Hello Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Following a discussion at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, the minimum activity requirements for bureaucrats have been updated to also include the the recently updated minimum editing requirements for administrators (i.e. at least 100 edits every 5 years). This will be enforced beginning in January 2023. Should you no longer wish to volunteer as a bureaucrat you may request removal at SRP and.or let us know at WP:BN.

Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: this message was sent to the current crats via Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Message list. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Visorstuff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: July 2007

2. Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: March 2021

3. Geometry guy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: March 2012

4. RoyBoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: February 2016

5. WAvegetarian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2013

6. Barek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: January 2019

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: would you consider updating the label "Last admin action" to "Last logged admin action"? Just for the sake of absolute clarity. Unless you're actually investigatiing unlogged admin actions for this report (unblock declines, ANRFC closures, viewing deleted revisions, fully-protected edits, view edit filters, the usual), in which case I apologize and thank you for going above and beyond. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it even possible to track the "view" items. I mean, I am sure there is a server log somewhere, but as a practical matter, can that be tracked? MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Salvidrim I updated the note. This is just for quick convenience and is not meant to be prescriptive. @MBisanz No there isn't any editor accessible log for "viewing" of things except for checkuser, and as far as the context of this goes I don't think the community would consider something like "I looked at a private edit filter" as the sole edit or action an admin made in an entire year something that should preclude the inactivity process. — xaosflux ^Talk 08:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat. Maxim_(talk) 02:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Maxim, I also notified all the bureaucrats on their talk pages (except for you and me, since we both already knew about it). Useight (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that Useight, otherwise I might have missed it (insert mandatory grumble about the lack of dev attention to this issue). Primefac (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for wrapping that up relatively quickly crats. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Realtively quickly" = <107 hours, Moneytrees?  ;) SN54129 15:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Touché!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Lua time usage: 3.130/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 4730441/52428800 bytes
Lua Profile:
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::find                              1640 ms       52.6%
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::sub                               1260 ms       40.4%
	?                                                                100 ms        3.2%
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction                  60 ms        1.9%
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::preprocess                          20 ms        0.6%
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match                               20 ms        0.6%
	[others]                                                          20 ms        0.6%
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400

Lua time usage: 10.005/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 3836601/52428800 bytes
Lua Profile:
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::find                              5400 ms       54.0%
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::sub                               4340 ms       43.4%
	?                                                                 80 ms        0.8%
	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match                               80 ms        0.8%
   	Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction                  40 ms        0.4%
	[others]                                                          60 ms        0.6%
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400

As noted in the recently closed Crat chat, I have some concerns about the weight we place on "reaffirmation !votes" in future.

I would like to see where consensus lies. Should Crats weigh reaffirmed !votes more heavily?

I think we might need a formal RfC.

(Please don't use this space to discuss the Cratchat decision. The talk page is the right place for that). --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be concerned if we weighed the votes more heavily, as it does mean that we'd be expecting people to follow the RfA after they make their decision, which is putting quite an onus on each community member. I did find it interesting to see what sort of ratio was given between those who reaffirmed and those who switched votes, which you could theoretically apply to the remaining early supports - but even so, it's a bad data point as it doesn't take into account those who came back, analysed and didn't feel the need to reaffirm, as their support stood - nor those who feel that actions taken in the heat of RfA should be counted lightly due to it's highly stressful nature.

If there is appetite from the community that we should weigh re-affirmed votes differently, then, yes, I suppose we should have a formal RfC, but I do think this is an odd situation and not something we need to change policy over. Worm^TT(talk) 14:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The effects of weighing reaffirmation votes more heavily, or of making the weight of votes depend on whether they were made before or after a certain revelation on voters will be more redundant text in RfAs, more tactical voting and deliberate timing of votes for maximum impact on the bureaucrats. You should definitely go for it if you think RfA would benefit from more tactics, louder discussion and fewer candidates. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that every crat weighs consensus slightly differently, as it should be, but I do not think that we need to mandate (or anything like it) with regards to reaffirmation of support. If a hot-button issue arises halfway through an RFA, there will be three responses from those supporting: doing nothing (whether as a choice or simply because they are not watching the RFA), reaffirming support, or switching their !vote. Since the rationale behind "doing nothing" cannot be determined, adding more weight to a subset of those voting in support is problematic. To that end, trying to force some sort of algorithm or process to assessing the latter two options and how they affect the overall result will only waste time and likely screw over the next candidate who said That One Thing That One Time (but where the situation is actually completely different). Primefac (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(summarized from my other comment) I would not ordinarily apply weighting to any !votes based on simple reaffirmations or lack of such. I also generally give very little weighting to simple "Strong", "Stronger", "Strongest", "Ultimate Strength" type modifiers on their own, if someone wants to show that their support for a candidate is especially strong or weak, I suggest they do so with prose - RFA is a disucssion. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I find that interesting. I do apply weighting mentally, especially to the word "weak". Perhaps it's because I often find myself on the fence and while I'm happy to come down on one side, I'm also not thoroughly invested in that outcome. Therefore I do not expect my opinion to be taken as strongly as when I am firmly of an opinion. That said, I'm verbose, and you can generally see what I'm thinking at any given point. Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned I do apply some weighting for superlatives, just not a large amount. I would apply more weighting if a "weak oppose" included some prose about why than if it did not. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of smart things have been said here already, so let me just say my thinking is that I don't think this would be a good RfC. The last 5 crat chats take us back to December 2016. If we're going to pass reform coming off this RfA, and in what will probably not be a huge surprise I think we should, I am not sure this is the most pressing reform to do and I'm not sure how much community interest there would be in multiple reform efforts. So have a thoughtful discussion here that crats can keep in mind the next time there's a crat chat and focus our RfC energies elsewhere. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, there's nothing special about reaffirmation supports. Usually they contain more information than the original support, either as a rebuttal to a recently voiced concern or as an acknowledgment that the concerns are perhaps valid and shared but are (in the supporter's view) not concerning enough to tip the balance towards withdrawing support. In that sense they're more useful in gauging consensus than a bare "Sure!" support, but that's also true of any support or oppose (or neutral) that is substantive. They're certainly not either required (if someone simply stays in the support column without reaffirming, that does not weaken their initial support) nor are they inherently gaming of the system (and definitely not viewed or counted by 'crats as "double votes.") They're just one indicator among many of how the RfA participants view the candidate, and I think it would be a mistake to treat them as some sort of unique "one weird trick" that might tip an RfA. While gaming the system is always possible, I suppose, I don't think reaffirmations would be a particularly effective way of doing so; we can all read the timeline of who supported, when, and why (assuming they say why.) We shouldn't overthink this. 28bytes (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't weigh in on the specific RFA in question, and every bureaucrat reads consensus differently, but here's my take on reaffirmation !votes: they do nothing. If there is a support that doesn't have a reaffirmation that means that either: 1) the supporter examined the candidate and was satisfied with supporting regardless of what happened in the remainder of the RFA and so they didn't come back because they had already deemed it irrelevant to do so; or 2) the supporter examined the candidate and was satisfied with supporting, but came back and saw later developments and decided the later developments were irrelevant to their support. Alternatively, a support that has a reaffirmation means that the supporter examined the candidate and was satisfied with supporting, but came back and saw later developments and decided the later developments were irrelevant to their support and explicitly noted that fact. In all three cases, the end result is the same - the later developments were not relevant to them supporting. Now, I want to be clear on two things: 1) "Irrelevant" isn't the perfect word. What I mean is that there may have been some relevance, but it wasn't something that caused the supporter to switch to oppose or neutral (though it may have caused the user to add "Weak" to their support, for example); and 2) The same thing would apply to someone reaffirming an oppose, but I've never seen that happen. Now what this means, for me, is that a reaffirmation is the same as an addendum. Someone coming back to their !vote one minute later to say, "I just realized XYZ and still support" is functionally equivalent to someone coming back to their !vote three days later to say, "I just read what User ABC wrote and still support." To me, all timestamps are the same, as long as they are between the opening and closing bells of the RFA. I will, of course, read the contents of a reaffirmation, but I treat it the same as if it were an addendum or part of the original !vote. Useight (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) The wrong assertion that RfA is a consensus discussion now has you trying to read minds of those who expressed an opinion, in this case if you needed editors to say that they don't care Tamzin is a partisan. Had RfA been a straight vote then 'crats wouldn't need to have these discussions. Since you've arrogated this decision to yourselves, be consistent and don't bother caring about reaffirmation supports as you don't need the hoi polloi's consent. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this comment addressed to me specifically? Useight (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, Sir. I was addressing the general 'crat audience. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Bureaucrats should not give more weight to "reaffirmed" votes. (Or late votes, or early votes, or "strong" votes, for that matter.) Anything else encourages strategic voting, which is exactly what we don't want to see at RFA. "Weak" votes can obviously be given less weight since the voter has literally asked for reduced weighting, and he or she will often include a comment along the lines of "I don't mind if this passes/fails". This is why I almost never "strongly" support or oppose, since it's just a meaningless modifier. A reaffirmation is usually just an acknowledgement of arguments presented by opposers accompanied by a statement that the supporter believes that the concerns are not significant enough to warrant changing their view. Occasionally, the supporter may provide a rebuttal to the opposing arguments. Remember that RFA is supposed to be about a consensus, not a straight poll, so providing arguments for and reasoning behind your decision should be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise, we might as well just hold a poll and discard bureaucrat analysis entirely, but I believe this is simply counter to Wikipedia's goals by turning RFA into even more of a popularity contest than it already is rather than a consensus-driven discussion where logical reasoning is given more consideration than personal opinion. For example, "Oppose, the candidate doesn't have enough content writing experience" is a perfectly valid argument, whereas "oppose, I don't personally like the candidate" can be discarded. On a different but still related note, I dislike the rather bad-faith assumptions that people reaffirming their position are somehow trying to double-vote or otherwise cheat. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Contrarian view I find some of these points regarding reconfirmation supports surprising. To me, a RFA (similarly a RFD, etc) is first and foremost a discussion. And a discussion is the most meaningful, and consensus easiest to judge, if people continue to engage. Oftentimes, the relevant factors are surfaced pretty rapidly (by the early !voters) and a reconfirmation support or oppose is pretty meaningless. But where new factors make their appearance part-way through the discussion window, it feels pretty important to see to what extent early commenters are swayed by those factors or not. Therefore if I happen to participate early-ish in a discussion, I make a point of returning to confirm whether later discussion will in any way change my mind. And when the discussion does take a right turn, I would fully and noncontroversially expect that a reconfirmed support/oppose will carry more weight in divining final consensus, than one where no one can glean whether the the !vote was aware of the later-breaking factors. Of course, sometimes life gets in the way, or there's nothing to be said that's not repetitive, but declaring your incoming view and then leaving the building isn't exactly participating in a discussion. I also see people worrying that paying attention to "reconfirmation" will incentivize late voting, so as to not have one's !vote devalued. However, I see an awful lot of herd mentality in many of our RFx discussions. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it means early contributions carry more weight by setting the tone, and so I think people sitting on the fence until the last hours of an RFx is an unlikely consequence of encouraging people to reconfirm when appropriate. Martinp (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Synth view IMO it's good for crats to each have their own take on these things. We don't pay crats the big bucks for y'all to follow the same script. FWIW, scholars like James Fishkin argue its generally good for consensus based decision making to recognise preference intensity, so Im glad some crats chose to give a little extra weight to 'strong supports' For me, both Reaper & Martinp are correct on the main point. Like Reaper says, a re-affirmed vote should have no extra weight in and of itself. But in cases like the Tamzin RfA where we have a sharp uptick in oppose % after a strong argument introduced late in the RfA, then re-affirming helps counter the "last minute change of trajectory" rationale against Promotion. (A rationale that prevailed against Cyberpower and a couple of others.) Such numerical considerations are especially relevant for the recent RfA, as on pure strength of argument grounds, Hammersoft's otherwise hard hitting point was largely blunted by SerialNo's Diff or it didn't happen counter ( A point made by several in the RfA itself, if less eloquently). So fair play to reaffirmers, even if it did get us stung with the amusing Yeats allusion on our "passionate intensity". FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• A well reasoned reaffirmation !vote can sway the mood at RFA and potentially rebut whatever development has prompted the reaffirmation. So as an RFA participant I would encourage appropriate reaffirmations - that is ones that respond to new developments in the RFA. As a crat I'm not sure I'd give them extra weight, it is more a case of has that change in the discussion worked its way through, or are we going to get lots of people at the crat chat talkpage saying that of course they'd have changed their position over x but it was too late in the RFA for them to react to it? One of the reasons for having 7 days for an RFA is that it does give time for things to emerge and the RFA to take different directions. But I can see that a new development in the last 24 hours of an RFA would be a very different thing, and reaffirmations might well be relevant there. Hypothetically, if something emerged in the final hours it would be very useful to be able to compare the ratio of changed positions to reaffirmations and judge whether this was something likely would flip the RFA result if the RFA ran for a little longer. ϢereSpielChequers 20:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• I do not feel it is practical for closers of discussions to consider the net evaluation of a commenter to be suspect unless the commenter returns to comment again, as this would require them to infer the state of mind of the commenter. For most discussions, if there were significant new evidence revealed that affected comments to date, the discussion would get restarted. I appreciate that for requests for administrative privileges, this might tend to polarize discussion rather than work towards a consensus agreement. Thus I feel it is best overall to take each stated evaluation at face value. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• The problem, if reaffirmation !votes are weighed more heavily, is that it would rely on the presumption that just because a user did not reaffirm, that they must not be keeping up with the RFA. For one, a user who has not reaffirmed could very well actually be keeping up with the RFA, but for some reason, does not feel the need to reaffirm. Secondly, even if the reason they haven't reaffirmed is because they haven't kept up with the RFA after !voting, it could just be because either they're busy or because they didn't anticipate the RFA taking a turn that would convince them to change their !vote (as had happened with many of the opposes at Tamzin's RFA). While a reaffirmation does indicate that a user has been keeping up with the RFA, just because they did not reaffirm doesn't mean their !vote should be given less weight. If reaffirmations are to be given more weight, that means that all !votes that were placed early would have to be given less weight than !votes that were placed later, then there'd be no point in participating in the RFA until later on. The fact that they didn't come back later and change their opinion or reaffirm, should be treated the same as if the did reaffirm, and only the obviously disruptive or baseless !votes should be discounted, bust just because a user placed their !vote early or did not come back later, does not mean their opinion should be given less weight or no weight at all.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm always interested in nominating people. Contact me onwiki or by email if you're interested, or know someone else who might be a good candidate. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, this essay may be old (though not as old as me) and self-evidently unfinished, but I think the advice in it still holds true and is a little different from some of the more 'official' advice. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• +1 I'm happy to suggest advice or serve as a sounding board, especially for anyone considering RfB, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Considering the lack of jobs for crats to do and the stressful exercise (euphemistically speaking) that is RfB, I think the focus should be primarily on RfAs. On that note, I have some experience with RfA nominations if anyone is interested in my €0.02. Regards SoWhy 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  The issue with the pool of bureaucrats is not that there are too few, but that the average age is too old, and the pool no longer represents the community. 2010 is the median RfB date of the 20 crats (and by your successful RfB date, you have to be a highly established long-term member of the community). — Bilorv (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there is nothing wrong with the current crats, but fresh faces would be nice. I feel the current crats represent the wiki of 2005 more than 2022. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for saying so :). If someone views RfB as a process, one thatmake take 6–12 months and 2 or three tries, it becomes more tenable. The first run is almost a test of seeing where the majority of the community wishes for you to improve. There isn't an equivalent to WP:ORCP for 'crats; should there be? -- Avi (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Avi, I'm not sure the idea that it takes 2 or 3 tries to become a crat is still true. The most recent 5 to successfully become a crat all did so on their first attempt, and 8 out of the last 10 (which takes us back to March 2013) did so on their first try. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, Barkeep49. I think that is correlated with the paucity of candidates. One hypothesis is that over the past decade, people only run when the they are relatively sure to be accepted right away. Note there have only been three unsuccessful RfB's since 2013. I think the two are related; I could be wrong. If we make the process less painful/scary/emotionally stressful for candidates, we may have more, younger or newer (take your pick) candidates willing to volunteer to support the project in this way. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  You're right that a candidate mindset that it might take more than 1 go could be healthy as it would make failure feel less scary. Or it could be unhealthy as people imagine having to do the work that goes into an RfB more than once. Hard for the two of us to just decide here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been having fairly serious discussions with someone who is exploring a run in a month or two for RfB. As for RfA, one potential source that I haven't explored recently is looking at people who did an ORCP in the last couple of years and got "interest candidate need more time" type feedback and to see if any of them might be ready now. Finding people who expressed interest at some point in RfA is a big deal because of the overwhelming number of candidates who I know would pass and say "not me" when contacted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The trouble with the 85% passing threshold is that it wouldn't take many "Meh, do we need any more, not enough for them to do" type opposes to sink an RfB. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but there is the "we need more diversity in bureaucrat chats" argument to counter it, which might win if the (self-)nomination statement is good. Clearly, that doesn't work for every candidate (I'd be something like the fourth or fifth oldest in terms of RfA date and account age, and I am a middle aged white male, so I certainly wouldn't win on a diversity ticket). —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the "no need for more crats" is something we've seen fairly regularly at RfB in recent nominations. I also think the WSC/SilkTork simultaneous pass showed that the community has some give on this for high quality candidates (though obviously there was a contemporaneous 3rd nom which did not pass). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep, "Not me" might refer to the RFA process Maybe there should be a Draft Board for those that that are exceedingly experienced and have been exceedingly proven good out in public/ high visibility and who are currently very active. No promise of admin activity required. Ask them in public and make "Draft board" status clear in the nomination. This might change the tone on the RFA process towards "willing to serve" and make is something more of them are willing to go through. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@North8000 I'm always intrigued by options to make RfA seem less awful to potential candidates but I admit I do not understand your concept at all. If it makes more sense, feel free to pop over to my user talk to discuss more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds to me like North is talking about what is sometimes called a nominations committee in private groups, part of whose (not so often loudly advertised task) is to beg, cajole, flatter people into standing for office. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker if you're interested, North and I had (are having?) a good discussion about it on my usertalk but the TLDR is that you're basically correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in running for admin, note the current welter of green in the table at the top of WP:RFA. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Are you taking on really anyone? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Salvidrim: It'd be a shoe-in... as long as no one was publicly pissing in this shoes at the time  ;) SN54129 09:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hahahaha :p But you really think so? It **has** been what, 4 years.... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• In the past, I've been asked to run for Crat a number of times. The problem is, I've handed a lot of controversial issues over the years and not sure I could reach the 85% threshold. As for bots, I haven't run one in over a decade, so would have to take a year to really gain expertise before using the bit for that, but the challenge would be a welcomed change of pace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• In the past, I often joked about running for RfB without an RfA (technically possible). But I don't know how serious I am about it, or if such an RfB would even succeed. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can say that I'd definitely oppose all RfBs for people who aren't already admins. But then I'd probably oppose almost all RfBs period since I'm not convinced there's a need for new crats in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  exactly what I am saying, your first point. Dont know what is the community's current opinion about "need for new crats" though. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  This wouldn't affect the way I'd weigh opinions in an RfB, but I'd disagree, based on my experience as a Crat, with the 'no need for more Crats' argument. Let me explain why.

