Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 1

message: I successfully utilized the system to make Tillwe and Francs2000 admins. However, when I tried to make Pakaran and Cprompt admins the system failed. 
:User 'Cprompt' could not be made into a sysop. (Did you enter the name correctly?)
Any ideas? Kingturtle 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They are on the Administrators list... were they admins before you started? Failing that, maybe case-sensitivity? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh duh....they were to be made into bureaucrats. that's why. Kingturtle 23:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  troubles? 

message: I am working on new policy for the dutch wikipedia regarding becoming a admin and bureaucrat. Current policy is that any admin can become a bureaucrat if the ask for it. No one has ever used that option until now. Current there is only one bureaucrat on the dutch wikipedia. 
There is here on the English Wikipedia a special vote for it and it looks like the bureaucrats have a higher status because the need more votes to become a bureaucrat then for a admin. What is exactly the status of a bureaucrat here? For me a the only difference is that the can make admins and bureaucrats. But the are like admins servants of the community.  Walter 09:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only technical difference is that bureaucrats can create admin and bureaucrat rights. The community has expressed the sentiment that bureaucrats are also expected to gauge community sentiment on ambiguous nominations and make the final decision to promote and not, and defend that decision. Since it is very difficult to withdraw rights from an admin once made, most en Wikipedians want to examine potential bureaucrats more closely than admin candidates. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of bureaucrats 

message: Dear Bureaucrats, please allow me to offer a few comments on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship process, from one who recently was not accepted into those hallowed halls. 
As this process is one that the Bureaucrats "do", and so it takes your time, I think that it deserves a little of your attention to neaten up the process, for your and everyone else's benefit. 
(1) As I commented at my talk, I am in an organisation with ISO 9000 quality management procedures and I found this whole adminship process a bit "untidy". It screams out for clarity at all of the steps. 
(2) While User:Cecropia announced my non-elevation, it was not clear to me under what authority this was being done. Therefore, I asked questions along those lines for several days. Hence, I suggest that something like this form of words be incoporated into the instructions: "As the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat in this case, I am informing you that..." 
(3) The process is not clearly laid down for the users of the process, as far as I can see: It's at the Bureaucrat page (!) where the process is set down in numbered-list form, at (Wikipedia:Bureaucrat#Instructions%20for%20sysoping%20someone). Hence, I suggest that this be clarified then copied, or moved, in some form to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship so that everyone knows what's ahead going in, and can follow the process.
It might look something like this:
===Decision-making process===
After the voting period has begun, a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat will:
#Wait at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship;
#If it is not a self-request, check the user has accepted the nomination;
#Check if there is a general consensus that the person should be made an Administrator or Bureaucrat;
#If the above conditions are met, make them an admin or bureaucrat using Special:Makesysop;
#Let the person know they are an admin, using the form of words, "As the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat in this case, I am informing you that..."
#suggest they read the Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide;
#Add their name to the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats;
#Move the listing from requests for adminship to recently created admins or recently created bureaucrats;
Of course, I don't know everything. Hoping this helps, talk Peter Ellis 19:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the Adminship process

message: After the voting period has begun, a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat will:
#Wait at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship;
#If it is not a self-request, check the user has accepted the nomination;
#Check if there is a general consensus that the person should be made an Administrator or Bureaucrat;
#If the above conditions are met, make them an admin or bureaucrat using Special:Makesysop;
#Let the person know they are an admin, using the form of words, "As the Wikipedia:Bureaucrat in this case, I am informing you that..."
#suggest they read the Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide;
#Add their name to the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats;
#Move the listing from requests for adminship to recently created admins or recently created bureaucrats;
Of course, I don't know everything. Hoping this helps, talk Peter Ellis 19:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision-making process

message: Is there value in the extra layer of, ermmm, bureaucracy, in having bureaucrats and stewards separate? I thought we had a debate on this one time but couldn't find it. Pcb21| Pete 15:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  At one time... 

