame that it's seen as a waster of time to tell the rest they're doing a good job - everyone's a volunteer after all. I always thought meta's admin reconfirmation process was a good one (though I know not everyone agrees). It wouldn't scale here due to number of admins, but for crats I think it would be a good idea. WJBscribe (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What if it was a mesh of the two? A reconfirmation of some kind if some "inactivity" threshold was reached. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • • If there is no cause for concern, why would there be drama? And if there is cause for drama/concern, then all the more reason to discuss it openly rather than allowing concerns to fester under suppression. There may be occasions when the timing of a review might be influential because of a recent controversial activity; however, the potential drama of that could be modified by setting up a flexible review system which gave time spans rather than fixed occasions. If the community were still significantly unsettled some months after an incident, then that would suggest the decision made by the 'crat in that incident was inappropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 23:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I've always been against term limits as it will serve to cause people (crats/sysops) to, even subconciously, try and cater to what they perceive is the whim of the people as opposed to filling their duties and making tough decisions. Bits can always be removed through an RfAR. I would be partial to the concept that an incative crat/sysop of significant duratino (1+ year) would need some kind of "refresher" class before re-entering the venues as policies and accepted practice does change over time. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose TNXMan 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I would support a reconfirmation process after a certain low-activity period (perhaps average below 3edits\day for five months). Maybe "Adoption" by a current bureaucrat for a certain amount of time who would graduate or keep them longer when it finishes. Or they might go through a short "RFBR" (not nearly as long or detailed as a real one) where people would ask questions about current policy\consensus\policy\ and !vote on whether they should be kept a bureaucrat. There might also be a limit on how many times they can do this (once or twice with exception of if they can mail proof to the foundation they were seriously sick or injured?). If not some kind of light reconfirmation process, Oppose - it doesn't cause that much of a problem. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me  · 23:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support for one simple reason: I don't think it's good for long-inactive users to have extraordinary rights such as that of bureaucrat. Beside providing that inactive bureaucrats be de-bureaucratted, we could also include a provision that a de-bureaucratted account, upon becoming active again, could be restored to those rights without needing to go through a new request for bureaucratship. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, the bureaucrat permission allows conferring of significant rights and users who are not up to date with the policies on conferring those rights (evidenced by absence from the community) should not keep them. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose anything that adds an additional impediment to people thinking of standing to be Bureaucrats. I further oppose as I perceive this as a wide-ranging problem to a specific problem. It's clear from discussions at BN over the last year or two that there are some Wikipedians who distrust some of the longer-standing bureaucrats. Fine. Creating a catch-all administrative process encompassing all current and future bureaucrats, so that a subset of them can be stripped of their tools is a poor solution. Either decide that the group damages the encyclopedia because of their tools (you'll need to find some evidence) and then tackle them individually as you would an abusive admin, or decide that actually, there's no evidence of misuse of tools and no real danger of it without recourse, in which case... --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem; however, I support a 'crat recalling process. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I would point out that a generally accepted computer security methodology is limiting system access to the absolute minimum unless otherwise required. Every bureaucrat/administrator is technically a small though ever present security risk - man cannot remove administrator/bureaucrat rights due to this risk because the rights are needed, but i see no reason why someone who is completely inactive should retain rights. As a secondary concern i would point out that (very) long absence would mean that a users knowledge of Wikipedia policies degenerates due to policy changes or simple "forgetting".

