Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
Click here to add a new section
Shortcuts

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats, and all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs 1
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 9
Approved BRFAs 0
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Tamzin 241 3 2 99 Open 02:19, 2 May 2022 3 days, 17 hours no report
It is 08:25:18 on April 28, 2022, according to the server's time and date.
Bureaucrat tasks:
Assigning bot status (talk)
Requests for adminship (talk)
Inactive administrators (talk)
Inactive bureaucrats (talk)
Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives:
12345678910
11121314151617181920
21222324252627282930
31323334353637383940
414243444546


Request for comment on Bureaucrat activity requirements[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the bureaucrat activity requirements be kept in line with the recently agreed administrator activity requirements? WormTT(talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the recent administrator activity requirements change, it was raised that the list of administrators who would be affected by the change included at least one bureaucrat. Rather than derailing that discussion, a subsequent RfC was suggested, and this is that RfC.

It is proposed that the current text at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts is replaced with:

Current text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are two separate activity requirements applicable to bureaucrat accounts:

  1. Bureaucrat accounts that have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (without any edits or other logged actions) may have their bureaucrat permissions removed. The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page and via email one month before the removal of permissions and again several days before the request is made. Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions. This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools. If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years.
  2. Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. If a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity[1] for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

There are two separate activity requirements applicable to bureaucrat accounts:

  1. Bureaucrat accounts that do not meet the level of editing activity expected of administrators may have their bureaucrat permissions removed. The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page in line with the procedures for administrators before the request is made. Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions. This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools. If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years.
  2. Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. If a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity[1] for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

Simply put - this RfC asks the question if you are not active enough to be an administrator, should you be a bureaucrat? There is no proposed change to the second requirement of bureaucrat inactivity.

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b Bureaucrat activity is widely construed and includes acting or commenting as a bureaucrat at any venue including WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA and responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks.

Endorsement / Opposition[edit]