message: This page says Ed Poor as no longer a bureaucrat, but the Special:Listusers page says he is.   Is one of the two an error? --Tabor 21:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: please reload the page. I removed the bureaucrat flag 3_4 days ago. Anthere 09:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights. On the 14th of september. I checked the tool, it seems to work. Perhaps Ed can answer if he still is ? Did you check that no one made him bureaucrat again ? Anthere 12:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: This page is definitely the wrong place to post this, but at :meta: meta talk:Requests for deletion and :meta:talk:Main Page which would have been more appropriate I got no answer. In fact, I doubt there is an appropriate forum in which to discuss the deletion of a language version of Wikipedia to start with. So I thought, wrongly perhaps, that this page is the more likely place where I could get some "authoritive" opinions.
The background of the issue and some comments on it are available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Moldovan Wikipedia. More information can be found at :mo:User:Ronline/Propunere. In short, mo.wikipedia.org is a version of Wikipedia written in Romanian with Cyrillic characters. This combination is used nowhere in the world except in Transnistria which is a breakaway region of Republic of Moldova without international recognition and with a rather dubious regime. It is a relic from Soviet times, when in Republic of Moldova people used Cyrillic. 
There are two views on this matter. Some people think that nothing is wrong with having Wikipedia in all languages/character sets possible. The number of potential readers and editors of this particular version of Wikipedia is very small, but it still could be useful. And deleting a language version of Wikipedia would be against the Wiki spirit, would make Wikipedia politicized, etc. 
The other view is mostly reflected by people in Republic of Moldova itself and neighbouring Romania (again, we are talking about the Romanian language  here, the issue is the set of characters — in Romania proper they use the Latin alphabet). To us (I am from Republic of Moldova) writing our language in Cyrillic is a symbol of what was wrong with the Soviet Union, a totalitarian regime which did not give us even the choice of how to write our own language, and of all the tragedies which happened after Republic of Moldova was annexed to the Soviet Union in 1940 and then again in 1945. 
The discussion of this issue has been going on since June; see again :mo:User:Ronline/Propunere. Neither side of course has any power to do anything about it (an administrator is not enough to close it down, for example), and that is why I am writing here. My big question is, where to have a discussion of this issue, and more importantly, how to reach a binding decision on the matter. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the post at Wikipedia-l, thank you for the suggestion. I hope that this time there will be a wider discussion on that list than before. As bureaucrats have (should have) a good experience/weight in all things Wikipedia, your comments on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks, and sorry for posting the above here, which was not the right place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue of existance of a language version of Wikipedia 

message: This nomination is extremely close to the cut-off level of voting.  With a high level of participation, and a few possible sock puppet votes, the nomination doesn't quite reach 80%.  I'm inclined towards not promoting Ramallite, but suggesting a new nomination in a month or so, once things have calmed down, but would very much welcome any other views. Warofdreams talk 18:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, WoD. Ramallite has 80 per cent by my calculation. There were three (almost certain) sock puppet accounts who voted to oppose at the end, and one oppose after the close of the nomination. I've requested a sock puppet check from David. Not counting those gives us a tally of 81/20/6, which is just over 80 per cent. Also, if you look at the supports versus the opposes, you'll find that it's the experienced editors, and particularly those with experience of Ramallite's editing, who support him, and editors with less experience, and none of Ramallite (with one exception) who oppose him. That might make a difference if you feel it's borderline, though my understanding is that 80 per cent would make it a clear case of promotion. Are you inclined to include those three new-user votes? The accounts were all set up today. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking also of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lucky 6.9(4), who was promoted with 72/20/4. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you look at the people and the comments on both sides of the gate. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I thought the required votes necessary was 70-75%, that's the number usually applied, isn't it? This is an admin candidacy, not a bureaucrat candidacy.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nomination process at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship cites a 75-80% consensus.  Ramallite reached the upward end of that. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it's helpful, the four disputed oppose votes are #20  (first edit was to oppose Ramallite); #22  (third edit was to oppose); #23  (second edit was to oppose); and #24 User:Lord Voldemort, who voted after the close of the nomination. If these votes are not counted, the final tally is 81/20/6. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There doesn't appear to have been verifiable sockpuppeting as far as I can tell, but there's been a hell of a lot of blatant meatpuppeting - accounts clearly created just for this vote (e.g. Mishauli, Mickwe, Windturbine - in each case, they were created and immediately used to vote on this RFA). Ignoring those would take it over 80% for sure. - David Gerard 09:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And unless Zeq is somehow stopped from running the sort of ballot-stuffing campaign he ran this time, I see no reason he won't just try the same sort of thing in a month - David Gerard 09:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this remark. There actually wasn't any particular row that could be expected to calm down, other than the controversy caused by a number of editors voting on what appeared to be a purely political basis, as a bloc, and a number of other editors objecting vocally to this. There is no reason to expect that the result would be different in a month's time. I suspect that the opposing voters who might change their minds in a future renomination are the minority who raised questions of numbers of edits, number of WP namespace edits, concentration of edits on a smallish range of articles. I imagine that it will take more than a month for the candidate's editing profile to change enough to persuade those voters, where they haven't already changed their minds in the course of the debate. Palmiro | Talk 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you, David. And with all due respect, Warofdreams, Wikipedia is not a democracy and a Bureaucrat is expected to read the RfAs closely prior to closing them, especially ones that prove contencious. Most RfAs are easy to close, but as for the particularly devisive ones, that does requiere considerable reserach on the part of the closing Bureaucrat, I believe. That said, your request for input is certainly to your credit. I hope you will choose to take these criticism with the constructive intent in which they were written. Thanks. El_C 12:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ramallite]] admin nomination

