Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

RfC: Bureaucrat activity

I have opened an RfC at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Bureaucrat activity. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Discussion archived 24 May 2020 without consensus (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 157#RfC: Bureaucrat activity). –xeno^talk 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"User:Bureaucrat" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:Bureaucrat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 30#User:Bureaucrat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 22:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Conversation

I would like to be in touch with Tiwa savage Fanes Kalumbwa (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not have contact information about the people that are subjects of Wikipedia articles. The volunteers responding to messages to this address have no more information than that which is publicly available on Wikipedia. I regret that we are unable to assist you further in this matter. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RFA Crat chat stats

Is there a page where 'crat chat stats are tallied/stored? If the 'crats have ever failed to promote an RFA candidate in a 'crat chat, I missed it, so wonder if it has ever happened. My perception is that once a candidate enters 'crat chat range, editors stop opposing as they know the 'crats always promote, so their !vote won't count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion § Previous bureaucrat discussions. The immediately preceding section, "Outcomes", might also be of interest. (Yes, chats have failed to grant administrative privileges to requestors.) isaacl (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thx so much, Isaacl (is there anything you don't know ? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Re the "outcomes" section just above, do you know how the 50% stacks up to non-'crat chat passes, and particularly, how the 20% "under a cloud" and "for cause" compare to overall numbers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I had a vague memory of seeing the table before so I just had a quick look from the RfA page. I have no idea what the stats are for admins generally (other than Worm That Turned stating at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminship term length that we lose about 50% of all admins in ten years, which works out to about 7% annual attrition). Given the extremely small number of cases that fall into the category in question, I wouldn't expect a close match in percentages with the general population of admins. isaacl (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, having spent more time looking (not enough of a sample). I was just curious to examine my own confirmation bias, and of course the most negative of all the experiences from the last 5 years of the list tends to be what sticks in one's mind. Thx again, Issacl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about format of this page

For anyone not following WP:BN, a discussion has been started about potential changes to this page. Please feel free to voice your comments there. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No one east of GMT

not even CET (UTC+1/2). special:permalink/1132370952: 21 exist. only 4 do not state their timezones, and 1 of them lives in england. RZuo (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So please convince others to run. -- Avi (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

removal of IP block exemption

What is the rationale for Bureaucrats being granted the ability to remove (but not add) IP block exemption? Crazynas ^t 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect it is a additional check on administrators - one can technically be a 'crat without being an admin, the latter of which being the only group that can grant IPBE. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is left over from ancient times, as a component of cleaning up after certain rename/merge operations. It's not really hurting anything, last time cleaning up local crat groups was thought about was prob in phab:T140550 (2016) - but no one was really concerned with bothering with it. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"User:Bureaucrat" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User:Bureaucrat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User:Bureaucrat until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"User:Bureaucrats" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User:Bureaucrats has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User:Bureaucrats until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:RESYSOP inconsistencies regarding inactivity

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions (also known as WP:RESYSOP) states:

If a former administrator ("lengthy inactivity") or bureaucrat ("inactive bureaucrat accounts") has been inactive (defined by zero edits or logged actions) for a period of two years or longer after the removal of permissions (or for two years from the last edit or log action in the case of permissions removed due to inactivity), they must be successful in a new request for adminship or bureaucratship to have the permission(s) restored.

However, the preceding section states:

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.

And Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools states:

Over two years with no edits. If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to request reinstatement through the WP:RFA process. In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity, only one year of continued uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) from the removal due to inactivity is required before a new WP:RFA is necessary.

Here are my questions:

• Suppose a bureaucrat makes their last edit or logged (administrative) action in February 2024. This edit or logged action counts as bureaucrat activity. The bureaucrat flag is removed after 13 months (March 2025). After another 13 months (April 2026), the former bureaucrat asks only for their bureaucrat flag back—not their administrator flag. May a bureaucrat give it back, given that it has only been 26 months, not three years?
• Suppose an administrator falls short of the 60-month editing minimum in February 2024 and stops editing at that point. The administrator flag is removed after three months (May 2024). After 23 more months (April 2026), the former administrator asks for their administrator flag back. May a bureaucrat give it back, given that it has only been 23 months from when the administrator flag was removed, as opposed to 26 months from the last edit or logged action?