The process of choosing Crats specifically leads to finding people who dislike acting rogue, and really like consensus. This is A Good Thing. The result of this is that we tend to wait for a good number of Crats to weigh in before we think it's wise to act.

Because of this, and because there aren't that many of us, and because this is a volunteer project, and because some of the Crats aren't that active, when there is a Cratchat (which admittedly is rare) or when there's something difficult to assess on BN (which is much more common), it often takes a long time to come to consensus. It can take several days.

This is really unfair on those who waiting for the decision, especially when it's an RfX. The scrutiny at RfX is stressful and it can double down during Cratchat.

We don't need a bunch more Crats to close a welter of RfAs, bot noms, and handle copious renames like in the old days, but it would be lovely to have more voices, quicker, in our discussions, meaning it would take less time for there to be six or seven opinions stated.

And yes, I'd be very happy for someone to cite this argument in an RfB nom or self-nom. I might turn this into an essay.--Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously Cullen328 has been asked, and might be the single most obvious candidate, but, pace colleagues, all that results—whether with his or any other RfB promotion—is that we will have expanded a group of people that already have an insufficient workload to a larger number withpro rata even less to do.

I suspect, personally, that some crats—taken afright by recent talk of the group's disbandment—have decided that God is on the side of big battalions... SN54129 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a horribly bad faith take on things. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, Dweller, just the application of basic Clauswitzian methodology: the smaller your force is the larger its commander must make it seem in order to survive. Also known as the Austerlitz strategy; it's really rather interesting. SN54129 15:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this has already been discussed somewhere else - I happened to notice at WP:Inactive administrators that Nyttend (talk · contribs) was on there with his last edit given as May 3, 2021. But he has a declared alternate account - Nyttend backup (talk · contribs) - that has edits as of July 7, 2021. Should his de-admin date be moved to August 1? --B (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. The admin bit is tied to just one account, and, in my opinion, that is the only account that should count in determining admin activity. Donald Albury 13:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a 'crat, but given the precedent of WP:USEIGHT, it would be weird for a different rule to apply to Nyttend. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't agree that the admin bit is tied to an account, it's tied to a person. Hence users may not have two admin accounts (save for bots), and why we've moved the bit from one account to another in certain circumstances in the past. I do agree that the deadmin date should be moved. Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I delisted it for now, the bot will keep putting it back each month. In practive, it is really no big deal if it did get done, since if they really are not inactive they could just log on and ask for it back. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I feel like I remember someone telling me that an exception was written into the bot a number of years ago when I was exclusively using an alt account. If that's the case, it could also be done for Nyttend (talk · contribs) if (s)he remains on an alt long enough that it gets tedious constantly manually delisting. Useight (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that was the old bot, and frankly I think it was quite silly per the not a big deal comment I made above. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Whatever works is great. Useight (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"We've moved the bit from one account to another in certain circumstances in the past" Certain circumstances? Because you were scared! Can User:Darwinbish have the bishbit for a while now? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 17:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC).

Ah, yes, little 'Zilla was a Victim of Circumstance.... Wyrm That Turned (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your account was initially excluded when I developed the current bot, but that was removed before it went live. The bot can still exclude accounts if necessary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's probably not worth adding an exclusion for Nyttend, since this situation will only occur once more (the June list), and then Nyttend will be actually removable for inactivity in July, by which point everyone will likely have forgotten about this discussion. On the other hand, it would probably be worth manually excluding ProcseeBot, which has been inactive since November 2020 and has been manually removed from every month list since. That is, if you don't just desysop it, which is what I would do if I were a crat. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll cross-post that to WP:BOTN (discussion link). Primefac (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

For the bot thing, thanks Prime - let's follow up there (I added more to that one).