message: I was pleasantly surprised to be nominated for bureaucratship yesterday, and I'm quite honored. But I don't want to accept the nomination unless there's a void I'd be filling. Would another bureaucrat be useful, or would I just be superfluous? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch... scathing. Maybe the other half of that cup will fill for you soon. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But you know what I mean though. Many people are inactive or randomly active. We don't need a lot of the admins, but having more admins and bureaucrats involves a greater number of people, improves NPOV, diversity, community ownership etc etc. Before bureaucrats could rename there was nothing at all to do. Some people would stalk RfA so they could promote people. I think there is too much renaming going on as bureaucrats need to justify their position. However I still think you should go for it! Secretlondon 17:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I understand what you mean... it was just a little funny the way you phrased it. Speaking of randomly active, you planning on being around more often? I noticed you came back a little bit ago. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being randomly active is a fairly random thing. To be honest it depends upon how the mood takes me... Secretlondon 18:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would another bureaucrat be useful? 

message: Not only should highly inactive BCrats be demoted, but BCrats should have a new tool:
Block and admin completely.
This would stop rogue admins from protecting/deleting if a BCrat blocked them, so as to avoid needless re-blocking. A BCrat block could only be undone by an admin that is not the user in question. Any thoughts?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of new tools, I heard we might get the ability to reattribute edits. This might be a good idea. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old crats and new tools 

message: To all my fellow bureaucrats; if you haven't added WP:BN to your watchlist, I'd reccomend doing it. We could probably use this to discuss adminship nominees if needed (those that are in the grey area in particular), and if WP:RFR is instituted, it would gain a higher importance (and I think that's the best place to put it) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BN]] 