  1. Support as proposer of this and administrator activity requirements. I considered adding the new 100 edits in 5 years requirement explicitly, but I thought that it would be far simpler and less... bureaucratic... to match the requirements to the administrator activity levels. I have no issue with an bureaucrat turning in the administrator bit and remaining a bureaucrat, however, when it comes to general activity levels, we should keep both in line and remove both user-rights at the same time. WormTT(talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor update, so that we only look at "editing" requirements.Xaosflux & Amorymeltzer, I hope that's not an issue for you? WormTT(talk) 15:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 — xaosflux Talk 15:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think it's fine. I guess I was reading the original differently than Barkeep49, that it was explicitly using the sysop requirements (editing and sysop actions), not that it was replacing sysop with bureaucrat as appropriate. This is fine, I guess; it won't introduce any weirdness, at least. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support seems like a fine incremental step. I think we should probably also remove ... and by email ... from #2 while we're in here - as all of the other email notification requirements have been sunset in the last RFC. — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point - done. WormTT(talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reasonable alignment with what has been de facto expected for a long while. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I like aligning the expectations of crats and admin in this way, especially because if the community decides to raise the level of editing required of admin in the future, it'll not require a seperate change for crats, while still allowing for a different level of "tool use" which recognized the differences in roles in that aspect. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Of course Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support * Pppery * it has begun... 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Very reasonable and in line with community expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - of course, entirely sensible. firefly ( t · c ) 17:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support piling on to a good long-term resolution (including the "editing levels" bit) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I agree with Barkeep. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. --Rschen7754 02:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as a logical consequence of the change in admin requirements. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I think the activity requirements for these two roles should typically be aligned unless we add something that is very specific to one role or the other. --RL0919 (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - seems very suitable to align these permissions in this way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Donald Albury 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - No brainer. Levivich 16:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A bureaucrat is really just an administrator with the ability to make other users administrators and vice versa. Lumping the requirements together is really just a way of saying that bureaucrats are themselves administrators and should, at minimum, follow the same requirements as such.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support It just makes sense to have the same (or broadly similar) requirements for both. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose No where near sufficient a high bar. Not even close. How long before the next tiny increment? You're not bold enough. Far too timid. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leaky caldron, do you want to have different editing requirements for admins and bureaucrats? If yes, what should the difference be and why? —Kusma (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma, I am less concerned about equivalence than I am about both being far too low. By miles. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you are participating in the wrong discussion. —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma, thanks for telling me where I can participate. I contributed to the Admin. discussion weeks ago. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to attempt a new RfC about the admin requirements, but in my view it is unlikely that there is much appetite for further tweaks before 2023, when the recently made changes will result in desysoppings (or renewed activity). —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Just to be annoying, because I don't think the change to the admin criteria went nearly far enough. Feel free to ignore this irritated placeholder though. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If "oppose" wins, the requirements for bureaucrat will become lower than those for adminship. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If "oppose" wins, the status-quo will remain. — xaosflux Talk 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - common sense solution under the current circumstances. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support It seems logical to have the same requirements for both, as the idea is to remain actively engaged. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support – a common-sense improvement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -FASTILY 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Seems reasonable. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Some semblance of activity is expected for people who held a position of power or authority. SunDawntalk 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I like the incremental nature of these new policies. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Getting into WP:AVALANCHE territory. HouseBlastertalk 17:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support – Bureaucrats should be held to at least the same inactivity standards as regular sysops. Clovermoss (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support we crats need to keep in touch with the norms of the community, if anything that's more subject to change than many areas where admins might be active. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - common sense to put the two in line with each other. Retswerb (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - kcowolf (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I am supportive of the idea of tying the crat and admin editing levels together. Given the radically different amount of actions, especially logged actions, available to crats and admins I'm a bit reluctant to just completely tie it together. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be interested in hearing some alternative wording - because you are right if logged actions become a feature of Admin requirements. WormTT(talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just change 1 to "Bureaucrat accounts that do not meet the editing level of activity expected of administrators"? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that, thanks Barkeep. WormTT(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should that be changed to, "level of editing activity"? The adjective placed next to the noun it's modifying makes it easier to parse IMO. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pfft, easy. "Bureaucrats who cease to be administrators for any reason will also have their bureaucrat permissions removed." Simple, future-proofs us against the next incremental admin requirement once it becomes clear how ineffective the recent bump was, and as an added bonus prevents symbolic resignation of admin while retaining bureaucrat. —Cryptic 06:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered that, but personally, I don't have an issue with crat's not being admins. The crat role is simply that of a discussion closer and button pusher - you don't need to be an admin for that. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted, but realistically speaking, will the community really ever grant cratship to someone who has not gone through RfA? Alternatively, we could just adopt the es-wiki model and abolish the distinction between crats and admins, then we would not need specific crat activity requirements. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Crats can grant permissions requiring 2FA without sufficient software checks yet. I would like to skip opening that up from 15 people to 1100 people - however many are removed after January 1, 2023. ES.WP is particularly one of the wikis where it's a problem from a security standpoint. Izno (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno we've asked! T265726 is open on this. — xaosflux Talk 13:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please not have an RFC at a noticeboard. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the low amount of traffic this noticeboard gets, I'm inclined to just go with it as a logical place to hold it. That way anyone remotely interested in Crats is likely to see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While incorporating the activity requirements for admins, this would not incorporate the requirement of intent to return to activity when requesting the perm back. Should it? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin I intend to look at Resysop over the coming months, I'm not sure that we should be focussing on Resysop (or ReCrat) in this discussion. WormTT(talk) 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is on T:CENT, I don't think we need to go to WP:WLN unless it stops snowing above. — xaosflux Talk 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it did stop snowing I would suggest it doesn't need WLN and that CENT is sufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this as a fairly uncontroversial, so probably doesn't need more than CENT. WormTT(talk) 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish WP was a place where something obviously good and common sense like this could... just be done, and if anyone objected, then we could have a long vote. But I acknowledge that WP isn't such a place anymore. I guess what I'm really wishing is that is was 2005 all over again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I floated that very idea but think Silk/WTT were probably sensible to do it this way (and in fitting with the small c conservative nature of cratting). And I'll somewhat controversially say I am largely grateful it's not 2005 all over again as the drama we have now seems much better than the regular bouts of wheel warring that 2005 saw. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "You must have a formal RfC before you edit the PAG" is my least favourite part of 2020s Wikipedia. Anyway, no need to vote on this while there is no serious objection. —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Our PAGs suck, and it's because of 20 years of bold editing. Levivich 16:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's because anyone has been bold. If someone disagrees with a bold edit, then it should get reverted and discussed. Our PAGs "suck" because, as a disorganized random herd of eccentric and online humans, we are really, really bad at collectively writing rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely wrong. It's because everyone wants to be a contrarian ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No we're not! SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a Village pump discussion to discuss this further and with perhaps some more eyeballs/perspectives. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because stewards would be the ones actioning this (since bureaucrats cannot -crat) I think they would want to see a community discussion for such a policy change. --Rschen7754 00:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussion != RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Would it be prudent to ask the WMF sysadmins to add crat to the $wgGroupsRemoveFromSelf configuration for enwp? Dax Bane 12:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dax Bane don't think that is necessary, there are so little accounts this applies to and a request at SRP will be handled easily. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, this is generally frowned upon for content projects for multiple reasons - m:Limits to configuration changes. --Rschen7754 18:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, are there any bureaucrats that would be at risk today of de-sysop/de-crat under this new inactivity policy? Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, just Cecropia, whose past 100 edits go back to 2012. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Updates to bureaucrat minimum activity requirements[edit]

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)[reply]

Bureaucrat note: this message was sent to the current crats via Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Message list. — xaosflux Talk 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220511050015/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard

Leave a Reply