Not a "'crat comment" --- For admins that just refuse to log on, this is silly. They should just log on. If you have advanced privileges like admin and can make things easier for anyone else by bothering to do anything with your account once a year (right now), and you just won't - what is going on? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should count alternate accounts and excluding bots because alternate accounts are edit of the same user, but bots are run by scripts and sometimes bots can be operational when the owner are missing. We have a new policy about inactive admins (100 edits/5 years) Thingofme (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It has always been exactly that, so no change is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"but bots are run by scripts and sometimes bots can be operational when the owner are missing" - that's very true - if I were to die, my bot might continue running for years until my wife figures out how to turn off the server that it's running on. ;) --B (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It can be taken over to someone else before you dies... Thingofme (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess, but regrettably we don't generally know the the hour or day that we will die. It just kinda happens. --B (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bot codes are generally stored on GitHub so maybe, no problems. The bot will be blocked and someone will use this bot. Thingofme (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If sanctions apply to the person rather than just the account such as a user who was banned from politics would be banned on all their accounts, I fail to see why that shouldn't apply to good things as well. An edit from an alternative account should be counted for the purpose of inactivity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello 'crats, following this proposal over at WP:BOTN, we're asking that this bot be desysoped as it is inactive and we have not heard back from the operator, User:Slakr. No action on the admin-operator is needed, and should the operator want to reactivate it while they are still an administrator a new note at WP:BOTN should be able to get that speedily handled. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it me or are there a fair few bureaucrats who only appear for these (incredibly rare) duties, and otherwise spend their time barely being active at all? I shouldn't expect to see a username I've never seen before participating in closing a contentious RfA, and given the damage an inactive-then-compromised 'crat could do... doesn't bear thinking about! I feel further tweaks to the activity requirements are needed, however I expect a certain amount of backlash that an increase would be pointless given how little they have the opportunity to do — perhaps then the question should be Bureaucrats: do we even need them? — TNT (talk • she/her) 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of "duties" for a 'crat. They basically consist of participating on this noticeboard, removing admin status when requested to do so through the proper channels, closing RFAs and RFBs, and weighing in on 'crat chats. That's pretty much it since renaming became global. Other than that, we participate to varying degrees as editors on Wikipedia, just like any other editor. It may be, however, that I'm missing the core point of your concern. If so, please elaborate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: you forgot granting bot flag . —usernamekiran (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No one said I had a perfect memory. I hardly ever do anything with bots, so that's why I forgot it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd expect to see them active elsewhere though, much like our administrators :) maybe we don't need bureaucrats here any more? — TNT (talk • she/her) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The resolution of that RFA would have been a lot more interesting without bureaucrats. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: You're welcome to start an RFC if you think that's a good course to take. A good community discussion will make the determination. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The scope for undetected bureaucratic abuse is far less than the scope for administrative abuse. Granting and removing administrative permissions is far harder to do under-the-radar. Given that the bureaucratic activity requirements have been synched up with the administrative ones, it feels unnecessary to increase the bureaucratic ones out of sync. As for the idea that bureaucrats are unnecessary themselves, while I have pointed out issues with their representation, unless we move away from the consensus model and towards a hard voting system à la Committee elections, I would be far more comfortable with the results being determined by English Wikipedia community members than the stewards. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has a problem with barely-active bureaucrats performing straightforward, uncontroversial tasks, which presumably make up the majority of the workload. I don't speak for TNT, obviously, but I think their concern (which I share) has to do with bureaucrats' roles in highly contentious decisions like Tamzin's recent RfA. These require subjective interpretation of community norms and assumptions. To take a pointed but concrete example, if the most apposite touchstone a 'crat can come up with is the Great Userbox War of Aught-Six, it's fair to conclude that they're out of touch with the site and community as it currently exists, and to question their qualifications to participate in these sorts of discussions. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was not too impressed to see the userbox war (whose outcome I remember a bit differently) mentioned but not the fact that community consensus on userbox deletions has gone back and forth quite a bit since then. —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• If someone is going to talk about User:UninvitedCompany in a fairly specific way, the least we can do is ping them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Meh. He's a person who has edited four times this year. Expand discussion, @Bureaucrats: . SN54129 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  That seems unnecessarily dismissive. He's still a person. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Edited in lighted of your sensibilities, Reverend. SN54129 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding "I'd expect to see them active elsewhere though", my first instinct would be to suggest that we ask active, clueful editors of more recent vintage to join the 'crat pool to balance out us old farts. There wouldn't be a lot for them to do on a daily basis, of course, but having the input of newer editors on the occasions where input is needed would be a good thing, I think. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was about to post something similar myself. Obviously, we want bureaucrats to be experienced, but if there are concerns, we have plenty of newer editors who might be willing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  The candidate pool of admins from the last 5 years isn't very large, though, and given that they became admins after self-noms and RfBs went out of fashion, they may need to be nominated by someone else, for example a bureaucrat. —Kusma (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like 4 of the last 7 RfB's were self-noms. They are quite rare obviously so the stats are hard to extrapolate from. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

On a practical level, we have almost no tasks to do after renames were moved to the global level. If it weren't for security purposes (having an extra level of authorization to turn on bot/admin flags), I think we should remove the userright entirely and either fold cratship into adminship completely, or simply make all the currently active admins crats. But I know I'm probably a minority when it comes to that opinion.

In terms of this particular issue, I think the best way to deal with barely active admins and crats is to have more active admins and crats, not police the ones who aren't active enough out. We're long overdue for a streak of RFBs. It would be especially helpful to have crats who started editing later, not so much of a matter of them being more "in touch," but because they edit out of a different frame than those of us who started in the naughts. But running an RFB solely for the purpose of closing RFAs seems like a crummy situation for everyone. Maybe it's RFB that we can use to experiment changes for RFA.

On a personal note, I have to say that I found it really nice to see familiar faces in this particular chat like UninvitedCompany and Warofdreams, both of whom I looked up to when I started editing. They've seen and experienced much. But maybe that's just the ex-Esperanza, metapedian me speaking. bibliomaniac15 18:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. The first paragraph is spot-on: we should just eliminate the bureaucrat role entirely, it's no longer needed and there's already an extra level of authorization in stewards. I truly don't understand how your second paragraph then suggests that we're overdue for a streak of RFBs when we just determined that the role is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If the bureaucrat role were eliminated, I imagine that it would be up to stewards to add and remove administrator flags and administrators to adjust bot flags. Who would determine consensus at RfA? Would any experienced editor be able to close a discussion? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed — stewards are, in fact, entirely suited to this role as they are bound by policy to enact valid community consensus. A RfA/RfB would therefore be treated like any other consensus building discussion — TNT (talk • she/her) 20:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: I meant that I would consider what I wrote in my first paragraph to be the best course of action, but because I don't think that would ever happen, what I wrote in my second paragraph would be my next best course of action. Sorry for making that ambiguous; they weren't meant to be connected thoughts per se. And to respond to Salvidrim! below, I have absolutely zero desire to become an arbitrator; that would be an immediate resignation from me. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, understood, thanks. I think it's a bit overly pessimistic to say we couldn't ever get rid of the role, but you may well be right. This place is certainly horribly intransigent at times. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO it's a lot harder to have/retain competency for the full range of admin tasks than for the full range of bureaucrat tasks. So inactivity by a crat is far less likely to cause competency issues and mis-actions than inactivity by an admin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there any admins who are competent in the full range of admin tasks, and have been so constantly for years? The important thing is to notice whether you are competent or not, there's always the option of simply not using your tools in areas you're not currently competent for. —Kusma (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say: nope. The range is very wide. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the full range is too much to ask for and so "full" was an overstatement on my part. And admins usually stick to areas that they know. But to put my point more bluntly, it's not difficult to remain competent crat and so I think inactivity is less of an issue to worry about. And longevity buttresses trust, which is very important. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• From the recent RFC, starting in January 2023, 'crats will have the same new editing activity requirements as admins - so some of this topic may get resolved then one way or the other (hopefully by less active editors becoming more active!) — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging Warofdreams since they have also been mentioned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Shall I be a little more direct? If bureaucrats aren't significantly active on actually improving the encyclopedia, whether that be through editing or administrative duties, they should resign. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you, returning bureaucrats. While I respect disquiet that decisions get made/contributed to by people who are no longer very active, I think it's important to start from the right place: to those bureaucrats who no longer spend much time on Wikipedia, but made time to review a tricky RFA and engage in discussion, thank you for your time. With that out of the way, I actually don't think there is a problem here. The fundamentals of judging consensus have not changed much in the past 15 years, any more than the five pillars. Meaningful changes in interpretation, like shifts in target percentages, requirements for bureaucrat chats, etc. have been clearly established via RFCs and I see no evidence any of our bureaucrats are ignoring them. And if some bureaucrat used a prehistoric example during the chat, so what? To the extent it would be problematic or not really applicable, I am sure some other bureaucrat in the chat would raise that. To be sure, I don't necessarily fully agree with every point every bureaucrat ever makes, but that's immaterial. I continue to have trust that when they deliberate, bringing their range of long-standing and recent experience to the table, they tend to get it right. Martinp (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Ugh, I have a lot to say and maybe I'll find time to type it all out some day, but as someone who was vocally skeptical of UninvitedCompany's and Avaraham's rationales I don't see any issues that need resolved. Some people agree with their method for assessing consensus, and there were a hundred people opposed to the RfA who I'm sure had justifications for a no consensus finding. They deserve to have their ideas represented among crats. Similarly, a diversity of views strengthens everyones' arguments. Without UC's or Avi's opinions I wouldn't have bothered to spend the time writing a detailed analysis because it would be a waste of time; when the question is legitimacy of process though, we want strong and detailed analyses. If there is fault (dubious) it's not in their tenure or activity because other crats of similar activity and tenure came to opposite conclusions. It's worth remembering that they were selected by the community at particular points in time for their judgment, and having institutional wisdom from various points in our history helps prevent us from making mistakes already seen in the past. To the degree that there is a problem with the crat corps, I agree with others that it's a younger cohort of editors who lacks representation within it. I think the solution isn't older crats but a need to promote more. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Not going to speak for my fellow bureaucrats, but while it doesn't look as though I'm very active (under 50 edits so far this year), I am watching BN and RfA every day and read what's going on. Yes, it would certainly be helpful from the community's perspective if I were a little more active overall but I ensure my knowledge of the positions I hold is as up to date as much as possible (I did forget about not removing autopatrolled from successful admin candidates, but was reminded and will remember that in future). Acalamari 01:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Personally, I'm quite happy with how the 'crat team conducted itself in my RfA. If anything, I'd favor approaches that give more power to the 'crat team (enhanced discretion in clerking, preapproval of questions, stuff like that) than ones that lay fault with the group that gets brought in to make sense of the chaos. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• I guess I count as a fairly active crat, though I had to recuse from that crat chat. We have just changed the rules so that in the longterm inactive crats get decratted. I think it is a good thing if we have uninvolved crats making close calls in crat chats, and crats who have been little involved in recent years but come back for a crat chat may well have more detachment from the individuals involved in current RFAs. That said we have problems in the crat group, a lack of new blood and a gender ratio that last time I looked could be as few as one crat in twenty (we've just had a crat chat on a female candidate for adminship, and I think I'm correct in saying that none of the crats who participated in either the RFA or the Cratchat are female as our only female crat was unavailable in those days). The solution to that is to encourage more candidates to run RFBs, especially it would be good to have some extra female crats. As for Crats not having enough to do, that's a direct result of us not having enough people running at RFA. Fix that problem and at least we have no shortage of crats to close RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 09:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  @WereSpielChequers: Not that it makes a huge difference as to your broader point, but Useight lists their gender on their userpage as androgynous. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  The picture isn't much better for former bureaucrats: may have overlooked someone, but I think the list is just Angela and Secretlondon? —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  When Jimmy appointed the first batch of crats it wasn't very unbalanced, it has been a while since I looked, but I think most of the first nine were male but he did include both Angela and SecretLondon. Subsequent elected Crats have I believe been overwhelming male, but I had missed Useight when I looked through all of them a couple of years ago, and there are also some where I don't know their gender. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'd rather see significantly higher activity expectations for 'crats over and above that required for administrators. I'd go for at least 100 edits per year, with evidence of closing at least two consensus-based processes during each year. The latter could include closing AN/ANI threads, closing deletion discussions, closing RFCs, as well as closing RFAs. I do have genuine concerns that our least active 'crats have lost touch with the current community, and that their analysis of consensus is out of step with community norms. (And in response to the thread below, no, I don't think the role should go to arbitrators or functionaries. Yes, we generally have more current understanding of consensus and would meet activity requirements, but RFA consensus analysis is a long way from what our elected/appointed roles are.) Risker (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Testing the waters: shift Bureaucrat to Arbitrators?

This seems like it would solve every single problem raised here.

• Closing RfAs is either uncontroversial (could even be done by arbclerk, with arb flipping the bit on?), or requires a 'crat chat, which is already almost equivalent to Arbs discussing a motion
• Desysoppings are already either at the request of Arbs, or routine for inactivity
• Arbs are not a lifetime appointment, they were recently elected and have the highest level of trust.
• This would not require technical changes (just make Arbs 'crat on top of CU/OS) and could be done with relatively small changes to how policies are currently interpreted and applied.
• I get that we may not be keen to add to the burden of Arbs but this seems like a very small burden, as someone has said above, 5 crat chats since 2016 is hardly onerous.