message: I'm rather lazy to retype much of what I've been saying on the mailing list and IRC, so here. I think 'crats constitute a "super-trustable" user base, and therefore they should be able to step in to stop wheel wars, etc. immediately instead of leaving it to Jimbo. I'm fed up of all the shit we've got flying around, and I know Jimbo can't keep faeces grounded forever, so I figured this is worth a shot. Somebody needs to be able to step in and say, "Everybody stop and discuss this now or we'll flip your sysop bits/block you lot, no questions asked." Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been support among those who could make the technical changes to allow bcrats to de-sysop, though I suppose it could be given to individual bcrats if they wanted to, or they could give the ability to a new class of trusted user if they wished. My own opinion? Whatever. -- Cecropia 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good idea. There's very few bureaucrats and as some people have seen recently becoming one has a very high threshold. I would be wary about putting pressure on bureaucrats in the middle of some of these disputes - blocking an admin prevents them from doing everything apart from blocking/unblocking, so a block can serve as well. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does it say Stewards can't desysop on their own projects? That makes no sense--and Angela has desysoped at my request several times. -- Cecropia 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From The Steward Policy on Meta: Don't desysop people from your own project, unless they request it themselves. It is better to leave such cases to neutral stewards. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people I've desysopped on en were either made admins by accident, needing their adminship switching to a new username, or requested de-adminship of themselves. As a steward, I generally wouldn't desysop someone here for other reasons (though there might be exceptions). Angela. 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to suggest I thought you were a rogue steward (hence my note below), but rather to provide Cecropia with the requested reference. I think you're amazing, you know that!  :-) Essjay Talk • Contact 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops, forgot one note: I think Angela is an exception along with Jimbo and Anthere: those three have such high visibility on so many projects that no project really qualifies as thier "home project." The majority of thier attention isn't focused on any one project; every project and no project is thier home.  Essjay Talk • Contact 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that both of these are a great idea - someone' needs to be able to step in and stop wheel warring; the question is, if we give this power to Bureaucrats, what power does that leave stewards with? Alphax τεχ 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, giving the power to bcrats would only be on thier own project (i.e., our bcrats could only desysop here, not at fr or de). Thus, the stewards would continue just as they do now: Serving the projects without bcrats (as stewards have access on all projects), and as an emergency saftey valve for every project. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds ok, but would bureaucrats also be able to de-bureaucrat each other? That could lead to much worse wheel warring than admins can do. Angela. 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd venture the answer of "no", but if our bureaucrats aren't level-headed and trustworthy enough not to wheel war, why are they bureaucrats in the first place? Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That should probably be left to stewards; the issue to debureaucrat rarely comes up, and probably wouldn't happen often. Essjay Talk • Contact 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not yet. It seems to me that less than a year ago, "wheel warring" among admins was pretty much unknown. Now, with a doubling of the number of admins, it seems to be commonplace. That's why I'm now inclined to be skeptical about adding bureaucrats unless their is a demonstrated need, then we could, perhaps, say "we need one (or two, or three) new bureaucrats." Take as many nominations as people desire, but only promote the top one, or two, or three, and only if s/he otherwise meets the requirements of consensus. Can you imagine wheel warring among bureaucrats, rushing to promote their friends, or on arbitrary interpretation of voting results? An ounce of prevention... -- Cecropia 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, we have incredibly high standards to become a bureaucrat. I doubt a wheel warring 'crat will be promoted, unless the community goes bonkers. We don't need to set a limit; we just have to ensure there are very high standards for determining who gets to be a 'crat. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree, I dislike the idea of adding more user levels to the community. IMO, adminship should remain no big deal, but 'cratship should be a very big deal -- the former can be called a janitor, while the latter can be the custodian in charge of the mop & bucket supply closet (a very trusted user, in other words). Only those who can be really really really trusted not to go off the deep end or overuse IAR or any other little thing should be elected as 'crats. I don't think people generally look for ability to judge consensus on RfB; they just see if the candidate can be trusted not to fuck up when closing an RfA. Still, 'crats are as human as anyone else. Mistakes are to be expected. The same can be said for both closing RfAs and desysoping in a wheel war. The point is, if these 'crats are willing to do the right thing, and won't say, "Hm, I think I was right, so why should I listen to these blabbering nuts?" (and are also capable judges of how involved they are in a dispute), which they should be if they get past RfB, I think they can be trusted to desysop when necessary, and quickly undo a mistake if shown to be wrong. Really, can you name me a 'crat who you wouldn't trust to do the right thing in intervening in a wheel war? Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see bureaucrats differently.  They are trusted, but are really just people who are trusted to do an extra job or two, not as an extra layer of supervision in the organization chart. I regard the Check Users, Arbitrators, and Board Vote functionaries the same way, just with different special jobs to do. I don't remember anyone voting for a bureaucrat to be a supervisor over the community. And being trusted by Jimbo (like Danny with WP:OFFICE) is important, because they need to be unconcerned about being overruled (the short term action to diffuse a situation may not be the same as the long term solution), and admins need to know that Jimbo will back up their decisions. NoSeptember talk 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say 'crats would have to supervise admins. It implies they'd actually have to be on the hunt for rogue admins, keeping one eye on them while tending to normal 'crat business. My proposal is to just give them the power to desysop, but discourage use unless there's obvious wheelwarring that shows no sign of receding (fortunately, such wheelwars appear to be becoming rare, so this proposal can probably be ignored...for now?). In such cases, the 'crats should use common sense and desysop whoever appears to need it (just like how admins are trusted to use common sense and block whoever appears to need to be blocked). Such quick decisions don't have to be correct ones, since the arbcom/Jimbo can easily make amends. I agree that a 'crat would need to be unconcerned about being overruled, but from my experience, most if not all 'crats seem to be of the right temperament to be at ease with this, provided it's understood that in egregrious cases of wheelwarring, they get to shoot first and ask questions later (since extracting the bullets is just as easy as shooting them). Anyway, this is all academic now --  I don't think this should be a top priority, since the trend appears to be decreasing wheelwars, not increasing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding 'crats authority? 

