Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikimedia or Wikipedia?

The text reads:

These capabilities are held only by stewards, a small multilingual group that serves not only the English Wikipedia but all Wikimedia projects in all languages.

Should not that be Wikipedia instead? There are various Wikimedia projects managed by individual companies or other organizations.

Um, no. All Wikimedia projects are managed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Are you sure you're not confusing it with MediaWiki? Tito xd^(?!?) 07:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Why do we have bureaucrats? Dudtz 10/27/06 8:43 PM ET

I've suggested changing the name before - perhaps to "functionary" - but the current name was chosen to emphasise that bureaucrats do not have a higher status than other users, not to try to create a bureaucracy. Warofdreams talk 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's really funny that there bureaucrats without a bureaucracy. But really there is a bureaucracy, it is just very small. For example, changing your user name is a bureaucratic process. It would be more accurate to so that Wikipedia is not a big bureaucracy. -David Youngberg 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish

I have a seriour request. I've created a new username, Sergeant Gerzi is my new username. Is it possible to remove these contributions from my old username: Lieutenant D.G.[1] completely from Wikipedia? The problem is that my old username is a name of a real existing character and my new username "Sergeant Gerzi" is a created name from me. I've also saved things about my personality to my old username Lieutenant D. G. and that's why I want you to clear the contributions from my old username "Lieutenant D. G. Please do that. Sergeant Gerzi 13:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want the account's name to be removed from Wikipedia, you can request that it be renamed to something else (you'd need to request the rename while logged into that account though). When that's done, all the edits made from that account will be reassigned to the new username. Other than that, if you made any edits containing highly sensitive information, a possible solution is to send an e-mail to Oversight-l, which is the mail list for all the users on Wikipedia that have Oversight permission. In your e-mail, provide diffs for the edits you deem sensitive, and someone will look into it. Redux 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 15:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems deleting/renaming my account

Oops. I first tried to rename my account - but oops - there was another user with the name cookiemonster. (i tried searching wikipedia and google "wikipedia" + "user:cookiemonster" and nothing showed up when I did.) I then tried to delete my account out of frustration.

The histories are now somehow merged between me (cooltobekind) and cookiemonster

Could you please undo this somehow, rename my account, and delete my user and user talk page. Thanks Cooltobekind 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort has happened. You just moved your userpage to appear under another user's name. I've moved it back and deleted the redirects. If you want to change your username, make a request at WP:CHU. Warofdreams talk 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I Will Return

Just wanted to pop in and say "Hi. I have less time due to school at IMSA. I'll be back and active over breaks and over the summer." Please don't eat me? Thanks. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat recusal

Part of the controversy over the closing of Danny's recent RfA, as well as of RfA/Carnildo 3 and RfA/Sean Black 2, was that some of the bureaucrats who participated in closing these nominations had also participated in the discussions themselves, supporting the candidates. For administrators, guidelines separate these roles:

Wikipedia:Deletion process: "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest."

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

To increase impartiality and reduce controversy, I propose adding a similar statement to the "Instructions for sysoping someone" on this page. Tim Smith 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with adding it (although Taxman opposed Carnildo, and later struck it). It certainly is a lot better to let another 'crat close, since there are 21 of them, and I'm sure another can come and close instead. Majorly (hot!) 10:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ("Primary writing credit" for the Carnildo decision went to Danny, who had supported Carnildo.) Tim Smith 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to adding it to a relevant policy page. This page, however, is not a policy page; its seems to me to just be a "this is what bureaucrats are, these are who they are and here are some non-binding instructions about how to do common tasks". Or, at least, that's how I interpret this page upon first glance. --Iamunknown 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It really shouldn't need to be added. All bureaucrats should know that. Cbrown1023 talk 02:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The recent events surrounding Danny's RfA, however, suggest that not all know. I know that the bureaucrat who promoted Danny was not reprimanded by other bureaucrats but, at the same time, a few others said they would not have promoted. Recusal, for better or worse, may have resulted in a different outcome. --Iamunknown 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's was a special case. Otherwise, I can see no instance where this addition would be necessary. Cbrown1023 talk 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Danny's RfA was not the only case in which a bureaucrat who had supported the candidate then took part in the decision to promote. At RfA/Sean Black 2, Danny supported Sean Black and then promoted him. At RfA/Carnildo 3, "primary writing credit" for the decision went to Danny, who had supported Carnildo. All of these decisions were controversial.