Just throwing the idea out there. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a section of the community that thinks there should be a division between those user sets. While I am not in that set, I am also not in the set of people who want to be a crat. :) Izno (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Goodness no! Bin the right, shift it back to the stewards 😅 — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd oppose that; we should keep local control of the interfaceadmin right. While having it handed out by stewards would be better than giving the power to the WMF (remember superprotect?) I would rather have this as a local community responsibility instead of something done externally. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(unlike global interface admin then..?) — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of all the groups I'd support merging the 'bureaucrat' usergroup to if consensus emerges to eliminate it, stewards are about last. I don't think we should give up local governance. Merge it to 'sysop' if needed, and even that isn't a particularly good choice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Why the mistrust of a user group who are policy bound to enact valid local consensus..? (nb. I'm not suggesting stewards judge the consensus for what its worth.. that I agree should remain local, just merely "flipping the bits") — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Any answer other than "because they are outsiders to the enwiki clique" is tripe. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Enacting local consensus requires that one first understands how local consensus works. I wouldn't expect a random volunteer from another wiki to understand our processes in depth, however experienced and well-intentioned, any more than I'd know how to close a discussion on the French, German, Russian or Chinese Wikipedias.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You may have missed my addition above, apologies — I'm not suggesting stewards judge the consensus for what its worth.. that I agree should remain local, just merely "flipping the bits" — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaking what I'm saying, TheresNoTime—sorry about the confusion and let me explain myself better. :) I don't distrust stewards. I simply think that, given stewards are ultimately beholden to the WMF (and we've all seen multiple times what a mess the WMF make when they stomp around), they should not be in charge of granting and revoking sysop on larger projects like enwiki. That should be left to trusted members on these projects who are elected by the local project, aka bureaucrats. Ultimately, this is why I don't think we should remove 'bureaucrat' even though their task list is ridiculously small. Does this make more sense? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well I say all of this with my steward hat firmly away, and with mild trepidation: I personally disagree that we the stewards are beholden to the WMF any more than you are as a checkuser. But assuming we were, and assuming the WMF wanted to make a mess, there's no technical barrier to me a steward granting/revoking sysop here. The maintenance of local bureaucrats doesn't stop that from happening. — TNT (talk • she/her) 23:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm working on a similar but distinct idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What barkeep has outlined is a good way to get the conversion rolling because it has an end date and creates a situation where something happens in the case of deadlock. I see a few paths forward from there. The functionaries as the crats is a possible outcome that some people would have some feelings about. Another would be finding more things for the crats to do so that more people would run for crat and diversify the pool of users. Crats are very much of an era. A third is to tap the global resource of the Stewards. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

While evolution and simplification is always good, why not reach a consensus on a better solution first, rather than resolve to blow up the bureaucrat user group first without knowing what we're migrating to? And if we can't find a better solution (i.e. Guerillero's "deadlock"), maybe the status quo is good enough. Martinp (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Guerillero's comment above and some feedback I received off wiki, I have been able to hone in on what I am trying to do. The core idea of my proposal is to say that the status quo is not working. That the role and/or responsibilities of crat needs to be reimagined. The RfC establishes that consensus. But all too often on Wikipedia we can have that consensus that the status quo is not good enough but can't reach enough of a consensus on any given plan because the minority who don't think there needs to be change still think that and are joined by enough who dislike something about an alternative to block change - especially a problem given that our mode of consensus means we require more than a simple majority in cases like this. By having a meaningful deadline, I think it actually becomes more likely that we'd reach consensus on a better solution because "do nothing" doesn't actually end at nothing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I can write a book about all the problems with changing our existing CUOS process to be the crats; will wait if there is an RFC to expend that time. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux I'm wondering if you might be willing to write a chapter (maybe the introduction) about the problems you foresee? Salvidrim posting his similar idea meant I went public with mine a little earlier than I had planned but I had planned to seek out your feedback specifically before moving forward with any kind of proposal. Also just for clarity, we wouldn't be changing our existing CUOS processes to be the crats, we'd be letting the CUOS people do the crat processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: I suppose my biggest concern is that CUOS's are not managed by the community. CUOS's are also not accountable to the community, they serve at the pleasure of arbcom (barring a situation where WMF steps in to remove one). The CUOS selections are about the least transparent process we have, using a secret review process. CUOS's can be arbitrarily added or removed for any reason anytime the smallest quorom of arbs can be bothered to show up and vote on a motion by a 50%+1 margin. I'm far more in favor of the community taking back the CUOS management process from arbcom, leaving arbcom to be more focused on dispute resolution and less on investigations. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it would be better to first have a discussion to determine if there is a consensus that there is a problem with the status quo, and what specifically is the problem. I don't think a discussion setting a time limit on revising a role is warranted until there is agreement on a problem statement. isaacl (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As you've written about, isaac, Wiki decision making can mean that there is a consensus of a group of people who agree that there is a problem and what it is. But there might only be a majority who agree on a particular solution and so the status quo - a status quo that has no consensus - remains. Numerically, and in simplified form, this can look like 75% of people editors on what the problem is with Group A having 55% of editors who agree on the problem and the solution, Group B having 20% who agree on the problem but not the solution, and Group C has 25% who don't like any solution because they genuinely don't believe there's a problem in the first place. There's some incentive for Groups A & B to come together but not any real incentive for C, other than respect for project consensus, again not because they're being bad actors but because they're honestly doing what they think is right for the wiki. Further, this all tends to happen in a single round - there's no mechanism to iterate proposals because if a proposal like this is rejected it generally stays rejected for at least 18 months. Trying to find a method people can live with to solve this dynamic and to allow for a better implementation of a consensus proposal is what I was proposing here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understood your intent. But until we've found the 75% of editors who agree on a problem statement, I don't think a deadline on revising or eliminating the bureaucrat role is needed. isaacl (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have that thought today. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like having ArbCom be both the body removing and granting sysop would create some weirdness. If arbcom desysops an admin and they run for adminship, and that goes to a "cratchat", we could have the same arbs who voted desysop having to decide if there's a consensus for promotion. I could see this being seen as problematic especially if the ArbCom decision is one the community mostly disagreed with. Some separation of powers seems reasonable to me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If ArbCom desyops an admin, they it has the right to re-sysop the admin. That is because it can modify any of its decisions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree with the overall thread that bureaucrats overall seem somewhat unrepresentative of the overall community for crat chats and such. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That'd be a shame. I've enjoyed 'crat work. But what will be, will be, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think of low activity bureaucrats as a feature rather than a bug. Having a group that is trusted to assess consensus, and not very involved with wiki-politics and drama is good. They can take a high level view without having their judgement affected by community drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The selection criteria for crats, arbs, and functionaries are all different and I don't think conflating them is the best idea. Crats need 85% support (right? I can't be bothered to look it up) and are selected based on their ability to read consensus. Arbs need 50-60% support and are selected for their dispute resolution abilities. Functionaries (besides arbs) are not elected by the community at all, but are instead selected by the committee based on feedback from stakeholders including the community. I worry that combining crat with any of them means the selection criteria for the others will change in a way that may not necessarily be beneficial. There are people who would be good checkusers but not helpful in a crat chat, and the reverse. That's a trade-off I'd need to think more about. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Wugapodes is spot on. We just had a contentious RFA that was on the edge, and the Crat system worked perfectly. And now people want to use that success as a reason to change it. People bitch when Crats don't participate, then bitch when they do. Frankly, I can see why any Crat could have seen the consensus either way, which is why the Crat chat uses a consensus. It worked. It's all about trust and nothing that took place shook my faith in the Crats. The candidate approves of the Crats behavior, in fact (see above). If someone didn't like the !votes of the Crats, perhaps they should run and see if they can get 85% support to become a Crat, then they can participate in the next Crat chat. Replacing someone with 85% approval with someone with 50%+ approval (or no approval at all) is a step down in trust, not up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yeah I don't recall things like ability to read consensus or communication skills coming up in CUOS selections. Quite possibly many CUOS have those also, but they were given those tools for other reasons (technical proficiency, investigation skills, etc.) – Joe (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Well, this discussion really has accelerated since it started. I guess a lot of folks watchlist WP:BN. It seems like this is a discussion about major changes that is moving a little fast. But maybe folks are just throwing their ideas out there. Nothing will change outside of a majority vote on an RfC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, a mere 85%? How hath the mighty fallen, It was over 90% in my day! And we walked uphill, both ways, in the snow, barefoot, with our soles strewn with broken glass for traction, and we were grateful. Just setting the record straight :). Now seriously, regarding the suggestion of 'ceding the role of the 'crat to the stewards', I'd like to share my opinion. Similar to a few others here, I've seen a LOT of Wikimedia in my younger days. At one point I was simultaneously an admin/crat/CU/OS on Enwiki, an admin/OS on Commons, an admin on Meta, a steward, a member of OTRS, and served on the WMF Ombudsman committee. I gave almost all of those tools back years ago as the way my career developed, I no longer had the necessary time required to devote myself to all those duties. But in that decade or so, I've seen how consensus is built on different projects, and it is (or at least was) clearly not the same across projects. This was especially difficult on Commons, where the its flavor and mores are fundamentally different than on EnWiki. Meta was more neutral. Also, in my time as a steward, while the plurality may have been EnWiki based, there was not a stigma, but an assumption that Enwiki was the 800lb gorilla and what flies here would not fly on DeWiki or JaWiki for example. There was an extra burden on us EnWiki stewrads to make sure we remained aware of that and respected the local culture. I think that EnWikipedians passion, and the evolved method of consensus finding—from the glacial pace of some RfCs to the frenetic pace of the RfX, is special and that in the cases where consensus is not clear, and some body needs to be tasked to help ascertain, that body should be made up of native Enwikipedians. I am in no way shape or form implying that the stewards aren't trustworthy, G-d forbid, or even that they wouldn't do their best to respect the EnWiki culture. They most certainly would. And they perform admirably. But that is the best option for projects without the critical mass needed to have a native body. Enwiki does have that critical mass. So I do not think ceding that role to the stewards is a good idea. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I prefer barely active bureaucrats who have caused no issues at all over active CUs / OSs / Stewards / WMF persons who think it is wise to change their userpage during this RfA to a polemic anti-Trump page, to then go and harass the main cause of the RfA opposes on their user talk page to get them to withdraw their oppose. A steward who seems only interested in stirring up things around this RfA instead of cooling down the situation is a strong argument against giving stewards any role in this process. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: I appreciate being called out. I had let emotion speak over sense, and have apologised. For what its worth, I personally would not be permitted to act as a steward on any permission changes here per policy — TNT (talk • she/her) 14:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Responses to issues raised:

1) On the issue of barely active Crats: that has already been addressed, though has yet to kick in.
2) On the issue of Stewards replacing Crats: Stewards have not been elected here, those that can operate here are not active here, and would not be as familiar with EnWiki consensus as they would for their home Wiki. Concerns that people have about EnWiki Crats would be multiplied if switching to Stewards.
3) On the issue of replacing Crats by Arbs. That is a different election process for a different purpose. On the whole I feel that someone who is an Arb could do the Crat role and vice versa, though the community may be more cautious when voting for a Crat than when voting for an Arb, because of the nature of the Crat role.

Additionally, the community (and ArbCom itself) have over the years been reducing the role and function of ArbCom, something I fully support. Ideally we should get to the stage where the community feels confident in dealing with all disputes, and all the legal aspects of ArbCom are dealt with by the professionals who should be dealing with it (with a nod toward those who have worked in ArbCom to get WMF to accept some of their responsibilities in this area). It would be against the spirit of what has been happening to actually increase ArbCom roles.

4) On the issue of CUOS taking over the Crat role, they have not been elected for the role, and are either given those rights as Arbs, or are given those rights by ArbCom, albeit with some feedback from the community, so haven't been directly approved by the community to become Crats.
5) On the issue of there being little for Crats to do, I find I am pinged to a Crat discussion more frequently than I had anticipated. Such discussions are not logged as Crat activity, but are still part of the Crat role. Someone asking to be resysopped may result in a discussion with the decision not to resysop, for example. However, yes, it's not a work heavy role; but I'm not seeing why that is a disadvantage to it being a distinct role. I'm in favour of unbundling advanced roles rather than squeezing more together. Let individuals decide which tools/roles they wish to use to help the project.
6) Barkeep mentions in his Crat proposal that Crat appointments are few, and that there hasn't been one for a while. While I feel that there are enough active Crats to do the work in a reasonable responsive manner, this may not always be the case for one reason or another, so looking into how we can keep a sufficient number of active Crats in the role is something I'd be interested in.

