Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

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

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for

bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 09:33:02 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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. ···

Join WP Japan! 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

No one said I had a perfect memory. I hardly ever do anything with bots, so that's why I forgot it. ···

Join WP Japan! 17:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

@

Join WP Japan! 17:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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-

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

RFBs when we just determined that the role is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Pinging Warofdreams since they have also been mentioned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  @

  androgynous. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any answer other than "because they are outsiders to the enwiki clique" is tripe.

✉ 22:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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: 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)[reply

]

Thank you.

Fram (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  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)[reply

  ]

  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.

  talk) 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 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)[reply
  ]

  @

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

  ]

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

Sorry if this has already been discussed somewhere else - I happened to notice at

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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).[reply]

Ah, yes, little 'Zilla was a Victim of Circumstance....

talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll cross-post that to

WP:BOTN (discussion link). Primefac (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)

talk) 12:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

"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)[reply]

It can be taken over to someone else before you dies...

talk) 14:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Bot codes are generally stored on GitHub so maybe, no problems. The bot will be blocked and someone will use this bot.

talk) 02:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• +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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

If anyone is interested in running for admin, note the current welter of green in the table at the top of

• Are you taking on really anyone? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  ✉ 16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  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)[reply

  ]

  Hahahaha :p But you really think so? It **has** been what, 4 years....

  ✉ 12:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

]

Hello 'crats, following

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