Wikivoyage talk:Bureaucrats

Why was this moved out of the Wikivoyage shared namespace? – (WT-shared) cacahuate  talk 20:58, 7 July 2007 (EDT)


 * The Wikivoyage Shared namespace is deprecated: (WT-shared) Jpatokal 13:06, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Local removal of adminship
This discussion should be moved to Wikivoyage talk:Bureaucrats once that page has been imported from backups

We began to have a discussion here Wikivoyage talk:Script policy regarding local bureaucrats ability to remove admin and bureaucrat rights. This was something we always had prior to the move to the WMF. We haven't had much need for the ability, really, but it may be helpful in the future with cases like this one, where a bot needs temporary admin rights. I'm actually not sure what the logic behind denying this ability to bureaucrats is.

Would restoring removal of adminship rights seem reasonable locally? --Peter Talk 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is more of a "opt-in" thing; by default WMF wikis require stewards to remove admin/crat rights, unless the wiki decides that they would like the ability. (For comparison the English Wikipedia only had this turned on in 2011). As far as removing crat rights by bureaucrats, that also is possible, but you run the risk of significant damage if a bureaucrat's account gets hacked. --Rschen7754 20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support granting 'crats the right to remove admin bits. I'm fine with needing a steward to remove a 'crat bit, though; seems a good safeguard.  LtPowers (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with LtPowers. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support local removal of admin bit only, per LtPowers. This, that and the other (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – sumone10154 ( talk ) 20:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support --Rogerhc (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested at 43851. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RenameUser
Do we have a policy on what (when, etc.) username changes are allowed? LtPowers (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, can I change my name to User:I'll tell you wycsi? Texugo (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Tangential comment) Note that this will not change your name across all WMF sites, and if you want to keep your SUL account unified you will need to request a rename at all wikis you have an edit on. --Rschen7754 03:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How to create a user account is the closest we have. Wikivoyage talk:How to create a user account touched on this, and my suggested practice would be to not rename (and thereby sever) SUL accounts, and request that users look to rename their global account name. --Peter Talk 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is not possible to globally rename users (yet); you have to request a rename from bureaucrats on every site you have an account with edits on. If there are no local bureaucrats on a wiki, you can ask a steward for assistance, but they refuse to do renames on a wiki with bureaucrats. --Rschen7754 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I guess [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:How_to_create_a_user_account&diff=2055102&oldid=2054377 I have a short memory]. Thanks for the reminders, folks.  LtPowers (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Process of revoking admin rights
The (obvious?) and complementary section on revoking admin rights (as opposed to nominating someone to be granted them) in the "notice" section at Administrator nominations was recently removed.

If that is not the obvious place for a nomination and subsequent discussion of revoking admin rights, where then should it be?