I would point to our list of administrators as an example - We have admins with less then 1000 (Or even 200) edits, and who'se last edits have been years and years ago. Could such a person function as an admin when he or she returns after such a long break? I really doubt it. Besides, a general cleanup every now and then is never a bad idea. We currently list 1741 editors with administrative privileges, but this does in no way equal the amount of active users as only a fraction still edits. My condition is that this "De-rights" process only applies to extremely inactive users, for example, who have not made a single edit in 2-3 years. This can easily be run as a batch job with little user involvement, so bureaucracy would be little. I am aware that people will argue "Nothing bad happened so far, so why 'fix' it"? I would however argue that a security issue is an issue even if not exploited - especially if fixing it would generate negligible negative response. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Any permissions unused in a community-defined idle period (I suggest 365 days) should be removed without prejudice to reduce the impact of an idle account being hacked. The permissions should be restored for the asking once the editor in question requests them, presuming the 365-day idle period wasn't following departure "under a cloud". Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's enough real problems without addressing low-risk hypotheticals.--Scott Mac 23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal of only those that are unreachable, that is, those that are not around to protest the removal themselves. If, after months of inactivity, one suddenly speaks up and does not want to be demoted, then he should not, even if he continues to be inactive afterwards. I suggest a "period of inactivity" be 1 year. -- œ^™ 02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Any change in policy which makes it more difficult to participate in Wikipedia's development unless you're obsessively checking in every day promotes groupthink, which is already at toxic levels anyway. I would like to see what happens when an administrator steps away from his computer for a year, comes back, and gazes in horror at what's been wrought by those who've been at Wikipedia the whole time. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 21:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support sometime less legalistic than the current (failed) page.

The current bureaucrats should be divided into active and inactive, recorded at Wikipedia:All bureaucrat accounts. This should be a simple page, not to be confused with Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats, edited infrequently and easily watchlisted. The criteria for "active" should be loose and generous, along the lines of "keeps up to date with current practices".

Inactive bureaucrats should not exercise their bureaucrat functions without moving themselves from inactive to active.

After 1-2 years listing as inactive, the bureaucrat bit should probably be removed, if only as a security precaution.

There should be no pressure on bureaucrats discovering real life responsibilities to resign. The wisdom of old experience is only valued when it is needed. Angela's recent resignation is a loss for the project notwithstanding the statistics on her recent rate of exercise of bureaucrat function. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I hadn't noticed that Angela resigned. I need to pay more attention. That's the trouble of being an IP, I can't have a watchlist. But that's two 'crats to have resigned this year (plus X! temporarily) after have no resignations in three years. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support in part. Inactive bureaucrats should be awarded the title of "Emeritus Bureaucrat". Then have new bureaucrats. When there is a shortage, then the emeritus crats can be considered to be an active one. In other words, we keep respecting them but retire them and give them priority to un-retire. Every crat should be a bureaucrat for 5 years then become emeritus. RIPGC (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP and imposition of pointless bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Given the rigor of the process that bureaucrats have to go through at RfB, putting fewer candidates through that process and having more approved bureaucrats at the end of the day is a good thing. And for those who have been inactive, such a policy will not function as a deterrent to inactivity because they won't know about it.   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Your comment makes little sense to me. For a start, WP:CREEP – an essay which is frequently misquoted – does not really pertain to the topic at hand; please take the time to read it more carefully. Next, it should be noted that the rigorousness of RfB has not always been present. For example, see Optim's RfB from 2004, which passed (10/0/0) with no questions asked. Finally, the statement that this proposal "will not function as a deterrent to [those who are currently inactive]" misses a crucial point: The proposal will affect not just the current group of inactive bureaucrats, but those who will be inactive in the future. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone needs to read WP:CREEP closer, but its not Jeff, it's you. This is creating yet more unneeded process to correct a "problem" that's not actually a problem. This idea is wrongheaded and unnecessary. -- ۩ Mask 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support as there are many very good reasons to deflag inactive bureaucrats, including the potential for a more practical and convenient list of currently flagged users. Near as I can tell nobody has presented any sort of argument as to why retaining bureaucrats who haven't so much as edited in years is necessary. I've grown quite irritated with the "solution in search of a problem" cliché being used as justification to oppose anything in sight, as seems to be an issue in this discussion. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have compiled a sortable list of all current bureaucrats and their last crat actions performed (i.e. +-bot, +sysop, or user rename):