At this point, I think we do need to state clearly that we expect bureaucrats who have participated in a discussion to recuse themselves from closing it, just as we do for admins. WP:CRAT is not a policy page, but I think it can serve this purpose. We might also clarify in the "Decision process" area of WP:RfA#About RfA that recusal extends to bureaucrats, and drop a note at WP:BN. Tim Smith 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who 'we' refers to, but I now know (due to your having said it) what you expect of me. If you wish to drop a note to the noticeboard to the effect of "I expect X, Y, and Z of you" please feel free to do so -- I am sure the bureaucrats will give your words careful consideration, as they should to all feedback from the community. Your expectations do not, however, constitute policy (especially when they apply to a position which traditionally has not been governed by hard policy). The community has at some point or another decided to trust each bureaucrat to live up to its expectations; if you believe I have failed to do this and no longer deserve my position, say so. However, we are not children (nor, like the administrators, legion), and have no need for playground rules. — Dan | talk 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My response is below. Tim Smith 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question Didn't Raul close Danny's? (and he didn't !vote) Cbrown1023 talk 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Rdsmith4 did. Majorly (hot!) 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all so painfully superficial. The decision was made by a group, of which I happened to volunteer to promote Danny. The fact that so many uninvolved bureaucrats agreed with my assessment eased what fear I had of subconscious partiality (for there was certainly no conscious partiality). Danny is such a high-profile figure that no bureaucrat can truly be called impartial: all have at least as much experience as I with Danny (which is, in fact, very little), and many have a great deal more. A few users were noisily upset with my purely procedural action, and some of them were even so kind as to make me aware of their concern. Very well, I'll submit to political decorum in future; but there is no reason for this to be codified. — Dan | talk 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I favor the proposed addition to WP:CRAT. To live up to the community's expectations, bureaucrats need to know what those expectations are. Of course, individual users can give them feedback: I did so myself at WP:BN after the Carnildo RfA. Worried and disappointed by the outcome, I wrote that "it is best for impartiality that [bureaucrats] not close discussions in which they have participated, unless the outcome is uncontroversial due to an obvious consensus or non-consensus." Others had expressed similar views; for example:

"If a bcrat votes on (pro or con) or sponsors a nomination (which is best avoided except in extraordinary circumstances) that bcrat should recuse him/herself from acting on the nomination unless the result is beyond dispute." — Cecropia (himself a bureaucrat, recently repromoted with 95% support)
"Bureaucrats who vote in particular RfAs really should not close them unless the consensus is clearly for promotion; if what Danny did was so correct, he should have left closing it to one of the other bureaucrats who didn't comment in the RfA." — tariqabjotu
"I believe many bureaucrats discuss RfAs, but they may not close one in which they have commented on, which seems perfectly legitimate to me." — Titoxd

Cecropia's and Titoxd's comments preceded RfA/Sean Black 2, tariqabjotu's preceded RfA/Carnildo 3, and mine preceded Danny's recent RfA. Yet at each of these RfAs, a bureaucrat who had supported the candidate nonetheless took part in the decision to promote. It is because the feedback already given to bureaucrats by individual users has repeatedly proved insufficient, that I favor making the point more strongly by adding a statement on recusal to WP:CRAT, similar to those for administrators at Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Such a statement would help to make clear to bureaucrats, both present and future, the decorum of recusal; I see it not as a superficial "playground rule", but as a serious measure for increasing impartiality and reducing controversy, just like the administrator recusal we already mandate. Tim Smith 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But you also left the meat of my comment out: I wouldn't blink if a bureaucrat promoted a candidate where the result is patently obvious. I also wouldn't blink if a 'crat closed an RFA against his own opinion (e.g. if Taxman opposed someone, then promoted him at the end of the RFA). When there's an obvious conflict of interest, well, then duh, they shouldn't promote, but there's also situations that are more innocuous and that could be adversely affected by how a hard-and-fast rule would be worded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Titoxd; I didn't mean to misrepresent your views. I actually made a similar exception in my comments after the Carnildo RfA, writing that "it is best for impartiality that [bureaucrats] not close discussions in which they have participated, unless the outcome is uncontroversial due to an obvious consensus or non-consensus." My preference, though, is to keep the wording simple and model it after Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, perhaps:

"As a general rule, don't close nominations in whose discussions you've participated. Let someone else do it."