Should the procedure be kept secret lest it be abused? -- A l i c e ✉ 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with a specific admin's status, you should discuss with that admin and others first before initiating any kind of formal unelection procedure. LtPowers (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment we're talking about general policy rather than any individual admin qualifying for their status to be revoked, so would you like to add the necessary replacement text to the relevant page - and tell us
 * a) where is the right place for a nomination and subsequent discussion of revoking admin rights and
 * b) whether the procedure be kept secret lest it be abused?
 * I was speaking generally; it may have been clearer if I had said "If, in the future, someone has a problem with a specific admin's status...". If a nomination is deemed necessary, Administrator nominations would be the place for it, but it's not necessary to specify that because the location of the discussion can be explained once the process gets to that point.  LtPowers (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you do think it's best kept a secret amongst ourselves until and unless the need arises? -- A l i c e ✉ 01:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a secret, but there's no point in making an open invitation, either. Why is this so important to you?  LtPowers (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of the way Wikitravel went bad. I see the same incipient megalomaniac/Stalinist tendencies here in some quarters. -- A l i c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 07:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just let that comment speak for itself. LtPowers (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New bureaucrat
Peter is retired and I think we should look for a new crat to fill his space. Please suggest who should be nominated for the cratship? If I would have to nominate someone, that's Ikan Kekek. --Saqib (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing against him, but do we need more crats, especially since renaming will be handled by stewards sometime within the next year? --Rschen7754 18:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could take it or leave it, but Ikan would be a good choice if we do want another crat. Texugo (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * German version have four crats, Spanish have six, French have five, Italian have six, while Dutch have five, why can't we have one more? --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We actually have 7. Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat. --Rschen7754 18:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ops. I thought we've only 2 left. --Saqib (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we don't need another bureaucrat, then, but thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm perfectly content to remain a regular admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We only have two regular users here who are bureaucrats. I'm not clear there is a role for them apart from sysopping.  --Inas (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jani and Evan have 'crat status for historical reasons. Roland, DerFussi, and Hans have it for technical reasons (which may be out of date, come to think of it).  I originally applied for 'crat status because Ryan was involved in legal proceedings and Peter was going to be on vacation.  Absent those factors, I wouldn't have applied.  Considering how little there is for us to do at the moment (applications for account merges have dried up to nothing), I don't think there's much of a need for more.  LtPowers (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisited
While the workload on bureaucrats is generally very low, I'm going to be traveling extensively later this year, and that will leave only LtPowers as an active bureaucrat. I think it's important to have more than one person available to handle renames, WT contribution merges, and promote people to admin, so what thoughts do people have about adding a third active bureaucrat? It was suggested above that Ikan Kekek might be a good option (if he's willing to add a few more buttons), or alternately Texugo has been around and active for many years and thus also seems like a good candidate. Thoughts? If there is consensus to add a third, and if someone is willing, then I can start a nomination. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your confidence. I'd prefer to decline, though. Texugo is a great candidate and I think he would have everyone's confidence; he certainly has mine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to do it. And thanks for the vote of confidence. Texugo (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick responses - I've started a nomination at Administrator nominations. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Check Users group
I would like to suggest we have a couple of administrators with Check Users access. I suspect we have more sock-puppets than we think. In particular I would like to block more Telstra vandal users then we currently have but currently there is the risk of incorrectly hitting and innocent new user. Would like to volunteer myself and who is always active against vandals and disruptors. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone would have to explain to me how to do this. But you know, I think the obvious step is to simply filter out all Telstra users with unregistered email addresses, and I don't understand why no-one with technical knowledge has done this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked about that but could not find anyone who thought it was possible. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time we went down this path, we came to the conclusion that for the limited time it was required, that Stewards could do what was required here. I'm not convinced the situation has changed, or that we have a framework ready.  --Inas (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With all respect to the current set of stewards, for whatever reason, they can be a fickle lot, the problems need to be voiced with them - as at times they can be unresponsive and choosy. Whereas the checkuser tool with a regular set of admins would, in my opinion be more immediate and helpful to tackle the issue. I would support the tools being given to experienced admins as a potential start.  