Name	Last crat action	Last +-bot	Last +sysop	Last rename
Andrevan (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	March 14, 2010	February 3, 2010	February 17, 2009	March 14, 2010
Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 8, 2010	March 4, 2010	June 21, 2010	August 8, 2010
Avraham (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 2, 2010	June 9, 2010	July 13, 2010	August 2, 2010
Bcorr (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	March 15, 2009	--	August 18, 2006	March 15, 2009
Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 2, 2010	March 3, 2010	July 10, 2010	August 2, 2010
Brion VIBBER (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	--	--	--	--
Cecropia (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	January 16, 2008	October 7, 2007	January 16, 2008	October 14, 2007
Cimon Avaro (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	April 6, 2010	July 3, 2006	April 6, 2010	March 21, 2008
Cprompt (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	--	--	--	--
Deskana (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 9, 2010	April 25, 2010	July 9, 2010	June 26, 2010
Dweller (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 29, 2010	June 16, 2009	July 29, 2010	July 28, 2010
EVula (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 16, 2010	May 5, 2010	May 11, 2010	July 16, 2010
Ilyanep (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	May 8, 2006	--	May 5, 2006	May 8, 2006
Infrogmation (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	March 28, 2009	--	March 14, 2007	March 28, 2009
Jwrosenzweig (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	April 16, 2006	--	April 16, 2006	--
Kingturtle (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	November 30, 2009	July 9, 2008	June 28, 2009	November 30, 2009
Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	November 3, 2007	June 14, 2006	July 3, 2006	November 3, 2007
MBisanz (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 9, 2010	June 12, 2010	July 29, 2010	August 9, 2010
Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 8, 2010	March 4, 2010	July 26, 2010	August 8, 2010
Pakaran (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	February 21, 2010	February 3, 2010	February 12, 2010	February 21, 2010
Raul654 (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 17, 2009	January 15, 2008	April 2, 2009	July 17, 2009
Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	January 1, 2010	May 11, 2009	July 11, 2009	January 1, 2010
Redux (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	January 9, 2009	July 9, 2007	November 26, 2007	January 9, 2009
Rlevse (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 29, 2010	January 29, 2009	July 25, 2010	July 29, 2010
Secretlondon (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	January 17, 2008	September 25, 2007	November 20, 2007	January 17, 2008
Stan Shebs (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	February 20, 2007	--	--	February 20, 2007
TUF-KAT (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	March 17, 2004	--	March 17, 2004	--
Taxman (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	December 9, 2009	August 8, 2009	September 14, 2009	December 9, 2009
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 16, 2010	May 16, 2008	April 24, 2010	July 16, 2010
Tim Starling (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	July 19, 2006	--	--	July 19, 2006
UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	May 25, 2010	April 30, 2010	May 11, 2010	May 25, 2010
Warofdreams (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	June 19, 2010	June 19, 2010	November 1, 2009	December 12, 2007
WJBscribe (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 9, 2010	August 8, 2010	July 28, 2010	August 9, 2010
X! (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	June 21, 2010	June 21, 2010	April 24, 2010	April 7, 2010
Xeno (talk · contribs · rights · renames)	August 9, 2010	August 9, 2010	August 9, 2010	August 9, 2010

According to the above table, of the 35 current bureaucrats:

• 23 (65.7%) have not logged a crat action within the past 1 month.
• 20 (57.1%) have not logged a crat action within the past 3 months.
• 17 (48.6%) have not logged a crat action within the past 6 months.
• 14 (40.0%) have not logged a crat action within the past 12 months (1 year)
• 11 (31.4%) have not logged a crat action within the past 18 months (1 1/2 years)
• 10 (28.6%) have not logged a crat action within the past 24 months (2 years) or more

