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, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Hog Farm	97	2	5	98	Open	02:47, 22 December 2024	5 days, 13 hours	no	report

It is 13:19:10 on December 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

So I read the rfc (and voiced my opposition), but the more I think about this, the more I am trying to discern the rationale(s). What is the "preventative, not punitive" reason for this?

Concern about the account being hacked? Now that much of renames went global, pretty much anything a bureaucrat can technically do, is presumably reversible.

Concern that the person is "out-of-touch"? Well, as we well know from the "adminship activity standards", editing does not prove that at all. And further, one stays "in touch" by reading, not by editing, so the editing standards really are not indicative of much.

Concern that there are not enough hats to go around, in this virtual environment?

Are we just doing this as a sort of Recentism, or some other unnamed bias against editors we have not personally interacted with? (See also Wikipedia:Systemic_bias.)

Is it perhaps an act of "control", to stem a personal fear that some bureaucrat may "swoop in" and close a discussion in a way we might not like? I'm aware that some see low editing activity as "bad", simply because they feel that they cannot fully bring "pressure" to bear to semipassively "coerce" others into doing what they want, with the implication of harassment/wikistalking and/or various types of disruption to a user's talk page, or articles edited by the user, or discussions they propose or participate in, since, as they are a less active editor, they potentially provide less options to bring to bear. (And yes, this is a real concern of closers and others, with "extra" tools. More than once I've heard a closer say they merely "counted votes", rather than attempting to discern consensus, out of fear of reprisals.)

Or is this simply an "I want x"/"I don't want x"?

I've seen a lot of RFCs in my time, for many stated (and implied) reasons, such as the above.

I ask this sincerely. I think we should take a moment, and assess our motivation here.

I would like to think I am fairly open-minded, and am open to civilly discussing divergent points of view. And I am a firm believer in the "Wiki-way".

So what am I missing here? - jc37 20:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some other unnamed bias against editors we have not personally interacted with? I think that is somewhat correct, but would phrase it in a more positive tone. Crats, like other advanced permissions, are granted by a community based on trust. In an online community, like any other community, trust is developed through the creation of emotional bonds between individuals. One of the great problems of wikis like ours is that meatball:CommunityMayNotScale; there are so many people in our community that it is impossible for us to interact with everyone, and so our trust needs to operate on something other than our interpersonal connections between people. We come to rely on reputation. Often this reputation is a proxy for the strength, number, and quality of emotional ties one has within the community. As someone spends more time away from a community, their social bonds weaken: those they did know also leave, and new people they don't know join. As this process continues, eventually the member who left is forgotten by the collective because of the demographic changes inherent to a community, and with it their reputation. Wikipedia is interesting in that we have a superordinate goal of building an encyclopedia, so we have an alternate (and in fact, prefered) way to build reputation: working. When someone with permissions representing community trust leaves for a long time and then comes back, the community has a hard time continuing to trust them because the only proxies we have for trust no longer exist; their social and sweat-of-the-brow reputations are gone or diminished. The Crat permission (like others) serves to meatball:RewardReputation and encourage engagement with the community, so when that reputation is lost for whatever reason, the community tries to rectify the situation by removing the symbol of trust. The RfC, and inactivity standards in general, are reflections of the community attempting to decide what level of reputation is necessary to speak for meatball:TheCollective.

That's not to say it's a benign move. As you and Cecropia point out, cutting ties with an absent community member is painful for that member and often for the community as well. In the short term, it may feel like inactivity policies meatball:PunishReputation and serve as a mark of Cain on the participant should they wish to return. I don't think we've had someone return after such a hiatus and then attempt another RfX, so I don't think this is something we know. The problem is that, even if it doesn't punish reputation, it does dissuade reputation making it less appealing for a community member to return. That's a cost, but many people think it is an acceptable cost given that someone has already de facto left the community. People move on in their lives, and the community should be able to move on too. Having a tool by which the community and an absent member can part ways is a net positive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love this analysis and I love meatballwiki. Killiondude (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wugapodes, for your thoughtful - (I'm intending Shakespeare-like usage meaning thought-filled) - comments.

I too enjoy reading Meatball Wiki (I link to it on my user page : )

That said, I am pondering your comments, and find I am caught between conflicting assertions with regards to your comments on reputation.

If I am reading you correctly, you first suggest that trust may equate to reputation. And then suggest that, due to scale, editors may feel that the best way to illustrate reputation, is by "working", by which, I presume you mean, amassing edits/building a review-able edit history.

But then you suggest that lack of engagement/interaction with others causes a decline of someone's reputation.

Doesn't this seem like a contradiction in terms?

And that aside, why are we presuming an editor's amassed edits have a shelf life? This is a wiki, and each person's edits are still there to see, for now and always. Are we to presume that time=distrust? I'm not sure why that should be. The same edits are there, which caused us as a community to support their RFB, so, why would we stop AGF of an editor with no evidence to do so?

And while we're on the subject of reputation, one of the values that the community has oft-stated to look for in a bureaucrat is (to try to put it succinctly) an almost quiescent, level-headed nature. And discovering wiki editing habits of less-than-high-activity would seem to me to not be surprising in such a person.