How does that sound? Tim Smith 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take offense. The issue here is that while there is a dozen hundred admins, there's only about a dozen active bureaucrats; the "someone else" pile in admininistrative decisions is quite large, while it is extremely small for bureaucrat tasks. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but already, adminship discussions are rarely closed by bureaucrats who participated in them. Of the last 111 RfAs, I cannot find even one in which that happened. I see little harm, then, in codifying recusal, and I think doing so would help to increase impartiality and reduce controversy in cases like RfA/Danny, RfA/Carnildo 3, and RfA/Sean Black 2. Tim Smith 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There must have been other controversial nominations that were not closed by participating bureaucrats too. I am not sure about this, because it seems like a classic example of instruction creep. After all, if someone passed a Request for Barbecuing, he or she must have at least a modicum of common sense. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an RfA decision can be controversial even when the closing bureaucrat did not participate in the discussion: RfA/Ryulong 3 is an example. So granted, failure to recuse is not the only cause of controversy at RfA, and the proposed addition to this page is not a panacea. Nonetheless, some of our most controversial RfA outcomes were controversial in part because recusal was not observed. "Common sense" did not prevent bureaucrats who had supported Danny, Carnildo, and Sean Black from participating in closing their RfAs, nor did feedback from individual users prior to those controversial decisions. Consequently, I don't see the proposed addition as instruction creep. Rather, I see it as a way to augment and reinforce the feedback already given to bureaucrats, so as to make even clearer to them the decorum of recusal, and thereby at least help to increase impartiality and reduce controversy of the kind we have repeatedly seen. Tim Smith 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, I've always been an advocate of bureaucrats avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest in closing RfAs. The rare times that we've had a bureaucrat show actual apparent favoritism, it has created quite a fuss, with a bureaucrat resigning in at least one case. IOW, I think "a word to the wise" is sufficient, and this should cover admins and other functionaries as well. The only 'crats that I think might not be aware that this is a controversy are those that have not be active at RfA for some time. I think it would be a fair question to anyone running for a new RfB. -- Cecropia 23:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Activity?

How are we defining semi-active and why does not having done a bureaucrat activity in a month (re: User:Jwrosenzweig) make you inactive?

I'm really not sure what the point of this is. Secretlondon 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig has been inactive since 11 March actually. The list was done in terms of bureaucrat logs, but now it is by contributions. This makes more sense to me - if there happened to be a backlog of change usernames for instance, we'd know not to ask Linuxbeak, but somebody like Nichalp or Rdsmith4 who are actively editing. I basically restructured it like the admin list, with active, semi active and inactive. Hope that answers your questions. Majorly (hot!) 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

11 March -> 15 April is near enough a month to make no difference.. I agree with activity being in terms of editing as it could be argued that there's a shortage of bureaucrat work. It still seems a bit over the top to list it like this - how long did it take you to do it? Secretlondon 11:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of minutes :) Semi-active is probably over the top, and I wouldn't mind it being removed. I wasn't sure how to class them though, as they are neither active or inactive. Majorly (hot!) 12:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed security policy

Please see Wikipedia:Security for a proposed policy that may have ramifications for bureaucrats discovered to have weak passwords. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the note. I doubt that any Bureaucrat would have a weak password though :). Cheers, Redux 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm expecting carnage tbh. You won't need to be tech savvy to work on wikipedia - we are fabulously accessible to non comp sci graduates.. Secretlondon 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, since I'm not too familiar with :en-Wikipedia's procedures I'm posting here, hoping for some help. I'm trying to regain my initial account User:Nemissimo on the :en. I'm not able to recall the pw (didn't make a notice RL ;-( ) It would be great if anyone could help me to access it again. Since the account is clearly stating that it is mine (interwikilink) it should be possible. ;-)

If there should any doubt about my identity... I'm a administrator on the German project, the other admins should be able to confirm this easily...