Even in a trial sense, to ascertain the issues from the perspective of being able to see what is happening. JarrahTree (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is creation of CheckUser group a decision of this sites Bureaucrats or of the Stewards? Any process that needs to be initiated? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The information is here: CheckUser policy. It looks to me like we would need to nominate two users, have a discussion, and then contact the stewards. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure we can get support from 25 contributors but hopefully consensus will be enough. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone else want to be considered for CheckUser? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we have more info about practice to date, please. At present this function is done for us by Wikimedia stewards, right? How often has WV requested checks by the stewards? For example, how many requests per year over the last 5 years? Nurg (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not aware of any requests, but maybe other do. Not really what I was looking for. Want to block sockpuppet account when created, not days later when we know what damage has been done. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Searching the archive of the requests at Meta, it appears there have been two requests in the 5 and a half years of the English WV. Does that sound about right?
 * The question re speed of checking is: will it be done faster by one of the 2 or 3 local checkusers, or will it be done faster by one of the 34 stewards that are available? Nurg (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just tested, response is reasonably quick, but not sure how long they would tolerate multiple requests. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the idea, but do not (yet) want to put myself forward. I'm still getting a hang of the admin tools. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When we're making too many requests from the Stewards for them to satisfy, then we should appoint our own. There is no evidence of any delay being caused by this process.  No evidence of dramatic damage being caused by Sockpuppets that is out of control. Until then, there is no need.  This is a solution looking for a problem.  Our processes for when Checkuser would be used are non-existant, and I'm concerned that without this framework, we shouldn't be going here.  Also, the argument of 'quicker response' holds no water.  The multiple stewards are nearly always available.  Once we appoint checkusers of our own, they will no longer assist - as per their rules. I definitely don't support this proposal at this point.  There is no need.  --Inas (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So why does no one else make requests to the steward? It can take a few hours, depending on the timezone you are on but there is a response. To put things into perspective nearly half of new users and a good number of new pages are Telstra entries. More than are currently being marked as such. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think its unrealistic to think that a couple of local checkusers on the local site would result in an improved response time. You'd have to give every active admin checkuser, and I'm certain that's not the intended use of the priv.  --Inas (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Inas: Other than "there's no need", which I and others don't agree with, what is your argument against appointing a couple of willing admins as checkusers? What harm could it do? It could clearly do some good for the site, and might be an effective tool against Telstra and the latest "fuerdai" moron. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My arguments are. 1. Once we appoint local, then the stewards would no longer be involved.  And this would make us less able to cope with a situation where we actually needed a checkuser, and the relevant admins were travelling, etc.  2. We have no policy around the use of this facility that has been agreed by the community, and acceptable for privacy considerations.  3. We have made no attempt to make use of the existing facility we have for checkuser.  Not once. 4.  The people arguing in favour are the people who want the authority to do this.  This is unhealthy.  People arguing in favour should not be putting themselves forward.
 * So, we end up with a worse response, subject to arbitrary use, without a policy foundation. We shouldn't move forward with this discussion in this quiet admin corner of wikivoyage.  We're talking about giving the authority to admins to check the origin IP of accounts on this site without any control on how or when this will be done. This will affect every single user, and the people proposing it should let everyone on the site know that their origin IP (company they are working for, etc) will be used by anonymous admins here without any controls.  --Inas (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Old bureaucrats
Shouldn't there be some kind of procedure, akin to how admin rights are revoked for an inactive account, to strip people who haven't worked here for years of their bureaucrat rights? There is currently one such bureaucrat, User:Hansm, who hasn't made any contributions since 2013. Doesn't letting them keep "tools which could be dangerous in the wrong hands" pose a security risk? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think we would need to ask a steward to revoke an inactive bureaucrat's status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Inactivity policy
Before we do any of the debureaucratting (if that's a word), I think we should have a policy on what's the time limit for inactive bureaucrats. Unlike inactive admins, inactive bureaucrats pose even more of a security risk – if the account falls into the wrong hands, the compromised account might even have the potential to severely damage the site. From Special:Diff/4496900, suggested it could be 1 year, but I think the criteria should be even tighter. Based on Commons' inactive admins policy, I propose that bureaucrats need to: If they don't do the following, then it signifies that they really don't need the tools. Their administrator status should however, be unaffected by this.
 * make at least 10 edits for every 6 months;
 * make at least two admin actions for every 6 months.

