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)Reply[reply]


Proposal 1 edit

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))Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • There may be a problem, but I don't think this is the solution. --Rschen7754 03:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, following Snowolf's first sentence. → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Holder --Howan Hansi (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose same. Don't see a benefit --RobTorgel (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I don't see any reason to change this.--Robby (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra I don't see any problems --Murma174 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose no need for a change --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support SupportJayantanth (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close ASAPJayantanth (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 2 edit

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))Reply[reply]

Proposal 3 edit

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)Reply[reply]

Proposal 4 edit

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)Reply[reply]