I highly appreciate any help with this. Kind regards from Germany. My Userpage on the German Wikipedia --Nemissimo II 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can regain your account by logging in with your old name and pressing the "Email me a new password" button. -- Cecropia 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I answered on my de:userpage as requested. Thanks a lot for taking care of this issue! Regards. --Nemissimo II 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see your answer there. I'm going to refer this to User:Warofdreams, who is more up-to-date than I on username change policy. I will post on his talk page, and perhaps you can see his reply there. Cheers, Cecropia 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Cheers! --Nemissimo II 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an uncontroversial usurpation, where the target user agrees to it (as they are the same person as the usurper), interwiki links confirm that the two accounts are held by the same user, and the user has a positive edit history. I've

Done the usurpation. Warofdreams talk 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Maybe we should change the title "Bureaucrat" in accordance with WP:BURO. I know Bureaucrats are not the same as real life Bureaucrats, but maybe just to avoid confusion. J-stan ^Talk 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think changing the name would be more confusing. Andre (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest would be a good alternative name? WjBscribe 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'Janitors' has been proposed before, but I don't think that changing the name would really make that much of a difference. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That was actually for admins, I think. Andre (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as Titoxd said, it wouldn't change much - though I guess the present name is unflattering. I suppose on the usual theme we could have "caretaker", "custodian", "curator" (weirdly all start with "c"). I rather suspect achieving consensus on a change of name would be pretty difficult - they been crats a long time. WjBscribe 00:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC, UninvitedCompany chose 'bureaucrat' so it would be unflattering. The name bureaucrat indicates that it is not a glamorous position, but rather a position of responsibilty, and even a bit dull. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany chose the title? He wasn't an original bureaucrat or even in the early tier of "elected" bureaucrats. -- Cecropia 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That's why he chose it and that's part of what makes it a good title, although nonetheless people treat it with more reverence than it probably deserves. Andre (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Sapir-Whorf thing that doesn't really seem true. Andre (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It could have been called "toilet attendant" and people would prob still have revered it... WjBscribe 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had one of these you would need a toilet attendant. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop laughing at the two butt shaped buttons. If crats had those buttons, I would not want to be one :) J-stan ^Talk 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the degree of "flattery" bestowed upon those with the title. I was saying it's a little odd that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, yet we have Bureaucrats. As a possible name change, how about "Senior Administrator". I realize that nothing will change, but you know, gotta try to help. J-stan ^Talk 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for ways to help, I can point you to the backlogs. :) Andre (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop or crat. Thanks for the offer though :) J-stan ^Talk 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be to help with the backlogs. See Category:Wikipedia backlog. Andre (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. When the job was first created to take the burden off developers of setting admin bits, the job was named "bureaucrat" specifically because it was thought to be an unappealing title, so anybody who sought the job would do so to help keep RfA humming along, not gain a shiny new title. The first few 'crats were appointed, and then, when Bureaucrat Angela couldn't keep up because of her other duties she asked the admins who frequented RfA to stand for bureaucrat. That's when I and several others were "elected." Now bureaucrats are highly visible and lots of people want to be one; so much for an unappealing title. "Senior admin" is actually better sounding to my ears than bureaucrat. A bit more accurate title might be "Personnel Admin," but I don't think that's an important issue. Language seeks its own level. If Steward were renamed "Interwiki Sh*t Shoveler," that would become an honored title, too. -- Cecropia 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh, why do you say Personnel admin is better? I feel that just adding to the admin title would seem less flattering. When I think of a "Bureaucrat", I think of a government official - a title plenty of people seek. Making it seem like a wikipedian with a mop, a bucket, plus another valuable cleaning tool, seems like someone with even more responsibilities, detracting from the glory. J-stan ^Talk 18:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that calling the position "paperboy" wouldn't make it seem less appealing nowadays, either. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the name of the post is largely irrelevant. But I've always thought that the title "bureaucrat" does imply that we are deliberately creating a bureaucracy - whereas, we should be doing what we can to prevent bureaucracy from arising. My last suggestion was that "functionary" might be a sufficiently bland title, without being any more appealing than "bureaucrat". Warofdreams talk 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a proposal. First we have to agree on a new name. Your thoughts? J-stan ^Talk 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but looking to rename the position of "Bureaucrat" seems to me like another exercise in trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed. Maybe if the position was called "those-who-can-change-rights-locally", or some other verbose title, this would be something in need of reviewing, but as it stands it actually matters as much as it does saying "sysop", "administrator" or "admin", which means: not really important. Redux 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On a level, you are right, it doesn't really need to be fixed. My point was that it seemed odd that wikipedia is supposedly not a bureaucracy, but we have bureaucrats. Even though wikipedia Bureaucrats do not have the same duties as real life bureaucrats (if you hear of any government official that approves bots, let me know), but the title is a bit misleading. J-stan ^Talk 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained, the term "Bureaucrat" was not meant as a reflexion on Wikipedia, or on whether or not it is bureaucratic, but rather as a description of the job itself, which means to follow community consensus. Nearly 3 years after its creation, and following an amazing growth of the project in all directions, I believe people have started to read too much into the semantics of things. But as Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar. ;-)
In any event, something like this could not be decided, IMHO, within this Wikipedia exclusively. Since the other projects of the Foundation (the other Wikipedias, but also Wikinews, Commons, Wiktionary et al and the multiple languages they are available in) also have Bureaucrats (named after the equivalent word in the relevant language, such as "Burocratas" for pt; or "Burokrats" for de), this would need to be discussed Foundation-wide. As such, discussing this on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard of the English-language Wikipedia probably wouldn't help much to accomplish any of it. Perhaps Foundation-l? Redux 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I didn't even think of that. I was just trying to get an idea of how many people felt the same way. I am not a participant on the actual foundation, maybe another brave soul would be willing to take it all the way to the top. J-stan ^Talk 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Replying to a really old thread: not necessarily. The Spanish Wikipedia calls its admins and bureaucrats "bibliotecarios" (translation: librarians), so AFAIK, the Foundation doesn't care what people call themselves, for the most part. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The management of Wikipedia can't not be political process