It might seem a bit over the top, but it is a serious security risk. Other thoughts? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a year is fine. You might be on travel for several months and there might not be pending admin jobs to pick up if you don't have the time to monitor the wiki actively, so 6 months could mean we have to remove and renominate people who have happened to be busy. Being away longer than that, one should perhaps ask for removal of the flag until one comes back. –LPfi (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC) (originally made on Wikivoyage talk:User rights nominations and copied here by ThunderingTyphoons!)
 * Commons have enough people to choose the most active ones, and here we have people who often are away from home, perhaps where Internet connections are unreliable – also security-wise. I don't think a person who is away for 6 months is unsuitable as bureaucrat. An inactive account is not any more insecure than an active one per se, just that an abandoned account is an unnecessary risk, and that it might not be monitored. Not logging in doesn't prevent you from monitoring your edit history, and not doing administrative actions even less so. Also, other seasoned editors should monitor the logs, so that a compromised account (active or inactive) taking odd administrative action is noticed. –LPfi (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflit) So why can't such a bureaucrat (or even admin) just ask for their privileges to be suspended for the duration of their trip? Any sysop who did that would surely have the full confidence of other Wikivoyagers when they returned and be quickly restored to the role. If you're going away for months, with no intention of carrying on your sysop role, and possibly no time to even login to WV, that is a security risk. The more responsible thing is surely then to voluntarily give up the role for a limited time, rather than leave without a word for extended periods. And if anyone insisted on keeping the role even when not using it, it would suggest they considered it a status symbol rather than a tool.
 * Also, just wondering, are there reasons other than security concerns over potentially-compromised accounts for the number of bureaucrats to be limited? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 100 per cent agree with . We're less than 1 per cent of the size of Commons; we have eight bureaucrats, but Commons only has seven. Wikidata, a wiki that's also significantly larger than en.voy, only has three. If an account has been inactive for 6 months, then you can safely assume that they're not going to be doing any 'crat duties for a while. This is already evident – within our own 'crat list, per |revision-delete|log-delete|restore|re-block|unblock|re-protect|unprotect|rights|merge|import|abusefilter|contentmodel X-tools, only has made an admin action, let alone a bureaucrat action. It really just means the other seven are inactive and don't need the tools.
 * regarding your question, I couldn't find a reason from Bureaucrat, but I believe that's the main reason why bureaucrats should be kept to a minimum. That said, I did a bit of digging on other WMF projects and in no other English-language or multilingual project did I find that bureaucrats should be kept to a minimum. In fact, you could even say the same for admins too. But that's a discussion for another day. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly makes sense for bureaucrats to tell when they are not going to do anything pertaining to that role for months, to alert the other bureaucrats and to let us others know we should ask stewards to do what needs to be done, if all are away. But I don't think we should have stewards remove the flag for somebody being away for a few months. If such announced breaks aren't counted when activity is checked, then that should be told in the policy, and it isn't evident that they shouldn't be. (Another reason to keep bureaucrats few is that the risk of electing somebody unsuitable becomes lower, both because of the raised bar and because of pure probabilities.) –LPfi (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (On numbers: it isn't about being many enough to handle the load, but the risk that none is available. –LPfi (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC))
 * If none are available (at least for a week or so), then stewards can handle the job. It's the same reason why we don't have any local CUs, and why we probably won't get one anytime in the next decade. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Inactivity may be a reason for removal of bureaucrat rights, but I question the criteria. Admin actions are somewhat orthogonal to a bureaucrat's duties, for starters; I'm not clear what the connection is between the two. Powers (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'll be on the road from the 10th-27th and will likely be spending less time on Wikivoyage during much of that period. My feeling is that a year without any edits or activity is simplest to determine, so why don't we start there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Any edit or action shows that the person is still around and hasn't abandoned the site. Bureaucrat actions shows that the person has time for those duties. I think the former has been the main fear. For the latter, a number of actions per half-year shows very little. They may happen to be around when they are needed one year without being around the next time. –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope we don't ever have a Lofty abyss situation here, but what I've found is that most admins listed in Special:ListUsers/sysop make one edit every so often and never use their tools. If they don't use the tools, then they don't need them; that's not the main point here though – why I'm more firm about this for bureaucrats is that, if a 'crat doesn't use their admin tools, then they obviously aren't using their bureaucrat tools and if they aren't using their tools, then they don't need it.