message: Hi, apologies if this is in the wrong place. I find User:Tiocfaidh Ár Lá's username to be offensive. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá is the slogan of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Am I right in thinking this is an inappropriate username? Stu 09:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article on the slogan states that it is the unofficial slogan of the whole Irish republican movement.  If this is the case, I'm unconvinced that it meets the criteria to be an inappropriate username.  However, the page on usernames states "user names that are offensive to a significant number of people will be changed".  If this is shown to be the case, then it should be changed. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Although bureaucrats can change usernames, it isn't for us to determine what is or isn't an appropriate name. You should use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names for that. Angela. 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate username

message: 4) Recreate the old account and then block it. This prevents someone else creating it in an attempt to impersonate the renamed user.
I propose removing this point from the Instructions for changing usernames section since it seems pointless in most cases, generally isn't done, and wouldn't be a good idea if a user is changing name for privacy reasons. Angela. 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally recreate and then set a random password. Don't the logs allow to see who changed name and to what anyway? Secretlondon 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh...yes yes go ahead and remove it. I've done this for every single rename i've done and it's the most damn time-consuming step. However, replace it with 'move the user's talk page to its new home and delete the redirect' or something (in case a new user comes along under the old name and mysteriously finds a redirect on their userpage). — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (addendum) In fact, if you do it I'll probably go in and do a lot more user renames than I am doing right now :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instructions for changing usernames