On the whole, other than looking into how we can get more Crats (an annual election?), I feel that the status quo works, and I suspect there are fewer complaints about Crat actions than about actions performed in other roles. SilkTork (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the #4, with a couple personal powers/privileges exceptions, when you vote for an arb are safe knowing they can't just go make huge policy impacting decisions without convincing at least a few other committee members to go along with them. If we went this route would need to determine if the standard for quorums would be required here. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t get what problem is being solved here. Assessing consensus (crats) is not the same as deciding as a committee by fiat on intractable behavioural issues (arbitrators). I don’t see any issue with the current crat corps. They might have a low workload but that’s not a problem, there’s no evidence of security compromises or unauthorised promotions, and I think all opinions expressed in the recent crat chat were legitimate, reasonable, and made in good faith. I think it’s a slippery slope to decide you don’t like how someone whose consensus-ascertaining judgement is trusted reasoned in a particular case => radical change is needed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree with Proc above, I believe the process worked, and we will be aligning 'crat requirements to admins from January of '23 which should bring them in line with community expectations. Also, have to add that dissenting 'crat viewpoints can be treated as reductions of community minority viewpoints, it is plausible (as with any argument) to find logical flaws or subjective disagreement within the same but they exist nonetheless. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I can recall only a couple of glaring 'crat. errors (IMO) in the 15 years I've been here. Let sleeping dogs lie. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think 'crats are an important soft power base in the community. They have almost no real power in the community (unlike Arbs or CheckUsers) and their deliberations are all public. When you add to that the extremely high threshold of trust it takes to become one, you end up with a group of people who are selected for their reasonableness. They're the most apolitical grouping of people with advanced permissions.

I would love more diversity in the group. But I'm not a fan of removing them. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Way back in the before times I ran at RFB, and one of the reasons it failed was that several users felt I was too controversial to be a 'crat. @Worm That Turned: even explicitly said he did not support me as a 'crat but would support me as an arbitrator, and you know what, in the end I agreed with that, they are two very different jobs requiring different skill sets. I don't know if he'll poke his head in here, but @Keegan: was around when the role was created, and he told me that the dev who came up with the role deliberately came up with the most boring and unappealing name they could think of for the role, so nobody would imagine it was some sexy new user right that would be exciting to be involved with. So, while I totally support the new activity standards, I really think moving the role over to Arbs is an awful idea. On top of my already stated reasons, the committee has more than enough on its plate already. I was actually just commenting the other day to my wife that I was glad the latest dramastorm was clearly not our issue to deal with and somebody else could take the heat for a change. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox: Unless you know something I don't about their account history, Keegan's first edit was in October 2005, as also implied by their user page, well after the bureaucrat role was created in February 2004. Perhaps you were thinking of a different person? In any case, you're right about the origin of the name ... see Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive W#Apparent new "bureaucrat" access. While checking through related history, I found a now-amusing comment at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 1#desysop ability about bureaucrats getting the ability to desysop users (which they didn't have until many years later): "I don't think the asymmetry is necessarily a bad thing. It ought to be easier to make sysops than unmake them since that is a far rarer occurrence." How times have changed! Graham87 07:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe he just heard about it second hand. It was an in-person conversation a decade ago in a subway station so it's possible I got the details wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Every point initially raised in favor of this seems like it would be made unambiguously worse if arbitrators (or functionaries) were filling the job, except for the bit about bureaucratship being a lifetime appointment. And even if we wanted that, we'd be better off by imposing term limits or requiring reconfirmation RfBs; while those have always gotten rejected for admins as a whole due to the sheer volume of them required, it's manageable for 20 crats. —Cryptic 17:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Cryptic A "simple" periodic reconfirmation for stewards (latest: meta:Stewards/Confirm/2022) is usually low drama. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Crats should be elected for five year terms. Levivich 03:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  I would back 4-year or 5-year terms Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the removal of the bureaucrat role, but feel the agree side of neutral on whether improvements are needed for the crat role. To address proposals as to where the rights would go if it was removed:

1. With regards to ArbCom and it's clerks, I would add to what has been said above:
   • While arbitrators are trusted members of the community and I think I would support any current arbitrator for the crat role if they went for RfB, their primary focus is around dispute resolution. The extra time needed to do crat tasks decreases the time they have to spend on dispute resolution, and increases the requirements for the role which could potentially exclude some otherwise great candidates that maybe don't have enough experience in determining consensus in large discussions.
   • Both as an arbcom clerk and community member, I strongly oppose arbcom clerks filling in for the crat role. Our role is can be summed up as being a helping hand for the arbitrators for on-wiki matters. While we do perform clerking actions on our own initiative, major clerking actions from my experience always are checked over by an arbitrator which ultimately means an arbcom clerk would be asking a arb as to whether to give or not give the sysop rights in a RfA discussion.
2. CU/OS taking this on is something I would also oppose as a member of both groups. In a similar vein to the arbitrators it's not what we are appointed to do.
3. Although I disagree with handing the role to stewards, what I would say in opposition has already been said by SilkTork so I won't restate it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Valereee (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I'd like to request desysop for a bit. Trying to get my mojo back, hoping just feeling like I've nothing to do but research and write will help kickstart that! Thanks! valereee (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done have a good break. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy your time off, valereee! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Auntie Val. Having the mop has changed my relationship to pagespace too. We want you well and happy, and you are trusted no matter what role you choose to take on. BOLD is a good thing and we appreciate yours. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: nevermind that RFaR draft, we're too late.^[FBDB] Levivich 14:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Totally got out before it started to drizzle. valereee (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hope your "break" helps! I've BOLDly regranted all of your pre-sysop bits (extended-confirmed, NPR, PCR, rollback); give me a shout if there are any you didn't want back. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine with having those tools, thanks, and sorry for the extra work! :D valereee (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to hit save on +ECP; certainly no objection to the others if she wants them! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Would have been weird when I tried to move Ruthrauff & Ryan just now and discovered I couldn't, lol...it was actually a little weird to not have the option to move without leaving a redirect! This is actually going to be very interesting, it's been nearly three years! valereee (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you want 'page mover' access added @Valereee? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually that'd be great! I kind of hate leaving redirects behind unless there's a reason. Thanks! valereee (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the other way around, where you should only suppress a redirect when there's a reason? Sdrqaz (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, oh, clarification: it's when I'm moving from a user draft of my own that I want to suppress the redirect. I do almost all creation of articles in my own user space because I usually am not positive a subject is notable yet, and that gives me unlimited time to keep doing research. I've only had maybe a couple of times where someone had linked to one before I moved it (which is what I meant by a reason to leave it), so I usually just delete unless that's the case. valereee (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Pinged here by Levivich (and no idea what you're talking about, L -- I've been AWOL for several days) and just want to say: Hey, Valereee, you're a cool gal. EEng 05:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Aw, you're making me blush valereee (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sean Whitton (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Solely for the reason that I am not presently active, please desysop my account. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 23:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done have a good break. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your service, Mr. 1000th admin! bibliomaniac15 07:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		To Sean Whitton, for good services as an admin, for being the 1,000th admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, 1,000 was hit back in 2006. On that page: The number of current administrators (as of 19 May 2022) is 1,041. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

one administrator for every 6,501 articles and 43,580 registered users. Furthermore, there is one administrator for every 111 users who have made at least ten contributions

Anyone know what the ratio is now? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Special:Statistics says we have 123653 "active" registered users. So 1 admin to every ~118 active registered users. (Plus all the IPs) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That article uses {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, etc. ... so many of the figures in it now don't reflect what they were in 2006. Graham87 08:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Swarm and Xaosflux: I've fixed it, more or less. Graham87 08:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

After the new policy we will go to below 1000 soon, sadly. Will this be notable for a Signpost article? Thingofme (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. AA (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: May 2021

2. Gwalla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: October 2014

3. Nat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: May 2021

4. Rfl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: October 2011

5. Laurascudder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2018

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ioeth (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

It's been a while since I've been particularly active on the project, and I don't have any plans to return to regular activity anytime in the near future. For that reason, I'd like to request my account be desysopped. Thank you! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your past service. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

By @SilkTork: who log-conflicted me! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's done for you. Ioeth SilkTork (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, they no longer have any userights - presumably they still need extended confirmed? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It would have been automatically granted on their next edit, but Dennis Brown manually added it anyway. In general, this only needs to be manually done when it was previously manually removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I did not know it would auto be added. Didn't know the system logged how the lack of the bit came about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware it was an automated thing. Good show, and thank you for your service Ioeth. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		For good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Moriori (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter, a person is logged into an admin account (i don't believe they mean any harm, but still). Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)@Bureaucrats: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that CU can confirm any of this, the most recent post under Moriori's account was made from the same IP they've been using for about a month, so I'd call this credible. I've asked a steward to lock. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

He was Locked by AntiCompositeNumber. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Admin rights switched off per procedure. SilkTork (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, agree while it was technically "compromised" seems as if it was certainly in good faith. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RIP. Per his classic entry in the village stocks, this is not the first time that his account has been taken over. :-) Graham87 11:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ha, what a droll story. It looks like moving the Main Page is no longer in the standard admin toolkit, only changing its protection level. RIP to Moriori and thank you for your many years of service to the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It's much more difficult to delete the Main page than it used to be, as well. Graham87 12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Only stewards can delete the main page? What is this restriction? Thingofme (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a way around the main page deletion restriction, fwiw. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Do I dare even ask? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. I think it's best to just let me know if the need to delete the Main Page ever arises. :-) Maxim_(talk) 16:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote "much more difficult" rather than "impossible" for a good reason. Graham87 09:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page --B (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, welcome to the 'crat team following your successful RfB. As a former janitor, you are already familiar with the executive washroom. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll show myself about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You're expected to make the tea and do the washing up. There may be some rubber gloves in the lower cupboard. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Nihiltres (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, I'd like to request the interface administrator permission, on a permanent basis. I have some history of editing MediaWiki-space CSS and JS pages, but can no longer edit those pages without this additional permission. In particular, I'd like the ability to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-metadata.js and associated pages, to make it easier to maintain that gadget. I also regularly do template work on widely-transcluded templates, where the permission is occasionally useful. For example, I'm thinking of renaming some classes used by {{importance}}, and it'd be nice to proactively unbreak ~40 user CSS pages that would be affected if I made such edits. As a bonus, I'd also like to make a habit of reviewing interface edit requests if given the permission.