So all that said, if you are suggesting that the reasons you stated, are the reasons for the rfc, I can believe your assertion, but that as a rationale just doesn't sound appropriate as a (set of) criteria for establishing trust. It almost sounds like a rationale for why we are building distrust. And I'm not sure that that is what we as collegiate encyclopedia builders should be doing.

So I guess I reiterate: What am I missing? - jc37 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had guessed you would appreciate them! I wasn't around during the heyday of wikis, and I wish meta had more of meatball-like community (maybe it does and I'm just missing it). I think my post was less a reason why we ought to have inactivity requirements and more a theory on why discussions on inactivity criteria seem to be a recurring theme. You're right to criticize it, and I think your points make sense. Dweller asked a (presumably rhetorical) question in his opposition: "Why do we so often chase people away from the project instead of concentrating on making people feel welcome?" I think it's something we need to grapple with, and I said elsewhere that maybe inactivity requirements are an c2:AntiPattern. The problem is we rarely have counter proposals. How do we get inactive crats back, or at the very least, convince them to say goodbye before leaving? Same with admins, or really any other editor. I don't know.

Your points about reputation are all interesting to think about. One point I really like is The same edits are there, which caused us as a community to support their RFB, so, why would we stop AGF of an editor with no evidence to do so? I think it's that social dynamics just don't work like that. In the abstract, I agree that the edits should stand for themselves, but I think the community aspect of the encyclopedia leads to dynamics that undercut that ideal. Maybe Wikipedia has become more meta:Metapedian over time?

But to your point about reputation and contradiction, I think of it more like a leaky bucket. As long as the hose is on, you'll fill it, but if you leave the hose off for too long, all the water leaks out. But I think we need more than a two-value logic system; the empty bucket isn't distrust, but simply neutrality. We could also fill the bucket with sewer run-off and people would distrust the person carrying around a bucket full of sewage. That bucket also leaks, and if the person stops trying to fill it with sewage, eventually they'll also be at neutral, and can eventually fill it with water and be welcomed back into the community similar to how we handle vandalism and unblocks and such. That doesn't really answer your question, and I think I also conflated a diachronic analysis and a synchronic analysis which might be why it's a little confusing. This is more musings than a solid argument for why we should do things a certain way. I think you're raising interesting questions, and I appreciate that you're pressing the community to think about them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes put it much better than I could have but I will add in terms of the honoring of past work, I would strongly support SilkTork's proposal to give former crats a usergroup that recognized this fact. In this way should they return to the project (and I hope they do since I believe among the best places to find "new" editors are people who edited here in the past) they can get respect owed to them for their past service while building the reputation and doing the work Wugapodes described. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the sentiment, but if we get technical, we're all Wikipedians here. Aren't we all "emeritus" after being "auto-confirmed"? I don't know if we should be so focused on editcount-itis or the "when" of the timestamps of an edit. Are we really telling editors: "Thanks, but what have you done for me lately." ? - jc37 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User groups are (ideally) assigned based on whether assigning this user group to a certain user will be beneficial to the project in that this user can now help out more. There is a reason why the symbols for admins and crats are a mop and a wrench respectively. They denote that these are technical, often thankless, jobs that are restricted merely because we cannot trust everyone to use them correctly. They are not achievements that should be put on display for the sake of having them (an idea that Wikipedia:Hat collecting describes pretty well). A "former crat" usergroup would only serve a single purpose: To give these users a hat to proudly present on their userpage (or wherever else). Because "respect" is not something that comes with having a certain hat (or multiple hats). There are plenty of "non-hatted" users I respect greatly just like I assume there are plenty of users who do not respect me just because I have certain hats. Regards SoWhy 05:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, why is this discussion happening here rather than at the actual RfC, where such meta discussions would typically occur? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking merely for myself, it's here for several reasons, including that I think it's actually beyond the scope of the rfc, and could potentially derail it or at the very least muddy the waters there. AFAICT, I believe that what I'm asking about, is more sort of "self-reflective", and a bit broader in topic than that at the rfc. And besides that, WP:BN is, AFAIK, the appropriate place to discuss such "meta" matters of this topic. - jc37 00:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Especially now that the other threads are achived, this thread has been robbed of context to the point of barely being comprehensible. I think it should be moved to the RfC's talk page. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Cecropia started a section similar to this it became unpleasant rather quickly. I could see this one going a similar route had it been posted there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to a minor point above made by Wugapodes, we have in fact had users who have had a successful RFA after lengthy inactivity. I recall Opabinia regalis after her second RFA; the List of resysopped users also brings up Abecedare; his RFA was in the same month as Opabinia regalis's, as it happens. I can't find any failed RFA's after lengthy inactivity, at least by checking the relevant list. Graham87 04:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP states most crat actions are reversible. However, a re-sysop is not, unless a messy abcom case in started. That is essentially the sole reason why I supported the RfC. I do like the "emeritus" idea. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. RonBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]