message: First off, I don't think "Instructions for sysopping someone" is a good section title because, whether intended or not, the section is not just a help to bureaucrats but also a resource for interested editors who want to get clarification on how the process of sysopping someone works.  To come up with this proposed language I've taken the text currently on the project page under "Instructions for sysoping someone" and (1) rephrased it to not read like a recipe from a cookbook but like an explanation of the process that can be read both as a help to the attending bureaucrat and as an explanation to inquiring editor minds, (2) clarified (and indicated where I think more clarity is still needed) the issue of "bogus" votes and sockpuppetry, and (3) clarified the percentage benchmarks and their implications.  I believe, I have in no way changed the spirit of the process that is followed today, only clarified it.
As stated before the benefit of a clearer stated description is, among others, reduced stress and frustration for both bureaucrats closing the vote and interested editors.  Fact is, clarity prevents the kind of heated argument we had this past weekend.  It is important that the rules are transparent to the extent they can be.  Otherwise people will not trust the system.  It would show the willingness on the part of bureaucrats to be accountable for their actions.  And accountability, even if it is just the perception of it, increases trust.
=== Process bureaucrats follow for sysopping someone ===
#The bureaucrat waits at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship before closing the RfA.
#If it is not a self-request, the bureaucrat checks to makes sure that the user has accepted the nomination.  If it hasn't been accepted the bureaucrat contacts the nominated user via a post on his/her talk page to make sure he/she is aware of the nomination.  If the user then does not accept within [fill in a reasonable period - I suggest 24 hours] the nomination is pulled from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and nullified.  In such a case the nomination is considered neither succeeded, nor failed, but simply removed from the page and the nominating user is informed in a supporting manner. 
#At the end of the seven day "open" period, the closing bureaucrat makes a determination that the vote did not suffer obvious undue influence from the use of sockpuppets or otherwise bogus votes [need to give an example for what other factors might make a vote "bogus"].  If there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry or other undue influence and the suspicion is confirmed (by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser in the case of sockpuppets), the tally is updated to reflect only valid votes.
#Then the closing bureaucrat checks if there is a "general consensus" that the person should be sysopped.  The rule of thumb is that
#:*nominees with less than a 75% of support are not promoted without extenuating circumstances. Consequently, it is very rare indeed that a nominee is promoted with less than 75% of support.
#:*nominees with 80% or more support are generally promoted.  Similarly, it is very rare that a nominee is not promoted with this level of support.
#:*nominees with a support ratio between 75% and 80% are promoted at the bureaucrat's discretion taking into consideration the comments made and discussion conducted on the nomination page, including comments made by "neutral" votes.
#:*For purposes of determining the above percentage benchmarks, "neutral" votes are disregarded entirely and the following formula is applied:
#::\begin{matrix}\frac{support}{support + oppose}\end{matrix}
#Important: For bureaucrat nominations a support ratio of at least 90% is generally considered necessary for promotion.  Consequently, in a year and a half, no-one has become a bureaucrat with less than 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes.
#If a sysop promotion is made or denied outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, the bureaucrat explains the reasoning behind the decision on that nomination's talk page for interested editors to see.
#If the here outlined conditions for promotions are met for a particular nomination, the bureaucrat makes the nominee an admin or bureaucrat using Special:Makesysop and adds his/her name to the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.
#Then the bureaucrat uses - as a header and footer, respectively, when closing a successful nomination and, similarly, - for a failed nomination. The "Vote here" link is then removed and the word "Final" is placed before the parenthetic voting results, "ending" is changed to "ended" and the ending time and date are updated to reflect the current time and date.
#For successful nominations, the bureaucrat moves the listing from requests for adminship to recently created admins or recently created bureaucrats. For unsuccessful administrator nominations, the listing is moved to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies and for unsuccessful bureaucrat nominations, the transclusion from requests for adminship is simply removed. 
#If the nomination has succeeded, the bureaucrat informs the user that he or she is now a sysop or bureaucrat.  If the nomination has failed, the user is informed of this in a supportive manner.
--Mmounties (Talk)   02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording is taken verbatum from the current language.  I didn't see the need to restrict or expand it as it is apparent from current practice that the circumstances must be quite extreme before someone with less than 75% is promoted. (that is also why I added the additional sentence following that phrase.) --Mmounties (Talk)   04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that.--MONGO 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that the fraud or sockpuppetry must be obvious either to the bureaucrat or to at least one or more editors that must have pointed their suspicions out.  I don't think it is reasonable to expect the bureaucrat to do research on the off-chance that there may be fraud in every RfA but I do think that there is an obligation to follow up on obvious or suspected fraud prior to finalizing the tally.  I don't think that obligation should apply only in close votes because sockpuppets can be used quite extensively.  One recent example reduced Oppose votes on a page move from 11 to 5.  On an RfA that could mean the difference between 80% and a clear pass and 72 and a clear fail.  --Mmounties (Talk)   03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing the beginning of the "If there is a suspicion of..." sentence to "If a suspicion of sockpuppetry or other undue influence has been voiced or if fraud is otherwise suspected by the bureaucrat and the suspicion is confirmed..."?  I think that wording would make it clear that there is no expectation for the bureaucrat to rule out fraud in every RfA, whether suspected or not.  Do you agree?  --Mmounties (Talk)   04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This looks a lot like instruction creep. If the instructions are going to be changed, they should be simplified, not expanded. We already the guide to RfA for explaining this, so the I don't see a reason that the instructions on this page can't be aimed just at bureaucrats. Angela. 