 * I still think one year is far too long and poses a significant security risk. Remember, bureaucrat accounts do have the capability to essentially destroy the site, and especially in a wiki where there are few admins around at certain times of the day (particularly between 01:00 to 06:00 UTC). Even say, if a bureaucrat goes on a break for exactly six months (and their tools aren't stripped), and comes back a day, makes two edits (and no admin actions) after and then disappears, never to be seen for a while, then essentially they're not using their tools. While this hasn't exactly been happening here, I'm seeing similar activity levels for about half. (Disclaimer: I've been planning  propose reducing the admin inactivity policy from 2 years to 1 year, and will do so once we resolve this discussion – this will bias my opinion about how long can bureaucrats be inactive) SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 10:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All actions can be undone. If a bureaucrat goes crazy, stewards can be called upon to desysop and block them and undo all their actions, but right now, that's a theoretical danger. I think 2 years of inactivity for an admin and 1 for a bureaucrat is simple. I wouldn't want to reduce the inactivity period for admins to 1 year, because that creates more work for us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does create more work for us, but that's why we have bureaucrats ;-) (plus, Commons does it just fine). The reason I haven't put my hand up for bureaucrat yet is because I think I'm still too new to this community, but I'm happy to do so in order to handle with inactive admins. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support a minimum requirement of one admin action/edit a year. Compared to Commons, Wikivoyage is not as busy so I don't believe we should be as stringent. A 12 month-timeline also allows editors to come back after a break, perhaps from a long overseas trip, which is more likely to happen in a wiki of travel enthusiasts. Gizza ( roam ) 12:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One reason why the admin/bureaucrat activity requirements are becoming very strict on some wikis is because the rules and policies change regularly and users that return after a break may not move with the times. In contrast, policies on Wikivoyage have been fairly stable. Someone who has been on a hiatus since 2017 could come back tomorrow and edit most things as they did back then without much trouble. Gizza ( roam ) 12:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing magical happens at the 6 months point, nor at the point someone becomes inactive. If an admin or bureaucrat account is compromised today and the admin is leaving for a one-month trip to Antarctica, then the cracker has a month for doing what they will. There is little that can be done in a year that cannot be done in a month. The point with the limits is more that somebody who has been absent a year is likely to be absent for five more years, while I think there are many scenarios where one isn't active for a some months and then comes back. Three months on a trip and then returning to a workplace that has gone crazy. When that's over, you might just want to relax with your family. A whole year off more seldom comes unexpectedly, and stewards probably do not mind to flip the flags twice in those cases. –LPfi (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to DaGizza's point: Commons is constantly having to delete files, numerous files every day. That is way different from this site. And they are way behind in important work, with things like Valued Image sets having been broken for years and a refusal to change "Quality images candidates" to "Quality image candidates" because no-one is willing to edit all the links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You said: "if a 'crat doesn't use their admin tools, then they obviously aren't using their bureaucrat tools" but again I don't see the connection here. I don't think that's obvious at all. Can you explain why you think it is? Powers (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The connection is they aren't using their tools. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 00:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems everyone but myself are in favour of adopting a 1-year limit + 1 admin action for inactive bureaucrats. Any final objections before I add this to the policy page? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that means one admin or bureaucrat action. I don't know if that is important if they otherwise are active, but it does not sound like a burden. No objections. –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks okay (with LPfi's added wording).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems sensible. Not taking any admin or bureaucrat actions in a year is not a security risk, but if you're not using your tools at all, why have them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. do any pages on meta have to be updated before this is implemented?  SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just . (FWIW although I'm not as active here I think 1 year/1 admin action is good - bureaucrats just don't have a lot of tasks anymore like they used to). --Rschen7754 18:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'll mass mail all 'crats in just a moment. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 06:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mass messaged all 'crats. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also in support of 1-year activity policy. On a related note, will be de-bureaucrated under this proposal because they have been inactive since October 2020 (in WV and elsewhere). <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 03:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They will be, and so will a bunch of other 'crats for not making an admin action. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to come back and reply. I could see someone using their bureaucrat tools but not their admin tools, so that's why I said I didn't see a connection. That's been resolved with the adopted wording, though. Powers (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the x-tool world, admin action = admin and/or bureaucrat action. I thought everyone knew that but it seems not. Apologies if I confused you all. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the "x-tool world" and why would they be equal? Normally
 * $$A = A \cup B \iff A \supseteq B $$
 * (in the x-tool world it seems admin action is redefined such that there is no term for plain admin actions, i.e. $$A \supset B$$ ).
 * –LPfi (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hideous flashbacks from formal logic class.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats 2022/09
As mentioned in my mass message, time to do an inactive bureaucrat check. All admin stats come from |revision-delete|log-delete|restore|re-block|unblock|re-protect|unprotect|rights|merge|import|abusefilter|contentmodel Xtools which also includes bureaucrat stats. Per the new inactivity policy, here are a list of 'crats who are eligible to have their rights removed for inactivity:
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="April 11, 2021">2021-04-11 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 2, 2022">2022-09-02 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 21, 2022">2022-08-21 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 2, 2022">2022-09-02 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 20, 2022">2022-08-20 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="July 30, 2022">2022-07-30 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="October 26, 2020">2020-10-26 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )

Here are the bureaucrats that have met the requirements to keep their rights and will not lose their privileges due to inactivity:
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 3, 2022">2022-09-03 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 3, 2022">2022-09-03 )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 3, 2022">2022-09-03 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 2, 2022">2022-09-02 )


 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 5, 2022">2022-09-05 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="March 24, 2022">2022-03-24 ) – moved from above
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 ) – moved from above
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 16, 2022">2022-09-16 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 16, 2022">2022-09-16 ) – moved from above
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 ) – moved from above

Some things to keep in mind:
 * If I've used red text, it means the user mentioned hasn't met the specific requirement for keeping their extra shiny buttons; green text indicates the opposite.
 * "Within the last year" = no admin or bureaucrat actions since September 4, 2021

I'll send a mass message to all bureaucrats at risk of losing their privileges in the next hour or two. , how long should we wait before making a request on SRP? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Notified the seven accounts listed. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder! I just did an admin activity, and I'll try to keep my activity up in the future. --EvanProdromou (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I've struck your account and moved it below. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 02:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say, give the bureaucrats in question at least a week and maybe 2 weeks to reply. But do we really need to de-bureaucratize people like User:LtPowers, who are clearly not security risks because they have continued to edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks seems reasonable. But if they haven't made an admin or bureaucrat action, they're not using their tools and if they're not using it, then they really don't need those extra shiny buttons that normal admins don't have as was agreed above (see Rschen7754's comment). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 04:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * True. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Have moved Roland down. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two weeks is about right, plus you already mass-messaged them about the new policy back on 18th Aug.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will keep a reminder for Sep. 18. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * May last admin edit was in March.24th 2022 -- DerFussi 06:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for overseeing that – it wasn't on the xtools database so I completly missed it. I've moved your username down below. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem. Recently i am busy on voy/de with some new Wikidata modules. WD gets more and more complex which causes much work. Maybe I will introduce them later here, if you are interested. Greetings from Cottbus. -- DerFussi 09:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've now taken some admin actions. Powers (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Only ACF, Texugo, and Jpatokal remain. As none of the three users have chosen to reply nor make an admin or bureaucrat action, I've requested removal at Steward requests/Permissions. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ACF and Texugo have had their privileges removed, but seems to have used the   function, meaning they will retain their privileges (cc ).  SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 12:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually not aware of consciously using that, but I'm fine either way :) Jpatokal (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we need seven bureaucrats?
I know we discussed this just five months ago, but after this discussion, I am wondering if a project of this size even needs this many bureaucrats.

One of the things we need to acknowledge is that many of this site's bureaucrats have been so since the early days of this site or from the times of Wikitravel. But let's accept it: our extremely lax requirements mean that most bureaucrats only lose their privileges when they also lose their admin privileges due to inactivity. Some may not like this fact, but it's the reality, and let's face it, the truth can hurt.

While having this many bureaucrats would have made sense 10 years ago, now with everything centralised, bureaucrats only have two roles: promoting a user sysop/desysopping and assigning the bot flag to bots.

However, this is 2023, not 2013, and we don't need so many (redundant) bureaucrats who rarely get involved in the processes that actually require a bureaucrat. Out of our seven bureaucrats, only and  have been actively involved in such processes. The other five have barely done any administrative work, which brings this back to the main point: if they have barely done any admin work, then they do not have the need to possess 'crat rights (remember, bureaucrats don't have much of a purpose anymore; also read Rschen7754's comment above).

What's my solution, you ask? I'm going to start a nomination to remove the other five bureaucrats who have done almost no proper admin work over the past few years. However, I'm not going to do it now, 1. because I'll be out-of-town for two weeks and 2. because I'm going to wait for some further input before proceeding. But ultimately, we do not need so many bureaucrats when they don't have much of a purpose anymore.

-- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't need 7, with most being inactive as bureaucrats, but more than 2 would be fine, like 3-4. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary to nominate people to be de-sysopped outside our normal procedures. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at all edits, none of the five are completely inactive, but some are way more active than others: is here at least a couple of times a week and  on average once a week (sometimes more, sometimes less). If we do need three or four active bureaucrats, those two would be the obvious users to retain. They may not be active in admin work, but they are available if the community needs them. By contrast,  and  tend to go a month or two between edit sessions, while  drops in at best a few times a year. I would assume they're not available for bureaucrat work on the average week.
 * But do we even need three bureaucrats? I've been a bureaucrat since 31 August, and haven't used the extra tools once. For part of that time I wasn't very active, but I don't believe I missed anything that another bureaucrat had to do in my place. As long as and I remain available, in good health and uncorrupted by the awesome power we [don't] wield, couldn't we get by with two? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be available, they don't need to make edits. E.g. RolandUnger is much more active on devoy. As long as they check pings (which is possible even by e-mail), they can do their work whenever needed. I also don't think the security is a major problem, as long as the accounts aren't abandoned; bureaucrats shouldn't have weak passwords or security-wise bad habits anyway. On the other hand, I believe 2–3 bureaucrats are enough, so if somebody want to resign, that's no problem. –LPfi (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I am mostly daily active on de and do module, template and design programming there and I am available if there are things to be fixed over here. -- DerFussi 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats 2023/09
We did a 'crat check this time around last year. Since I'm not a bureaucrat, I can only suggest that we remove all rights on September 15, two weeks from September 1 (let me know if another date works better). List from Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat and Xtools similar to last time. Admin activity dates are as of September 1, 2022.

Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements:
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 16, 2023">2023-08-16 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 14, 2023">2023-08-14 ; did not make any admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year )

Bureaucrats who have met the requirements for retaining 'crat privileges and will not have their rights removed:
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 24, 2023">2023-08-24 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="August 23, 2023">2023-08-23 )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 16, 2023">2023-08-16 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="June 22, 2023">2023-06-22 )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="August 20, 2023">2023-08-20 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 23, 2022">2022-09-23 )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="July 18, 2023">2023-07-18 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 )
 * ( last edit on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 ; last admin or bureaucrat action on <abbr title="September 4, 2022">2022-09-04 )

Yellow text indicates that the user's last edit or admin action was around last year's bureaucrat check.

Once I've received the date confirmation, I will send out a notice to DerFussi and Jpatokal. Anything else that I've missed?

-- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You can go ahead and remove my bureaucrat bit. I'd like to retain admin though. Jpatokal (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're one of the site's more active admins edit-wise, which is all that matters for admin activity. I'll go ahead and make a request on SRP to remove the bureaucrat bit. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As Jpatokal. Sorry, I am on holiday now. You can remove the bureaucrat bit as well. The normal admin rights are enough on my side as well. I just finished the Wikimania and had some talks, especially concerning translation features and better Wikidata access. Going to update you guys soon after my holiday. -- DerFussi 06:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – thanks for both of your service, and enjoy your time in SG, DerFussi! SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * given that RolandUnger and Evan now do not meet the criteria for retaining 'crat privileges (hence the yellow text), should I sent out a mass message and when should I make the request on SRP? SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Roland Unger has continued to edit, so there's no security issue with his continuing to be a bureaucrat, but in any case, we can ask if he still wants that flag. As for Evan, sure, you can contact him, but I suspect what he'll do is just make one admin edit to retain his status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With bureaucrats, it's less of a security issue but more of an issue of just the lack of need for the tools. Many wikis, including the English Wikibooks (the other wiki where I'm a sysop on), now have no bureaucrats simply due to the lack of pressing need for the right, apart from changing the user rights of an admin or future-admin and the occasional bot flag, all of which can also be done by stewards. At least on en.voy, the active presence of you, tt! and (relatively) Powers means that we don't need to completely get rid of 'crats, but it does mean we don't require 5 'crats. Anyway, I'll leave a message on both users' talk pages when I'm on desktop (and sorry for the bad grammar and long sentences – I'm on mobile rn and can't be bothered to fix formatting). -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – see Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it's September 18, I've made two requests on SRP. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – see Steward requests/Permissions/2023-09. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)