PleaseStand (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It is an inconsistency but not a contradiction; one is not required to be an admin to be a 'crat; your first hypothetical is a "yes", though it will likely be changed now that someone's noticed. Your second is also a yes, because it's a "both" situation. In neither situation, however, would I expect the 'crats to not grant such requests without significant editing on the part of the recently-returning admin (which we have done in the not-distant past). Primefac (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer to the first question has to be "no": point 5 of WP:RESYSOP is pretty clear that the two-year rule applies to bureaucrats too, so it makes more sense to treat provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years as a necessary rather than a sufficient criterion. (This could definitely be made more clear, though.) I agree that the answer to the second question is "yes". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, my mistake. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that "two years from the last edit or log action", as opposed to "one year after the removal of permissions", is not in line with policy, at least for administrators. I was about to go ahead and edit the page, until I realized that there are at least three more questions that should be answered:

• In the second question, replace "administrator" with "bureaucrat". Would the answer remain "yes", assuming that the last edit counts as bureaucrat activity?
• Suppose that, in February 2024, a bureaucrat closes a successful RfA and uses the Special:UserRights tool to promote the user to admin, then makes 100 edits. They are largely inactive for the next 63 months—they make one edit to an unprotected article every other month or so, close two unsuccessful RfAs in February 2026 and February 2028, but do nothing else, leading to the removal of their bureaucrat flag in May 2029 for failure to meet the 60-month editing minimum. In June 2029, the former bureaucrat increases their editing activity to a significant level, and the next month (July 2029), they ask only for their bureaucrat flag back—not their administrator flag. Should a bureaucrat give it back, given that it has only been 17 months since the most recent bureaucrat activity, rather than 65 months since the last logged administrative action?
• If the answer to the above question is "no" (meaning the five-year rule applies to bureaucrats, assuming that closing an unsuccessful RfA doesn't count as a logged administrator action), would an action such as deleting a page count as a logged administrative action for the purpose of the five-year rule as applied to bureaucrats? For example, if in addition to closing an unsuccessful RfA, the bureaucrat (as an administrator) also deleted a page, would the answer then become "yes"?

PleaseStand (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to recant on my answer to your original second question: WP:RESYSOP does seem to contradict WP:ADMIN#Restoration of admin tools (or at least is very ambiguous) as to when the two-year clock starts for admins desysopped under the 100/60 rule. The two need to be reconciled one way or another. As for your three new questions: 1) I don't see why bureaucrats would be treated differently than admins on this issue, 2) yes, I don't see any current policy basis for applying the five-years-since-last-admin-action rule to crats (for better or worse) and 3) not applicable given my answer to #2. In terms of fixing the ambiguity I mentioned earlier, would anyone oppose changing In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity, only one year of continued uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) from the removal due to inactivity is required before a new WP:RFA is necessary at WP:ADMIN to "In the case of an administrator desysopped due to inactivity, the two-year clock starts from the last edit or log action prior to the desysop" to align it with WP:RESYSOP and account for the new 100/60 rule? That would resolve the ambiguity, I think (although my eyes are slowly glazing over, so it's possible I missed something). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, these are insanely specific hypotheticals which I have never seen in my 5+ years as a 'crat. That being said, we (the 'crats) are pretty good at figuring out how the rules apply to a situation, which is one of the reasons why there is a hold on all re-sysop requests. As long as the policies are all in alignment with each other (which, as we have found, might not be the case) we shouldn't be playing "but what if" for every possible scenario given that 90% of them are almost guaranteed not to happen. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the 'crats will make good decisions, even in unusual cases, along the lines on which the community has agreed. The reason I brought this matter up is that I have been writing a page summarizing the inactivity policy for all local groups that have it (draft now posted at User:PleaseStand/Removal of permissions due to inactivity). The inactivity criteria themselves are clear enough (save for some insignificant points, such as "administrative actions" vs. logged actions). The prior notification requirements perhaps could be a little more specific, though it's not a big deal. Where I ran into this issue was the section in which I try to describe the re-sysop criteria for administrators and bureaucrats together. Unfortunately, given the apparent inconsistencies between the two pages and within this page (which is only a "summary of information", not a policy page), I cannot merely refer to WP:RESYSOP. PleaseStand (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Adminstrator elections trial run

As the most recent proposal for admin elections has attained consensus for a trial run, and it specifies that bureaucrats will manage the process, I invite any interested volunteers to participate at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Role of bureaucrats to manage process to work out details of bureaucrat involvement. isaacl (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)