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions.

From what I've seen looking into how Wikipedia is ran, you could find every type of polical system in there imaginable.

What's more interesting to me is that while I'm sure most people would agree that it will never reach a state of equilibrium, as networks grow, power seems to centralise - regardless of the motivations of the individuals.

And I see the real fundamentals of what Wikipedia is, what's it for, how it achieves it, who decides and who decides who decides are getting very interesting.

First of all, wikipedia is not a government. Second, if politics is what you describe it to be, free from government, completely based on society, then wikipedia has a political process all its own, based on consensus, not majority.

Perhaps consider becoming part of this political system by creating an account, and you might have greater insight in wikiculture. J-stan ^Talk 02:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this forum is for bringing the attention of Bureaucrats to relevant issues where there intervention might be necessary, or for discussing topics relevant to the role. General discussions such as these are better off on the Village Pump. So please, move it there if you wish to debate this further. Redux 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorting of crats by activity

It seems that Majorly and I are having a disagreement about how best to order this page. An edit war would be pretty lame so I thought I'd open it up to discussion. I agree with Andre's change to a list that classify crats first by crat actions performed - someone looking for help from a crat is best directed towards one that is doing crat work at the moment. Semi-active then reflects crats who are active editors but not performing crat tasks - a logical next port of call. It particularly avoids creating a rather odd "semi-active" category based on edits that is a bit of judgment call- how active must someone be to qualify as "fully active"? Anyway, other people's thoughts welcome and I will point Majorly to this discussion so he can explain why he prefers replicating a WP:LA style arrangement. WjBscribe 19:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If for whatever reason someone needed a bureaucrat, they'd want to go to one who was actively editing. This can include users who do not do many 'crat actions (e.g. Infrogmation who beat me to several blocks yesterday). I am sure if someone asked him to do a bureaucrat action, he would not decline. It thus makes sense to me to put all the active editors together, regardless of whether they use their rights or not.