I've been an administrator since 2007, I'm using 2FA on my account, and I believe I'm reasonably well-trusted and have a good understanding of CSS and JavaScript. Hopefully this is an easy request. Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Nihiltres, per Wikipedia:Interface_administrators#Process_for_requesting that starts a 48 hour hour process just in case anyone has concerns. But you've given a rationale and committed to 2FA, so unless someone speaks up before 20:49 on the 16th I or I suspect the first crat to check this board after that time can flip that bit. ϢereSpielChequers 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nihiltres has made some irresponsible edits to high use templates, which resulted in broken markup appearing in a lot of pages. They do not have the competence necessary to edit sitewide css and js pages. 2409:4071:4D99:B70E:0:0:4388:9C06 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  ^{[citation needed]} — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  See this and the next few edits. 2405:204:529B:A4C0:0:0:F04:18A5 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I acknowledge that that set of edits was overly bold; I made a mistake. On the other hand, I don't think that the few mistakes I've made collectively rise to a pattern of negligence. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm unconvinced of the one error being a pattern of being unreliable with this perm - although I appreciate this did have a wide effect. Is there any discussions or additional items where there has been any community issues raised with this user having this permission? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, an incident from last year doesn't seem like an a redline here. I think that Nihiltres will exert more restraint on pages the larger they are - there is a huge difference between gadget-metadata.js' impact potential and common.js' - and trust he will use appropriate judgement (... less we hang him from the village stocks!). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention that Nihiltres cleaned up the error (albeit in a few different steps). I know I've muddled my way through a few things like that. Sometimes it's hard to determine exactly how wide-reaching something may be. Regardless of any of that, people make mistakes, and there doesn't seem to be a pattern of them or anything that indicates the mistakes are rising to abusive levels. I suspect the IP knows that, and that's why they chose to remain anonymous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't think the policy actually gives bureaucrats the ability to decline to grant the right. There's a comment period, but the policy is ambiguous and while it says the final decision rests with the bureaucrat, there's no mention of any requirement beyond requesting with a rationale. If there was an obvious community consensus against it, or someone pointed out something that the caused the admin requesting to withdraw, the waiting period would serve its effect. If you actually read the proposal that limited it to admins (see here) it was a weak consensus without any actual agreement on anything beyond the requirement that someone be an admin and there be a waiting period. In other words, the community wanted a wait for comment, but didn't give crats discretion to refuse in the actual RfC. Add to that the policy wording is ambiguous and I don't *think* we've had a request turned down. In other words, unless there's unambiguous community consensus against this or the request is withdrawn, I don't really see crats having a choice. Probably doesn't matter here, but since is the first time I've ever seen opposition to it, worth bringing up in case anyone wants to clarify the policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh, screw it, put together the wording to clarify this at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Clarify_the_right_can_be_refused. Don't think we've had an actual oppose before, so this is one of the only times its come up... TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @TonyBallioni the policy, born from this RfC does say that the final decision rests with the reviewing bureaucrat, the closing of the RfC you linked to doesn't clearly override that. And of course, we could all just refuse to process the request - but that would be a bit inane. So what actually happens? Requests from admins are mostly considered "shall issue". If any significant concerns were raised and the applicant didn't accept them, I'd expect we would defer to a community consensus determining discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yah, I agree that's what clearly should happen, put together some wording to clarify that. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Done, with all the caveats and addendums of "being cautious" etc. Primefac (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Samsara (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

  Last logged admin action: June 2021

• Capitalistroadster (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

  Last logged admin action: August 2014

Thanks to both of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 04:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated pages, did the notifications. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated admin highlighter .js page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to any admin highlighter script maintainers, I maintain a list of users with advanced perms at User:NovemBot/userlist.js that is updated daily by a bot. So it stays up to date without needing manual updating. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it make sense to replace/merge Amalthea's script with yours? Primefac (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a variety of candidates for such a merge: Amorymeltzer's (maintained by bot), Theopolisme's (not updated), and Ais523's (maintained by bot but deprecated). There are probably quite a few more. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of these are gadgets, and none of this requires bureaucrats to do anything. With my intadmin hat on, we'd be very unlikely to include one personal script in to another - but if a script owner is long-term inactive we may put a notice (even a user-visible notice) on their script that it has been deprecated with a potential replacement suggested. If these are very popular, a possible longer-term fix may be to write a gadget, source it from some admin-bot-maintained .json page (which of all those, Amorymeltzer's being a bot-op for would be my early-leaning suggestion). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

none of this requires bureaucrats to do anything - true, but it came up and at the very least gets us pointed in a direction. I do agree, though, that a more in-depth discussion can probably be shifted further afield. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Per Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Anthony Appleyard (permalink), and with reasonable evidence of his death, I have removed his admin rights (and fully-protected his user page). Posting here for review. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Condolences should be left on Anthony's talk page. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Valereee (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I desysop’d a couple months ago because I’d lost interest in editing and was hoping that taking a break would help me figure out why. Although not exactly for the reasons I was maybe anticipating, I did figure out what my problem was, and I learned a bit along the way. It has been valuable learning for multiple reasons, some unexpected.

At any rate, I’m ready to pick up tools again, and thank you bureaucrats/admins for your tolerance and the work involved in desysopping/resysopping/changing perms that enabled me this time to figure things out. I’m aware there’s a 24-hour hold to allow for comment. valereee (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hold noted. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Has 2022 admin actions. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: This doesn't really have any bearing on your resysop request but I'm curious what you learnt during your break and what insight you could provide to other admins who sometimes find Wikipedia stressful? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Before someone unilaterally moves this question to somewhere else on Wikipedia, I'd like to put in my 2 cents and say that I am really OK with related discussion to an initial comment on this notice board staying here. This notice board rarely gets that busy to require related comments (be they thanks, commiserations, tangential questions, whatever) being moved off. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• (after ec) I was going to say I'd be happy to and would take it to my talk, but if others are interested here and it wouldn't be disruptive, that's fine too. I'll go ahead and start here; if it gets to be too much, anyone should feel free to move it to my talk.

The short answer to what I learned: for me, having admin perms which in my RfA I'd requested for use in a specific area gave me a sense of duty to that area. When I started not to enjoy working there, that sense of duty (which was all in my own head, no one else is responsible for that) turned into resentment and eventually avoidance of editing altogether. Just walked away for two months. What I learned from taking this break is that setting down tools was simply a mind game I was playing with myself to give myself "permission" not to do that work. So for other admins (and not just for admins but for anyone who is one of the few people working in a particular area): if you feel some sense of duty to a certain area, and you're also finding yourself less interested in editing in general, maybe it's not a coincidence. Down tools (literally or figuratively) and see what happens.

The long answer is...well, long. So I won't go into it, at least here, unless there's actual interest. But it might not be a bad idea in general to encourage admins to take the occasional break to remind themselves of a few things. valereee (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Valereee. I recognise what you are talking about: the self-imposed pressure to do one's share of the workload, which is not helped by the random comments one sees from people who feel that admins have some kind of official duty to do admin stuff on a regular basis. My take is that we are all volunteers, and every positive edit or action we make is an asset to the community and to the encyclopaedia, but we are under no obligation at all to make any edit or do any action. If at any time I fall behind on any minimal amount of edits or actions (as I did recently with the global renaming right) then I have absolutely no problem with that right being taken away. I'd rather have a right taken away because of non-use, or resign it, than stress about using it just in order to keep it. I think your approach is the right one. SilkTork (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Soon after I desysop'd, I found myself dithering over requesting pp on a COI issue that I would have just semi’d for a couple of days myself. Laziness over having to explain my reasoning to someone else when what was happening, though slightly complicated to explain, was clear to me? Knowing a response in such a situation could take long enough that the request might be moot by the time someone else dealt with it? Some combination, probably. Those kinds of things kept happening. Minor things I could have handled. I think the crucial issue in whether retaining a rarely-used perm is a net positive is that the perm holder is sure their understanding isn't outdated. Unfortunately, that's a concern. valereee (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done I don't want to curtail a good discussion (feel free to return to it afterwards), but 24 hours has now passed with no reason not to return the toolset. I'm resysoping now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Wikipedia:Closure requests#Requests for comment

 – Bison X (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I was adding something to this closure requests page and I noticed what appears to be a very long backlog. Apologies if this request is unwelcome or improper, but maybe some bureaucrats could pop by and close some RFCs? I know it's not an official part of the bureaucrats' job description but seeing some very very old discussions there ahead of that one I added that makes me worried about whether this backlog is getting enough attention from consensus-judging-experienced admins and editors. Best wishes, Andrevan@ 05:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• The best place for notices like this is WP:AN, not here. There are very few Crats compared to admin, and closing isn't a specifically Crat function, but it kind of is specifically an admin thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, have reposted there. Andrevan@ 12:47, 19 July 2022 (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 following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Aldux (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

  Last logged admin action: May 2019. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nyttend (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

  Last logged admin action: May 2021. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that the date of Nyttend's desysop is determined by the inactivity of this user's backup account, Nyttend backup (talk · contribs).

Thanks to both of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 07:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to both for their service. -- Amanda (she/her) 09:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hate to see Nyttend fade away. He started around the same time I did in "06. Good guy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I second this, I do hope they are OK in real life. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Always sad to see some of the 'ole names in this list (but that's how life is). --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I often see a name on these lists, and I think, "That can't be, I just saw them post the other day." It must be Screen burn-in on my brain. - Donald Albury 16:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Dear Bureaucrats,

After 12 years, or thereabouts, as an admin, I would now like to relinquish the tools. I intend to remain an active editor.

My best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your prior service. If you need any of the flags from WP:PERM feel free to reply here, ping me, or post at PERM. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Graham Beards for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe Bison's question at Shushugah's RfA is appropriate and would ask that it be removed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

While Shushugah answered the question, I nevertheless agree that its being asked was inappropriate. As such, I have removed it. Acalamari 23:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bs,

I was just looking over a former admin's account where they had lapsed into inactivity some years ago and was wondering if you had a rough estimate for how many current admins will lose their privileges due to the Village Pump RfC earlier this year. I know that it is only August and a lot of things can happen over the next four months but assuming that things continue on as usual, do you expect Wikipedia to lose dozens of admins due to not meeting the new standards of activity? Or hundreds? Of course, I'm not looking for an exact answer, which won't be known until January, just a hint at the scale of the change brought on by this RfC. And, also, I realize that many deactivated admins could return to reestablish their privileges in 2023 after resuming a more substantial level of activity on the project.

Thanks for any clue you can offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz! I know there was a table Worm That Turned put together that offers some insight into that. It was last updated in March but I would imagine it would still give a rough idea of what to expect. 28bytes (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

And some stats that WTT added into the RfC suggested that for 100 edits/year for a 3 year period, 396 administrators would be affected and 67 others warned. The RfC closed with the line drawn at 100 edits/year for a 5 year period, so it's going to be around that order of magnitude. So hundreds. Stephen 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Many of these have had no admin actions in the last 5 years, so the actual impact to the project is pretty much zero. Losing 400 admins that don't actually do anything adminy is more of a push than a loss. They can still edit, although many don't do much of that anymore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) For a little perspective, there are about 400 admins who have not made a single logged admin action so far this calendar year. Having 400 admins desysopped at the end of the year is not likely to have much effect on admin activity. - Donald Albury 00:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been playing with my table every so often, but I didn't want to edit the one that was part of the RfC, so I created a admin activity update table, which I update every so often. It's not 100% accurate, as it doesn't handle non-standard usernames and I haven't taken into account recent sysops / desysops, but your welcome to look there to get a feel for how many individuals were originally going to disappear who have now returned sufficiently to activity. That said, Cryptic's Quarry (below) would likely be a much easier way of seeing the data.

Either way, to give an idea of the uptake - We were looking at desysopping about 200 admins, we're down to about 180 now. I agree that when the date is looming, we'll probably get a little mad rush from a handful more, so I'm expecting around 150. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Currently down to 180 still on track to be desysopped once this is effective.

I'm betting that those on the lower end of that query are least likely to be desysopped. If they've been averaging just one or two edits per year for that long just to avoid being desysopped under criterion (1), it strains credulity that they won't suddenly make just enough to game criterion (2) too. —Cryptic 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some of those will actually come back and get active, which would be a good thing. We need admin, we just don't need editors who are admin in name only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From what I've seen the announcement of the new rule change in April did cause several previously-inactive admins to (at least temporarily) return to activity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Brown. It would be wonderful if some of these inactive administrators decided to return to an active role. But inactive administrators have the same impact as inactive former administrators on the administrative work load, which is no impact at all. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If past experience was that once an admin became inactive they almost never returned then I'd agree that how we treat currently inactive admins would make little or no impact on the workload. But my experience is that some admins do come back after gaps that sometimes run for years, and given our RFA problems, I think we should be trying to be more open to people who take sabbaticals from this site. Currently inactive admins make no contribution to the current admin workload, but given past experience it is would be safe to assume that currently inactive admins will make important contributions to the admin workload of five, ten and fifteen years time. ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, a former admin who was desysopped for inactivity may ask for the bit back, if it has been less than two years since their last edit and less than five years since their last logged admin action. So, if I am interpreting the criteria correctly, a former admin who had performed a logged admin action shortly before being desysopped, and edited WP at least once a year thereafter, could request the bit back up to five years after losing it for inactivity. I think it was clear in the RfC resulting in the change to the criteria for desysopping for inactivity that there were concerns about inactive admins losing touch with the current norms and expectations for admins. I'm not sure the community meant to allow up to 5 years for a return. - Donald Albury 19:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

An interesting loophole, but do keep in mind that bureaucrats must be convinced the admin in question will make an effort to return to activity. Someone making a logged action, being desysopped, and popping back up again four years (and five edits) later to "get the bit back" will likely be turned down. On the other hand, for an admin who stays active and makes hundreds of edits after being desysopped, I would not have an issue restoring their perms.

