Open main menu

Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus. Matiia (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1Edit

Hello. I would like to propose removing bureaucrats with no logged bureaucrat actions for 3 months, even if they are active as sysops or with edits. Here are my rationales:

  1. Bureaucrats with no logged bureaucrat actions for 3 months would mean no overriding need to keep the flag, whether due to no requests for bots, administrators, or bureaucrats, or due to bureaucrats' own inactivity.
  2. Keeping bureaucrats in small wikis have frequently impeded stewards from working efficiently.
  3. Stewards tend not to add bureaucrats in small wikis.
  4. Bureaucrats may no longer rename users, so their roles and importance have been reduced.
  5. As we keep electing new stewards almost every year, why keep bureaucrats in small wikis?
  6. Wikis with enough requests for bots, administrators, and bureaucrats will be easily able to keep any active bureaucrats, even if there is only one.

After all, being a bureaucrat means responsibility, not honorary title. I was at most a bureaucrat on four wikis, but because of these reasons, I have quit on Chinese Wikisource, Chinese Wikiquote, Wikimedia Commons, and soon Chinese Wiktionary, to cease to be a bureaucrat anywhere.--Jusjih (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (There is also a #Proposal 2 to consider if this proposal 1 fails. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)) (There is also a #Proposal 3 to consider if proposals 1 and 2 fail. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)) (There is also a #Proposal 4 to consider if proposals 1, 2 and 3 fail. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

  • I see no reason to remove a flag from an active person. A wiki which has probably 2-3 RfAs per year but probably 5 crats, would probably lose two crats or maybe even all despite that those might be active in their project. Bureaucrats don't only close requests as successful, so that their action is logged, they also close requests as unsuccessful. That action isn't logged in the right log. Now we've got a wiki with several unsuccessful requests for whatever and crats closing those. Since their action is not logged, they lose their right. Going on with not that small wikis like metawiki. We've quite some requests for crats ever year, but it happens that one doesn't get a chance to close a request for quite some time, because some other crats are always quicker in closing requests. So we'd lose crats who might even be active after three months. That proposal misses a lot of things. What actually is a small wiki? What is with the wikis that have their own policies on inactive admins/crats? What's the issue with AAR, isn't that strict enough? In fact I'd probably lose my crat flag on simpleWT because I did not had a chance to flag my own bot in the past three months and because I did not close the most recent RfA there some months ago. I belong to the people who support removal of people who never use their tools, or better who are never active and therefor never use their rights. But there are times where simply nothing needs to be done with those tools. If the bureaucrats are responsive, I see no reason to remove them. Furthermore, that stewards tend to decline doing something on wikis with crats is a different problem. If the crats are really unresponsive, then they should be removed or the policy regarding steward tool usage needs to be improved/rewritten. I don't see why a crat who is active on their project should be removed for not using their tool simply because they did not have the chance to use it. That sounds rather unfair, imo. In this state, I Oppose strongly oppose this. Also, I just checked, per that logic here, my crat rights on meta would need to be removed on April 6 as my last action as local bureaucrat here was on January 6. However, I'm certainly active and responsive to requests. But hey, who cares, I don't have any local logged crat action for that wiki and I'm active, but I should be removed. Honestly, I'd personally game the system in case of such a policy will ever be in place. -Barras talk 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. This proposal would create an enormous backlash. It seems to assume that there must be a necessity for 'crats to keep the flag. The reverse is the tradition, for all flags, there must be a necessity to remove flags. (Long inactivity as with AAR creates a necessity, though even that is controversial on some wikis.) If a 'crat is responsive, to requests, that's enough, and it must be noticed that small wikis might have one new sysop in a long time. Crats also function as senior members of the community, it is an expression of trust and respect, a bit beyond that involved in "sysop." In addition, with some languages, it could be very difficult to assess consensus in closing sysop candidacies. If there is no alternative, stewards are always there. --Abd (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There may be a problem, but I don't think this is the solution. --Rschen7754 03:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Still not sure what the problem is in the first place. Who cares if small wikis have local crats? I see no evidence of abuse happening and no reason to be enacting either policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the problem I saw when I was a steward was that crats on small wikis often just give out the admin flags like candy with no community review (I can think of two particular cases, but won't mention them on wiki). And often those smaller wiki crat bits were handed out like candy upon creation of the wiki years ago, by stewards, before they started looking for community input. But this isn't the solution for that. --Rschen7754 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
      • That's fair, though I guess my own opinion is that local projects should be free to set varying standards for adminship. I do remember some specific problems with admins when the bar is set too low, especially when there is no easy way to remove them. Either way, you're certainly right that this proposal won't solve that problem. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that there's a problem, but this is definitively not the solution. Snowolf How can I help? 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Barras' arguments. Especially point 2 is strange. "Efficient steward work" does not consist of fulfilling every request super-quickly and being annoyed if actually local bureaucrats exist who could do the request, and maybe even are much better able to judge the consensus on their own wiki which trusts them to do so, if only they are given notice or time. Also about point 3, why is the solution to the problem that stewards don't often give bureaucrat status to people [if that is a problem] to remove the existing bureaucrats? --MF-W 16:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, following Snowolf's first sentence. → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose We already have the Admin activity review policy for beurocrat inactivity on all WMF wikis. In my opinion there is no need changing that policy, in any way, shape or form. Also, I will never accept an inactivity policy that does not have an exception for projects that do have an review process for inactivity.--Snaevar (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I think 3 months is too short of time, but even then I would only support this if there were no actions. Even on ENWP its fairly rare for a Bureaucrat to need to use a bureau tool so on a small wiki they might go all year without needing to use it. It doesn't make sense to me to remove the access from someone and then potentially leave the project with no one with the ability to do the action. Reguyla (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Admins and bureaucrats are desysoped, if they are inactive for more than two years. I don't see any need for tightening this rule. --Holder (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Holder --Howan Hansi (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose same. Don't see a benefit --RobTorgel (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't see any reason to change this.--Robby (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contra I don't see any problems --Murma174 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose no need for a change --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. It is actually quite easy for a crat to have no actions for 6 months now. If there are less successful RfA requests than bureaucrats, this will most likely mean some bureaucrats will be removed. However, it is not a problem of bureaucrats, and after user renames were transferred to global renamers crats have little chances to make log actions. On the other hands, we have many languages spoken by no steward, and even fewer languages spoken by stewards who are not members of respective communities, which will be a huge problem for complex discussions (e.g. a controversial request for removal of bot status is difficult to close by someone who does not speak the language and does not know local rules) — NickK (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support SupportJayantanth (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Close ASAPJayantanth (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose -jkb- 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC) no solution
  • Oppose Oppose --Terfili (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC) If there is a specific problem with abuse on a specific wiki, Meta already has ways to bring it attention. No need to remove local government from all small projects.
  • Oppose Oppose--Luki (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC) This is not a good solution.
  • Oppose Oppose --Freigut (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) as Terfili.
  • Oppose Oppose --MireilleLibmann (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. Then a bureaucrat will just give admin flags to users every 3 months and solve this problem. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