I'm basing the rest of the list on WP:LA, particularly the semi-active category for ease - the bot updates those with a certain algorithm and I asked Rick Block to extend the bot to update this page. The list is there so users can see which bureaucrats are around and actually editing - it's not a stats page, or a page showing which bureaucrats do and don't use their tools. It's for showing their total activity. I see little use in it doing anything else. It only complicates things. And it's often inaccurate (who is to say two months is a good time?) Majorly (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some logic to that, particularly the Bot element. I still think the "semi-active" category is a bit artificial. Also crats' use of their tools suggests how willing they are to involve themselves in crat work - Kingturtle and TUF-KAT have performed no crat actions since 2004, Tim Starling really has other things to be doing and shouldn't be bothered with everyday crat stuff, and Cimon Avaro has made it pretty clear he isn't available for this kind of thing. Of course the crats who are active editor but don't use those tools are worth asking- but people are more likely to get the response they want from those who are actively doing crat work. If the idea is to direct towards people towards crats who can help them - we should be able to come up with something a bit more useful. Its a much shorter list than WP:LA and could be managed intelligently. WjBscribe 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if they are asked and they refuse to perform an action for no particular reason, I think they should resign being bureaucrats. No need to have the extra buttons if they make it clear they won't use them. Majorly (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly that any of the bureaucrats who have edited recently could perform a 'crat action, but if I were looking, I'd probably ask Andrevan before I'd ask Angela. Call me crazy, call me wacky; I'd look for someone who was active with bureaucrat actions recently. Also, WJBscribe's version divides the list into objective categories and lists the criteria for inclusion in active bureaucrats, active editors, and inactive bureaucrats. I don't know what the criteria are to define a semi-active bureaucrat (or a semi-active admin at WP:LA for that matter). WODUP 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to program the bot to update this list however anyone would like it updated. The current WP:LA definitions are:

inactive - 0 edits in the last 3 months (rechecked daily)
semi-active - 1-29 edits in the last 3 months (rechecked daily)
active - 30 or more edits in the last 3 months (rechecked only if necessary)

For whatever reason folks don't seem to move between these categories very often. I'm thinking about adding date of last edit so users who quit editing will be recognizable before the 3 months it takes to become "inactive" (but doing this for all admins would take the bot quite a while to figure out). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this bother you so much, Majorly? This setup has LESS information. Andre (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea. Majorly (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would less information ever be a useful thing, unless it is incorrect or misleading somehow? Andre (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's give all the information, as in this revision, and let readers use it as they wish. All the cons of this system mentioned above are of vanishingly little consequence, and the whole argument is thoroughly foolish. — Dan | talk 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Andre (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer User:Majorly's version as people who could do bureaucrat actions but don't are less helpful to people. We may even want to split it further into people who mainly do promotions vs people who mostly do renames etc. Secretlondon 21:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like you prefer Majorly's version, then. His lacks that information. Andre (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since most people want to turn this into a stats page, I think having bureaucrats by renames/promotions is a good idea. Majorly (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the version that classifies active editors is better. There aren't many cases where no bureaucrat is active that much any longer, but they still occur. Having the list of "backup" (for lack of a better word) crats delineated expands the pool of people to prod in case something comes up. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace Edits

How many edits does a user need until they nominate themselves for bureaucrat? -- PNiddy Go! 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Like RfA, there is no set edit count requirements (or account age). Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

People tend to have their own standards for what they look for in a bureaucrat, like with adminship. For example, a lot of people think that one should be admin for about a year before becoming a bureaucrat - even then, successful RfBs are rare... WjBscribe 03:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please revoke my admin status

I have looked and was not able to find the formal place to voluntarily revoke my administrator status. After attempting to deal with users through blocking, and having the blocks consistently over turned by other administrators, all the while calling for community feedback, of which I received none, i've concluded that the administrator position sucks and you can keep it. If this request is not sufficient for the removal of administrator rights then please provide instructions on how I may do so. Thank you. Triddle 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. You're not the only admin to find they have done something that the community changes back. We're all on a learning process here, and you can't put a foot forward without possibly putting a foot wrong. Sam Blacketer 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My request stands for instructions on how to voluntarily renounce my admin status. Triddle 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For your administrator status to be removed, you will need to follow the instructions at m:Requests for permissions, as only m:stewards are able to do this. Note that, under current practice, provided the desysopping is entirely voluntary, you can request admin status again without an RfA. Warofdreams talk 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)