–MuZemike 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't like the fact that "more than the 50% of the bureaucrats" is inactive. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - And if this motion is carried, I STRONGLY hope that if automatically removed, the tools may be freely returned simply upon the user's request. - jc37 03:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support conditionally, as long as it applies to completely inactive crats. If it applied to active users who haven't performed crat actions in a long time, I would oppose such a measure. Swarm^Talk 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose People can sometimes be busy with stuff and not be able to help. They will always, one day or another, come back and return to activity. Having bureaucrats that are busy (a.k.a. inactive) doesn't hurt anybody, and there isn't a limit on the number of bureaucrats that can be on a wiki. —Waterfox (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There are Some cases where it may be appropriate. Most often if someone loses their bits, they can ask for them back, and get them back without a question asked (Unless arbcom/jimbo/community says otherwise). I would assume that they could say something like "I don't want my 'crat taken away". Pilif12p :  Yo  01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support almost half of the 'crats haven't made a 'crat action in over 1.5 years, probably no need for them if they're not using them (As i said in my comment above) Pilif12p :  Yo  01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• 'Oppose Solution looking for a problem. Really unnecessary process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, certainly if the definition of inactivity is related to recent use of the tools, though under any formulation it seems a waste of time. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - we can discuss the details later; time period, and possible considerations for re-application, etc. But if they've been inactive for years...is it really a big deal to have to re-apply? Some say it is unnecessary, and solves a non-existent problem; well, if that is the biggest downside, then is that really significant? Because the up-side is improved security, prevention of damage, etc etc. Seems a no-brainer to me; I see no compelling reason for someone inactive for a huge length of time to keep this right - a right that we are so very careful to assign, these days. It only becomes a big deal if we have to endlessly discuss it; really, it's a trivial issue, given long timeframes.  Chzz  ►  06:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Do we have any technical constraints on the number of bureaucrats? I doubt that wikipedia suffers through having some inactive bureaucrats remain on the roll. If the problem is one of bad bureaucrats (perhaps returning after a long break and then making some bad decisions), I think that problem should be addressed more directly... bobrayner (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per MartinP. Plus it really is a solution looking for a problem. Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Query I can understand that some people might feel uneasy with "50% of bureaucrats are inactive" but in what sense does a mass decrat solve this? What exactly is the proposed benefit of making sure that 100% of bureaucrats are active, simply by decrat of those who are inactive? It doesn't increase the number of active ones which is surely the statistic of practical importance - and it's not even obvious that this is a number that it is desirable to raise. Although I sympathise with the "solution looking for a problem" position, it's possible I'm missing something and there is indeed a genuine problem that can be practically solved or at least alleviated. But what is it? TheGrappler (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • See here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I still don't see a genuine problem in that discussion though. Perhaps point 1 is, although I actually think point 1 isn't a problem but a benefit. Garion96 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Same here. Please don't take me for being hostile towards the proposal. I actually think the wiki consensus model is inherently far too resistant to change, and on principle, even in the absence of any evidence that it'd work, I'd usually support a time-limited trial if suitable benefit measures could be designed and tested. But the intended benefit here is still eluding me. Like Garion, I can see point 1 from two perspectives. Moreover, a purged crat doesn't magically become any more contactable and I don't imagine (tho do prove me wrong!) that many projects and decisions are in limbo because people are spending months waiting for particular absentees to rematerialize and weigh in. (I can understand that the category listings may get outmoded, but if you want to contact an active bureaucrat, there is a noticeboard for that - and even if you prefer to send a private message, activity on the board would be a surefire way of knowing who's been about the last couple of days. Firing off at someone randomly selected from the category is always going to be a hit-and-miss affair, even if the very-long-term absentees have been removed.) I can also see that a liberal rule, e.g. requiring complete lack of editing for 18 months (maybe including editing at relevant sister projects, and exemption for Wikimedia staff etc.) and automatically granting rights back on request, does no apparent harm except ruleclog (I dislike ruleclog but suspect it's inevitable in a consensus model; I can sympathise with the "no implementing new solutions if they don't have clearly defined problems" camp as a result), I can't work out the proposed gain. Moreover, I can't work out how tightening the rule would reap greater benefit, and at some point an over-tight rule probably does do harm. TheGrappler (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: What Scott Mac said. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support no actions in the last year is pretty inactive. They can always be re-nominated. Especially the ones who haven't been active for two years. Also as above its a security issue to keep people with rights they haven't used for years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support if and only if admin rights are also removed for inactivity. This is because 'crat rights are actually less 'dangerous' than admin rights. If a hacker hacks an admin account, chances are he wants to block users or delete pages. I can't imagine why a hacker would want to rename an account or make people admins. BTW, this is the way Wikibooks is working: admin rights are removed after one year of inactivity. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - For starters, I can't think of any good reason not to remove the crat bits if they haven't been used in 2 years or more.--Kubigula (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support - Remove only if user is completely inactive (no edits of any sort) for a minimum of 2 years. Should apply to both admins and crats. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The proposed policy is well-written and will help editors find bureaucrats who are active and can actually help them in a timely manner. Uncle Dick (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• leaning Oppose: as said elsewhere, this seems to be a solution looking for a problem. If a bureaucrat has misused the tools, we have a review process for that, namely the arbitration committee, much like admins who misuse the tools. Tool use is not rocket science, and an out-of-circulation 'crat can easily become familiar with developments by a little discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support It's not a bad idea to instantiate the idea that privileges are not retained forever. I see no possible harm in striking privileges after prolonged inactivity. A zero-pain precautionary measure. Ray^Talk 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: It seems to be that Bureaucrat is one of those positions that is best performed by being a Bureaucrat as little as possible. I haven't seen anyone state a clear need for Bureaucrats to be continually active. We don't want Bureaucrats using their power capriciously; that's why the power isn't handed out like candy. However, by telling Bureaucrats "you must use your special powers or they will be taken from you," wouldn't we be encouraging them to act capriciously? Would not a person in that position start looking for an excuse, any excuse, to do something that would reset the clock? I fear that this proposal would lead to bad judgements, because Bureaucrats would no longer choose whether or not to exercise their powers based solely on the issues at hand; they would start factoring in "...but it's been a while since I did anything, so even though I have doubts, I guess I'll do this..." Without any argument for the proposal more compelling than "some subset of Bureaucrats have been inactive, and at least one such Bureaucrat made a decision that at least one editor felt was made only because said Bureaucrat was out of touch"... I can't see that the benefits outweigh the risks of this proposal. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Your objection misses the mark. The inactivity time scales we are discussing are on the order of months and years, not days and weeks as you seem to be assuming. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support technical removal of privileges for inactivity, with their restoration upon request. It's never a good idea to leave extra privileges hanging around, waiting to get hacked, especially when the targets are freely known. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• The same argument can be used against 'active' bureaucrats. We know who they are, therefore they can be targeted. Whether a bureaucrat is active or not has no effect on whether they can or would be hacked. The more central issue is requiring more secure passwords. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no rule that says that crats have to maintain a token activity to keep their status. Crats are chosen based on the level of trust that the community has in their ability to use the tools correctly and if they misuse the tools they can be removed. There has never been a token level of activity that is expected. meshach (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned, this is a solution in search of a problem. -- ۩ Mask 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Those of you who know me probably recall that I was the most active bureaucrat for quite a while in the early days of the bureaucracy. You may also recall that I withdrew voluntarily for a year and stood for the bureaucracy a second time (and succeeded) even though some editors thought it should just have been granted to me by right, since I was not removed. As to the instant issue, it does seem like a problem in search of a cause: we have had bureaucrats removed for cause, and there is no reason not to continue to do this. IIRC the last time this issue came up Jimbo did not support removing 'crats simply because of inactivity. TO speak only for myself, I have been inactive to mildly active on Wikipedia for over two years because of personal business, which I said at the time. I would not resume bureaucratic duties until I have thoroughly reviewed the state of the bureaucrat and its decisions, and I would expect other inactive bureaucrats would do the same.

I would support asking both admins AND 'crats on their talk pages if they intend to become active again or if they would voluntarily give up their bits. I would support a non-response for a full year as meaning they are not interested. -- Cheers, your loving Cecropia (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Super majorly strong oppose. It's quite possible these people are busy with something in their life and will return once that is over (I actually virtually left Wikipedia for over a year at one point in time). Besides, just because a beaurocrat hasn't used their tools doesn't mean they don't deserve the position. Sometimes, the best leader is the one who remains invisible. And, I'd like to reverberate what several above me have stated-- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Sounds to me as if someone just wants to click a de-sysop feature...create a test account and do that instead of disendowing someone of their rights. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think it should be discussed, but I don't think a single specific system or non-specific proposals are going to go far. I think a discussion should start with a few specific proposals where users comment and then if modified proposals are needed, those are drafted and users comment on those. I think in this case it'll be the details which will be the make/break rather than the general thing, and hopefully people would approach it with a collaborative outlook and they will compromise where they can. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)