Proposal 2Edit

In case proposal 1 above fails, I would like to propose removing bureaucrats with no logged bureaucrat action for long time, but modeled after commons:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship:

  1. Those with no logged bureaucrat actions for 6 months will be first notified at their talk pages linking to this proposal (if passed into a global policy) and explaining that bureaucrat rights may be lost. Emails should also be sent. If they indicate by means of Babel boxes that they cannot understand English, the messages and emails should be in languages that they understand.
  2. If there is no response from the bureaucrats requesting retention of rights as required by the notice within 30 days, local votes of no confidence will be posted for 7 days. If no significant opposition, the rights will be removed.
  3. If the bureaucrats respond to the notices as required, or if local votes of no confidence get significant opposition against removing the rights, but they then fail to make any logged bureaucrat action within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice, the rights will be removed without further notice.

Hopefully this proposal will be better considered if proposal 1 above fails. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (There is also a #Proposal 3 to consider if proposals 1 and 2 fail. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC))

  • I see no evidence presented here that there's a problem, let alone that there's a problem to be solved by adding processes beyond AAR. I note that it is quite unusual, in my experience, for any sort of activity level to be judged at a sub-year basis, and I'm not sure of what the benefit of that is, beyond the fact that it would leave to more removals. I also think that placing the onus on retaining vs removing ("if no significant opposition") is quite inappropriate and goes against the community trust placed in these users. But again, I think there needs to be a consensus that there's a problem that needs solving first, and I don't think there is. Snowolf How can I help? 03:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I too see no problem to be solved. Note also that since small projects likely have the least frequent need for crat actions, such a policy would in effect penalize small projects for being small, which is not a good way to nurture growth of small projects. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. AAR exists and is strict enough. --MF-W 15:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That second proposal sounds more like AAR, just way more strict. I think this might be too strict and will only start to annoy (active) crats who can't use their tools very often by confirming all few months that they'd like to keep their flag as their are active. That will cause a lot of work for many people. I don't think this is a good solution for a problem I don't really see. Oppose Oppose -Barras talk 16:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I think a better solution would be no edits/actions for 1 year, but weakly. --Rschen7754 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, following Snowolf's first sentence. → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per my comment in proposal 1.--Snaevar (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Again oppose for the same reasons I stated in the above statement. Reguyla (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Admins and bureaucrats are desysoped, if they are inactive for more than two years. I don't see any need for tightening this rule. --Holder (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Holder --Howan Hansi (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't see any reason to change this.--Robby (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contra There are existing rules already --Murma174 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose no need for a change --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Don't we already have rules about rights holders going completely inactive on wikis without specific rules? So, what are we fixing with this convulsed proposal? Courcelles 04:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. It is actually quite easy for a crat to have no actions for 6 months now. If there are less successful RfA requests than bureaucrats, this will most likely mean some bureaucrats will be removed. However, it is not a problem of bureaucrats, and after user renames were transferred to global renamers crats have little chances to make log actions — NickK (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose -jkb- 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC) no solution
  • Oppose Oppose --Terfili (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Let the projects themselves decide when they want users to lose their rights.
  • Oppose Oppose--Luki (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)This is not a good solution.
  • Oppose Oppose --Freigut (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) as Terfili.
  • Oppose Oppose --MireilleLibmann (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3Edit