After all, an admin that voluntarily relinquishes their perms can get it back within 5 years; I do not see this as being much different. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking the 5-year rule only applied to inactivity desysops, as Wikipedia:Administrators actually says In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I did say "may ask". :) I have this wild idea. Could we change 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 instead request through the WP:RFA process. to If an editor has made fewer tham 100 edits over the previous 60 months prior to the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to instead request through the WP:RFA process. I realize this would be instruction creep, but I think it would make the process for returning the admin bit more in line with the intent of the RfC. - Donald Albury 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually mean what you said, or do you mean If there is any 60-month period in which the editor has made less than 100 edits since their desysopping ...? The rule as you proposed it is largely redundant to the existing subjective check for returning to activity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, my interpretation of the current wording is that if an ex-admin has made at least one edit within the preceding two years, and at least one logged admin action within the preceding five years, they are eligible to apply to have the bit restored. The second provision means that any eligibility to regain the bit will end by 60 months after desysopping, depending when the ex-admin last performed a logged admin action. I'm suggesting that we raise the floor for eligibility for restoring the bit. Whether or not any change is made to the criteria for eligibility for regaining the bit, we are depending on the crats to exercise good judgement. Donald Albury 23:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Do any of the current lists check for deleted contributions as well, or will that have to be dealt with manually? With years-old contributions in question I can certainly imagine cases in which admins start out passing the requirement and later appear not to be meeting it.Dekimasuよ! 14:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dekimasu the current inactivity process accounts for this, but it is manual. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Circling back to this discussion, this information is much, much more detailed than I expected, thank you. I didn't participate in the RfC so I missed the table that was presented by WTT but both User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity update and User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity are very impressive to see. Sorry to see all of those pink squares but I, too, think it's better to have a realistic estimate of how many active admins there are rather than having a misleading count of over a thousand admins on the "active" roster.

My father was once a ship captain and he always renewed his license long after he stopped sailing so I understand admins meeting the minimum standards of activity so they are able to do occasional tasks that require amin privileges like deleting their own User pages or reviewing deleted content. But, after years of discontent, the community has spoken and now all marginally active admins will need to raise their level of activity (which still isn't that high, I think), if they want to carry the mop. Thanks again for answering my query and returning to this perennial subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I hung on to my class B commercial driver's license for years after I was likely to ever need it again. Donald Albury 23:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I had been presuming that they would get desysopped in January but Primefac has written that it's April. Can this be clarified? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression it would be January. I assume Primefac is under the impression that the notification cannot happen prior to January, but I see no reason this cannot happen. I'd expect the first set of talkpage notifications to go out next month, and the second set in December, leading to the desysops in January. (Going further - and reading the RfC, there wasn't a lot of discussion about the implementation date, but when asked, I specifically said "I don't think anyone believes going from 1-100 is a good thing, so giving them over 6 months to reach the activity level seemed fair and a reasonable sacrifice to get the proposal over the line". When I wrote the RfC, I intended (and thought it was clear) that the desysopping itself would come into force on 1st January, and notifications should work back from that date. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not that I am a crat, but my reread of the policy text suggests that the criteria comes into effect in January but the notifications went into effect immediately. In other words I agree with Worm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't supportive of the RFC (I wanted something more comprehensive) but Worm's reading of consensus is the same as mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion seems to support starting the actual removals in January next year, provided we are able to get the notifications going in 3 weeks from now. The first batch may need to be manual, as I don't think the bot will be ready (or is even being worked on yet). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Presumably by manual you mean MMS? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 MMS will be fine, as the new requirements are only for talk page. The list will need to be regenerated right before to make sure it is current. It's not a big job, just something to do. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed both that the email requirement has been removed and that an MMS list will need to be generated nearly at the time of MMS send. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So, the notifications won't be done by email? I expect there to be a lot of activity on this noticeboard come January! I know I don't have my Preferences set to receive email notices when someone posts to my user talk page and I bet most editors and admins who were very active at some point in their time on the project don't either. But just looking at WTT's tables, and having to check activity on alternate accounts, I can see where some of the work will need to be done manually. It'll be like a reprise of 2011 for our bureaucrats. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Liz correct, that was explicit from the RFC. They will be sent by user talk page message only. Note, everyone already got one, and will get at least 3 months notice - so it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that is modestly active. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather have BN flooded with "oh I guess I want to become more active" notices than just hear crickets. I did a big "inactives" purge of the AFCH list recently, and was pleasantly surprised at how many folks started reviewing again after a hiatus. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The first set of notifications are planned for 1 October. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue if I am in the minority with my interpretation of the close; I am operating under the interpretation that the new rules, including notification requirements, go into effect on 1 January 2023. If it is the consensus that only the activity requirements are triggered on that date, then clearly the notifications can go out earlier. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Please action the following:

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-'crat comment)  Done by AmandaNP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ched (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I think I should turn in the tools due to medical issues. Thank you to all for being such a huge and positive part of my life. It's been an honor to be part of such a wonderful community. Thank you and remember to be kind in all you do. (I'll still fix minor things if I see them) Best always, — Ched (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ched I am sorry to see you go but wanted to thank you for your service to the 'pedia over the years. You'll be missed in the admin corps and I hope to still see you around from time to time. Wishing you the best as you move onto this next chapter and hoping your health improves & we see you back some day. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for your service. I do hope you are ok. Traditional rules apply if you wish for the toolset back. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making this choice but more importantly thanks for all you've contributed to Wikipedia, both our readers and myself and other editors, over the years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making this decision. It's one I respect. Best wishes to you. Valereee (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Kind and intelligent! A loss as admin. Hoping for your improved health. Thank you Ched for all you've done. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We both started editing the Wiki nearly 15 years ago, and I remember you as a particularly reasonable editor and administrator. My hearty thanks for your countless hours of work and best wishes for a speedy return to good health. I truly hope to see you back here... Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that sucks. Get well soon. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Ched, best of luck re the medical issues. ϢereSpielChequers 12:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Ched for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Staxringold (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Per the relevant motion, could a bureaucrat please restore permissions to Staxringold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? Thanks! Maxim_(talk) 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahoerstemeier (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

The subject line more or less says it all. This action was taken by Useight per this discussion. I thought it best to announce it here because most desysoppings are mentioned on this page and perhaps some Wikipedians who have been around for a while might recall Ahoerstemeier's username, as I do. Condolences should go on his talk page. Graham87 10:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Astronautics~enwiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Nov 2016

2. SB Johnny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: May 2020

3. GraemeL (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Oct 2013

4. Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Mar 2016

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting to see how GraemeL kept removing the messages from his user talk page that he was about to be desysopped due to inactivity over the course of several years [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] but only just stopped doing that this year. I wonder why... 109.235.247.80 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe just gave up. There is a small collections of admins that make only a token edit a year, however the new admin activity policy will be addressing these soon. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • . Well, here's the thing Xasoflux. Maybe there's a small collection of admins who feel failed by the project. Run off, because of abuse, hate, relentlessly receiving emails to the point you block the wp email forwarder. I went to pretty much entirely IP editing because of the hate from several people (that Malleus account's followers, the climate change chap who was an admin and just spent his time protecting his articles, the awful Jehochman or whatever he was called account that was entirely PR for him, Majorly or whatever he was called and his long term grudge, the people that hated on Keeper76 and sent him violent abuse. I could go on about the long, long Wikipedia history). I've logged back in to make admin/editor actions of which a flat f'ing zero have been contested. Your contention (accurate as it may be) glosses over the hard reality of tenured admins. We don't keep the bit because of self importance. We keep it because we can be useful. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    • But if an admin isn't doing anything except reverting the inactivity notices on his talk page, he's about as useful as a fresh, Russian conscript. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

    I was not making a judgement about GraemeL, just an observation. It is certainly preferable that absent constructive editors return to be constructive again. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (Fixed error in my comment: 14:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  GraemeL was the first person to give me a barnstar, and gave me support when I was a newbie and needed it. It is possible I wouldn't have stayed on Wikipedia if it hadn't been for the support and guidance that GraemeL gave me. He was a good Wikipedian and shouldn't be subjected to smeers and sneers now that his time has come to an end. It can sometimes take a while for long standing Wikipedians to let go - that is not something we want; however, we should have some respect and sympathy for the pioneers on this project who have served it well but are not sure that their time is over. SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Marianocecowski (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

As suggested in the messages being sent to inactive administrators, and because I am not ready to re-engage in any meaningful way as an administrator, I kindly request my administrator permissions to be removed. Thank you. Mariano(t/c) 10:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. If you need any permissions please let us know. ExCon will be conferred automatically when you make your next edit. Primefac (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Marianocecowski for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The first round of inactivity notices for the new activity criterion are planned for 1 October. I would like the crats to provide input on the notice text. I have put a quick draft below for the first notice based on {{inactive admin}}. Please feel free to edit it directly or make a template as you see fit. I'll also need the ones for the second notice and annual reminder. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

== Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]
Established [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators|policy]] provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#time:F Y|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} 1 {{CURRENTYEAR}}+3 months}}. {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{crat|}}}|As bureaucrat inactivity requirements are [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_47#Request_for_comment_on_Bureaucrat_activity_requirements|tied to administrator activity]], failure to reach acceptable activity levels will also result in the loss of your bureaucrat permissions.}}

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators]]. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard|the bureaucrats' noticeboard]].

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. ~~~~

Looks good to me. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I think it's noble to ask for people to give the tools up voluntarily, I feel like most will just wait out the period - this message doesn't give a date for that to happen. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting point, though I feel like if it is posted on 1 October "the next three months" indicates Oct-Dec, and inactivity is generally done at the beginning of the month (i.e. January). I'm not opposed to adding some sort of {{CURRENTDATE}}+3 trigger in there, but I don't really see it as necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think for me, it's a bit of a difficult ask to request users to increase activity but not give them a deadline. "Within the next three months" seems quite soft, rather than a "you'll lose access by X month". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so change "return to the required activity level within the next three months" to "return to the required activity level by <month>"? I guess that would work (and alleviates one of the concerns I had about being too specific about the dates). Primefac (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think we gain anything by being super specific, but having a month would make it a bit easier, especially as we are targetting these at users who may spend months away from the site. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Replaced with code that will subst in the fourth month. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You'll get people complaining that they thought January included January. Better to say "start of January" of just within three months of the date of this message, which is clear enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Me too, thanks @JJMC89 Worm^TT(talk) 09:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We will need a bureaucrat version as well, although that could be just case of replacing administrative with bureaucrat and updating the links. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as a quick reminder for me - the crat activity requirements are the same as for admins, no? Presumably once someone looses the mop, they would also lose cratship? In that case it wouldn't need specifying. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as of April. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Presumably once someone looses the mop, they would also lose cratship?". There is no rule that says you need to have admin permissions if you have the bureaucrat permissions, so I think there would still be a need to notify about the bureaucrat permissions as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

As of April (see my link) bureaucrat inactivity is tied to admin inactivity, so if a 'crat loses the mop because of inactivity, they will also be de-cratted. Otherwise your statement is correct, as Xeno demonstrated a few years ago.