In case proposals 1 and 2 above fail, I would like to propose requiring each wiki to have either two bureaucrats or none at all, modeled after CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser:

"On any wiki, there must be at least two users with bureaucrat status, or none at all. This is so that they can mutually control and confirm their actions. In the case where only one bureaucrat is left on a wiki (when the only other one retires, or is removed), the community must appoint a new bureaucrat immediately (so that the number of CheckUsers is at least two). Otherwise, the only one bureaucrat left on a wiki will be removed." --Jusjih (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel that there may be something here, as there have been recent problems with situations where only one bureaucrat who turns out to be not so great, the wiki is left in a mess. However, I worry about how this would be implemented for existing wikis. Perhaps it would be better to start out applying this to wikis with no bureaucrats asking stewards for rights. --Rschen7754 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The two-CU requirement is already quite burdensome for small wikis trying to maintain their independence, which small wikis are both likely to care about and likely to have difficulty doing anyway. I do grok that restriction, given the nature of CU. But 'crat does not deal with the stuff CU does; and 'crat is more immediately needful local functionality for independence, so this would impose a much worse burden than the CU restriction. Small wikis should be nurtured, not quashed. --Pi zero (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - You found a solution to a non-existent problem. Since everything a crat does is publicly logged, there is no real need for such a rule. If some goes wrong, they can come to meta to solve the problem. Also, do we get a proposal 4 if proposals 1 to 3 fail? I hope so, I propose to simply keep status quo. Do we need to !vote on that...? -Barras talk 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I'm actually confused, check what? Do bureaucrats handle problematic controversial private data like Checkuser and Oversighter? bureaucrats are not CU and OS, so why do they need to perform check with each other?--AldNonymousBicara? 15:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Why?--DangSunM (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Aren't there other problems needing care? --Murma174 (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Holder (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Aldnonymous. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose It's a solution to something. But we don't actually have a problem. Courcelles 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This is still a problem looking for a solution. This will only make a bad problem worse on a lot of wiki's that only have one currently and it will make for more work for the Global sysops. Reguyla (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, this is a solution to a non-existent problem. There is no need for bureaucrats to control each other, and most communities have high enough requirements for bureaucrat candidates, thus usually each bureaucrat is trusted by the community so that no control is needed — NickK (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose -jkb- 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC) no solution
  • Oppose Oppose --Terfili (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Is it a problem only to have one? Projects need time to grow.
  • Oppose Oppose--Luki (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC) This is not a good solution.
  • Oppose Oppose --Freigut (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) as Terfili.
  • Oppose Oppose --MireilleLibmann (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • CU/OS have the ability to check each-other. Bureaucrats can have their actions checked by anyone. That said, this is the closest you've come to a reasonable proposal here, so I'll give you credit for that. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 4Edit

In case proposals 1, 2 and 3 above fail, I would like to propose amending Stewards policy#Don't promote users on projects with existing bureaucrats by allowing stewards to step in on wikis with too few bureaucrats, like fewer than ten bureaucrats or fewer than three bureaucrats have made a logged action within the past two months, modeled after Global_sysops#Scope. This is a compromise to mitigate concerns of existing bureaucrats who are reluctant to resign.--Jusjih (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose --Howan Hansi (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Antigng (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose "Stewards should only grant these rights on a project if there are no active bureaucrats available on that project" is sufficient. --Rschen7754 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, a recent case in Romanian Wikipedia showed that asking stewards to close local RfAs instead of local bureaucrats is really suboptimal — NickK (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose the entire page If you think kill all bureaucrats are ok, then please also kill all rollbackers, importers, and/or IPBEs on small wikis. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose the entire page --RobTorgel (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Holder (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Joe Watzmo (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - Fewer than ten bureaucrats would include almost all projects, even rather big projects like the German Wikipedia and more. That would create a too high conflict potential. As Rschen7754 says above, the current policy is sufficient. If there are crats who are not active, stewards can act after a sufficient time of waiting. This all still doesn't solve a problem. -Barras talk 21:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose -jkb- 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC) no solution
  • Oppose Oppose --Terfili (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Current process is sufficient.
  • Oppose Oppose--Luki (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC) This is not a good solution.
  • Oppose Oppose --Freigut (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) as Terfili.
  • Oppose Oppose --MireilleLibmann (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose no reason to do this. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)