That being said (sorry for the double post), it wouldn't be that hard to add a |crat=yes option, which would tack on "and your status as a bureaucrat" or similar to the notice. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't really think of a situation where one would be suitable for crat, but not adminship (and was probably why this was implemented across both groups). A non-admin promoting an admin wouldn't sit well with the community. However, if it's a simple fix, there's no real reason to not put administrative permissions "and bureaucrat status". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they would now be removed from both roles due to inactivity but they would still need to be notified that they will loose it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to tweak the wording; I was trying to be as succinct as possible, mainly to avoid placing a ton of #if statements everywhere. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SilkTork (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The above time formula currently evaluates to January 2023. Based on prior discussion, my understanding is that the activity requirements themselves are effective on January 1, 2023, meaning desysops begin that day. Were we to send notifications on the October 1, this would evaluate to February 2023, which is either a bug, or a mis-specified requirement. :) Izno (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a bug because I'm a bit of a numpty and tested the code in my sandbox forgetting that it's still September. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

:D

Izno (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is per individual not per account, so if someone has a declared alt account that brings them over the threshold could we give them the opportunity to link that account? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Previous inactivity has considered it per individual. See Nyttend's removal a few times from the inactive list because he was last active on his backup account. I don't think the amendment that was made altered that part of tracking. Izno (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Is "reengage" better than "re-engage"? Useight (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

reëngage? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Amended to re-engage per Useight. Most common spelling. SilkTork (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I have created {{inactive admin 2}} based on the above. If anyone would like to start the annual reminder notice, that would be helpful. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've only been slightly following the kick-off process for this, are we intending to have these notifications bot-managed? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: - did you want to manage the first round of notifications somewhere? We should track that status on a page somewhere prob too, like we do for WP:INACTIVE. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, the bot did get these sent. @JJMC89: is there report the bot will maintain like it does for the traditional inactives? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not yet. I've been thinking about the best way to handle it that accommodate both criteria. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@JJMC89 perhaps just continue to use WP:INACTIVE - just fork and tweak that table and have a second table per month (when needed), the second table will just be 3 months in advance instead of 1 month in advance. Some months will have multiple tables, but that's not a problem, just use a different header on the other table? (New table needs less columns of course, just the edit count, 3month warning stamp, 1month warning stamp. (Note the 'email' requirement also lapses in January for the existing bot report). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to change the venue (unless the crats want to move to just a final report like the ones that you post here when desysoping). I'll backfill the page once I get the code updated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This list should be up to date, other than alt accounts. —Cryptic 00:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a surprisingly long list. I note that User:Tim Starling is on there. Also, the list is based on edit counts only and not logs? For example, User:Trialsanderrors has 98 edits, but would be over 100 if you considered logged actions. --B (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@B yes it is edits only, see the policy here: Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. That someone happens to work for WMF has no bearing, their work-related access is managed via staff accounts such as here for Tim: meta:Special:CentralAuth/Tim_Starling_(WMF). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if logs were included, those moves are, if anything, overcounted - they'll all be represented as edits both in the automatically-created redirects and the empty revisions like Special:Diff/913321933. The creation logs will all have associated edits, too. I'm only seeing the one delete log besides those. —Cryptic 04:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion at WT:RFA has the potential to significantly change our workflow and remit. I have already voiced my opinions, and am stepping back now, but I feel that more 'crat opinions could be useful. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Just noting this is now the subject of a request for comments: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfC: should RfAs be put on hold automatically? –xeno^talk 14:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hey, I'm requesting IA so that I can help out with the odd edit request and general JS/CSS/MediaWiki: maintenance — plus, it'll stop me accidentally editing an interface page with my steward bits and getting in trouble. I don't mind this being a temporary (6mo?) grant to see how much I end up needing it. Many thanks! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• 48 hour hold as this, as far as I can see, is your first request for interface. TheresNoTime, do you have two factor authentication in place? SilkTork (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork: Indeed I do — it's required for steward access — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm curious about your comment that you may accidently edit an interface page. I understand that as a steward you have the interface admin right, but are not able to use that right on wikis, like ours, which have Crats. Is the restriction not physical? SilkTork (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC) The Stewards page says "stewards will not use their technical access", so I assume there is no physical restriction. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
      • @SilkTork: Nope, no technical barrier to stumbling upon an edit request in the queue, helpfully fulfilling it and then realising it's a MediaWiki namespace page — I do use a script to tell me if I'm the wiki I'm viewing is a GS wiki (or if I am a local admin) but no such thing exists for IA. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Do we need a 48 hour hold for Stewards? SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC) TheresNoTime already holds the right, so could requests from Stewards be treated as a re-admin request from someone not under a cloud, and the rights be given immediately? SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • As stewards are not supposed to steward in their home wiki, I don't think this should be automatic or accelerated. I fully support giving intadmin to TNT, but their steward status should play no major role in granting that right. —Kusma (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    • There's no rush, and besides, have you seen who they'll make a steward? ^[FBDB] — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• No objection to giving the right. Also see no urgency and would rather process followed. Worm^TT(talk) 12:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• @TheresNoTime if you don't "use it" we pull it (generally in response to a once-a-month bot managed report) - if pulled you can always just ask for it back. We certainly can do a temp-grant if that's what you want, but I don't think it is necessary - you know how to resign things :D — xaosflux ^Talk 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: A fair point — I'm fairly well versed at resigning tools ^^ — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support of course. TheresNoTime is a talented software engineer. Will surely find useful things to do as an interface administrator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• No objections, standard process can be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• (I know this is not what this process is supposed to be but) [c]lear need, clearly trusted, good idea. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, TheresNoTime. Have fun! SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 🙂 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Atama (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello, I have not been able to be very active for a number of years due to changes in my life, and I very much enjoyed my time serving the project in my administrative role. But I think it is best for me to voluntarily resign my privileges, as I will not be able to commit to an extended activity level any time soon. Thank you to the community that put their trust in me, and I hope whatever changes I have made over the years were a net benefit to the project. I will likely still be around from time to time as a regular editor. -- Atama頭 00:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done And added rollbacker to your account. Thank you for your service, Atama. Acalamari 00:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for your service as an administrator Atama, and to wish you the absolute best as you encounter the changes before you in life. You can unequivocally repurpose your hope to other things for I assure you, without reservation, your admin tenure and the changes made by your presence and hand equate to far more than simple net gain. Sincerely. --John Cline (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Atama for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Athaenara (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Please action the following.

Level II desysop of Athaenara

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s behavior appears inconsistent with the level of trust required of administrators. Athaenara has not responded to contact from the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee resolves that Athaenara be desysopped in accordance with the Committee’s Level II removal procedures.

Support: CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level II desysop of Athaenara

Thank you. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, also notified user. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello 'crats! Would an uninvolved 'crat please close WP:ELECTCOM2022, completing the creation of this year's election commission for the 2022 arbitration committee elections? Guidance on this can be found in WP:ACERULES, including notes at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Commissioner_reservist_selections. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, though for the record the consensus here was much clearer than last year, and an admin closed that one. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac xaosflux needs to be moved to reservist and Cyberpower to commisoner; xaosflux explicitly requested to be marked as reservist if there were thar least three{other accepted candidates Special note to closing party: As there are many candidates, if accepted and there are at least 3 others accepted, I defer to other accepted members and prefer to be a reserve commissioner. — xaosflux Talk 22:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that,  Fixed. I will admit that I did not think to look at the candidate statements when evaluating the consensus. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ragesoss (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I'd like to get interface-admin rights again, as I have some updates to make to the Wiki Education guided tours. (I don't use them often, so they got removed for inactivity.) --ragesoss (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ragesoss, I assume that you have 2FA still enabled? Primefac (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Primefac yes, I have 2FA enabled.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Eddie891 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Hi, requesting desysop. It has been a pleasure. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with apologies for the mangled link and "resysop". Primefac (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Was the link mangled due to haste to desysop them before other bureaucrats got to do it? I understand bureaucrats don't have much opportunity to use their rights these days, but we expect them to use it with care. Perhaps mandating a 24 hour wait period before processing a non emergency desysop request, like how it is done by stewards, is a good idea? It would also serve as a safeguard against impulsive desysop requests like [9]. 2409:4071:E07:B5FD:0:0:4388:8B0C (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it got mangled because I always forget that when I copy an oldid I still need to add the Special:PermaLink/ to the wikilink. This is not something special to my cratting or the "speed" in which I performed this request (that was just timing, as I was checking my inbox right as it appeared), it's unfortunately something that happens occasionally when I permalink. Usually, though, it's on a talk page and I either notice before I save (generally when previewing) or I go back and fix it afterwards. Permission logs do not give me that luxury at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent service as an administrator, as well as your other contributions, Eddie! DanCherek (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Eddie891 for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Jan 2021

2. Excirial (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Feb 2020

— xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello. In these parts I go by the name ClockworkSoul. I've been a Wikipedian for more than 18 years, and was previously an administrator. However, I've been effectively inactive for a number of years, and my adminship was suspended for that reason. Now I'd like very much to return to Wikipedia, and am requesting administrator reinstatement. Thank you. – ClockworkSoul 16:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be ineligible for reinstatement as an admin given that your last admin action was in 2010 and you have a more-than-two-year gap in activity between December 2014 and December 2016. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship for the requirements. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi ClockworkSoul! Great to hear from you. I'd love to give you your tool kit back, unfortunately there has been a tightening of the rules since you were desysopped, and since you've not used your admin tools for over five years (see Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship), you'll need to go via RfA in order to get your tools back. SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I remember you! That seems like a pretty arbitrary rule. I wonder what its motivation is? Well, I guess I'll have to run the gauntlet again. One the the things I've observed that has made me want to return is the really burdensome bureaucracy that's crept into Wikipedia. I've heard complaints from would-be users about being bitten for (well-intentioned) minor transgressions (like trying to create an article). Having experienced more than one example of that on my return, I'm eager to be back at the reins. – ClockworkSoul 18:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

As one of the people who helped tighten the activity requirements I guess I can reply to this. A great many problems have been caused by admins who went entirely inactive for long periods of time, then simply came back and started using admin tools again without taking the time to re-familiarize themselves with current practices and policies. A lot has changed in the 12 years since you last used your admin tools, maybe some of it not for the better, but the activity requirements are there to reduce drama and biting of new users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's entirely fair, and makes total sense. I appreciate the explanation :) – ClockworkSoul 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi ClockworkSoul - you won't remember me, as I wasn't here when you were previously an admin (I joined in 2017, so take my point of view maybe with a pinch of salt). I share grievances any time someone mentions biting new users, (and potentially returning users such as yourself) and that is damaging to the project. The activity requirements are here to prevent users who are not up to date with the current policies from using advanced permissions and potentially causing users more stress or editing against policy or consensus. I would welcome anyone who was willing to put in good work to avoid angst for new users, but would also request that someone looking to do so had spent a reasonable amount of time making edits to modern Wikipedia before a potential RfA. A lot has changed in the last 10-15 years, and it's not unfair for the community to want to vet any new admin or those returning to the tools. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you. I'm pretty excited to get involved in editor retention efforts. I founded the Kindness Campaign way back when (which has sadly become mostly inactive since), and my wish to encourage kindness and respect hasn't dwindled since that time. – ClockworkSoul 21:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@ClockworkSoul:, the WP:Teahouse is now the location for supporting new editors. Stephen 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the Teahouse, new page patrol is both the coal face of new editor interaction and a good way to get back up to speed with current policies and practices. I've just assigned you the necessary user right, if you want to give it a try. – Joe (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, sorry for stepping on your toes, but isn't that a bit hasty? A lot has changed with respect to notability guidelines and sourcing requirements. It seems like the very existence of NPP/AFC would be news to CwS. CwS's edits so far suggest they'd likely approve every article except pure vandalism at their current level of familiarity with the project (not that they have said so exactly). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The community entrusted ClockworkSoul with the administrator tools for nine years, I think we can trust him with new page reviewer now and, as I said, it's a good way to find out what's changed policy-wise. NPP has been around in some form or another from the very earliest days of the project and AfC since at least 2005. I think there's something to be said for bringing good old-fashioned Wikipedian values to patrolling. – Joe (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am impressed by their demeanor. I hope you're right. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll not be approving anything at all until I'm certain that I've adequately recalibrated. Also, please feel free to use he/him pronouns for me. 😊 – ClockworkSoul 16:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back @ClockworkSoul, and good luck with your efforts to make Wikipedia kinder! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back to activity. Your reasonable and thoughtful responses above make you sound like exactly the kind of admin we would greatly benefit from. When you think you might have a good track record of recent activity and feel comfortable with how key policies work these days, please drop me a line if you're interested in me [another old-timer who places high value on kindness to Wikipedians] nominating you at RfA. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Back in the day, I did my best to exhibit virtues that were often in short supply then as now: patience, consideration, and level-headedness. I hope to do the same going forward. – ClockworkSoul 16:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)