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This page is mainly about bureaucrats and their responsibilities, with some basic non-exhaustive procedures mentioned. This looks to me like trying to include the full details on how arbitration works on WP:AC/C. Johnleemk | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument we had this past weekend made clear that people do not sufficiently understand how bureaucrats go about the RfAs.  The above is not saying anything that isn't already done today.  It's just making it clear to those who have questions.  By adding clarity it will help avoid the heat and fury that was thrown around this weekend from all sides in the future.  This is not instruction creep but rather clarification of existing procedure.  There is really nothing added that good bureaucrats don't already do (thereby adding nothing to their load).  Instead it relieves them because it adds to the understanding of others and thereby reduces possible confrontation and that helps everyone.  Regarding Angela's point, fact is that people look to the bureaucrats' instructions because that's the horse's mouth.  It would be wrong to ignore that behavior.  It would be wise to write them so that both groups can take away what they need.  --Mmounties (Talk)   06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One point seems to be submerged in all of this. Unlike a number of other Wikipedia activities, there is nothing permanent in failing an RfA nomination. Nominees are encouraged to return in as little as a month. Related to that, it seems that every time someone disagrees with a Bureaucrat decision, we have calls for "fixing the process." When Wikipedians were asked whether they trust the current system in regard to the way Bureaucrats are handling it, they overwhelming affirmedWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_27#Poll:_Is_Bureaucracy_in_Need_of_Reform. IOW, if the process ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Cecropia 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this comment is all about.  You know this proposal doesn't intend to change the process.  It merely aims to provide clarity to those who have questions about how it works by explaining what process is currently being followed.  --Mmounties (Talk)   05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for commenting, Cactus.man.  Just to make it clear though, and I have stated this before, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that AzaToth's candidacy failed.  I think he would have deserved it but I respect the rules.  This proposal has, however, everything to do with trying to avoid the same sort of aftermath and painful fallout we had over this failed candidacy when the next close, "AzaToth 1"-type of candidacy comes around.  Because it will come.  And the "aftermath" is entirely avoidable.  What's more, it is easily avoidable.  It makes absolutely no sense to have "instructions" for the bureaucrats here and different instructions/explanations for the general public elsewhere.  The "instructions" to the bureaucrats should be written in a way that is sufficient for both (i.e., similar to the proposed text) and the other page should point to here for this part of the RfA process.  Currently neither instructions or explanations satisfy this very basic requirement.  That, and only that, is what this proposal is about.  --Mmounties (Talk)   05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (copied here from User talk:Mmounties) --Mmounties (Talk)   14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See response below. --Mmounties (Talk)   14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both Cactus.man and Splash mistakenly deduct from what I have previously said that this language is intended to eliminate mistakes on the part of bureaucrats.  This is an erroneous deduction.  Not only do I believe bureaucrats know the process, but I think they know it so well that they do not see that their "instructions" do not clearly explain it to others who come to this page to help gain an understanding of the process.  The proposed language is not intended for the benefit of bureaucrats, except to the extent that it will help eliminate some of their stress by clarifying the process to everyone else who comes here to get clarification.  I agree that the proposed language would not have avoided the innocent error (yes, I firmly believe it was accidental and not intended).  What it would have avoided is a lot of pain and stress by helping everyone understand the process that is followed by bureaucrats.  For that reason the clarification provided in this language is very much necessary.   Again, the aim is not to eliminate innocent mistakes (that would be futile as mistakes are a necessary by-product of just about any human activity).  The aim is to give a better explanation of the existing process to everyone else in the community.  I have written too many user guides and software instructions and taken too many support calls from users who misunderstood what everyone in the know thought were clear instructions, to not know that the language that's currently on this page does not suffice for that purpose.  It is therefore in the interest of everyone, bureaucrats in particular, to modify it so that it does provide clarity to all those in the community who don't already know.  --Mmounties (Talk)   14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you are not going to get anyone to agree to this if you are to insist on including a formula in it. It's more or less out of the question. With that gone, the new wording you propose doesn't add anything apart from a lot of words, so, given the desire to actively avoid m:Instruction creep, why bother? If people don't understand from the instructions that candidacies with less than about 75% support fail, those with more than about 80% support succeed and those in between are subject to a non-explicit bureaucrat determination, then well, I don't think we can help them. And if the use of the word "about" is the problem, then they just need some time to get used to how Wikipedia works. -Splashtalk 14:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see what there is to misunderstand in the instructions as they stand. They're simply written, and comprehensive. So they don't include a formula. It makes no difference to the fact that they are right. What do you suspect my hidden purpose might be, especially since I can't promote users to admins anyway? But, since you're no longer on the Azatoth thing, what is that you think could be misunderstood from the current instructions? It seems that the only difference would be the handling of "neutrals". Though honestly, if we're about to start muttering about conspiracy theories, then... -Splashtalk 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on sysoping should really be on an RfA page or somewhere else where the general community should be able to readily access it, not the Bureaucrats page. When you set down these procedures step-by-step like this, it can have the effect of giving people something new to parse, and nitpick, and argue about. This is not like Admin instructions; there are eight Bureaucrats currently performing promotions. They are supposed to know all this before even applying for the position. When a new bcrat makes an error, they hear about it big time (in fact, even if they don't make an error--look at Francs). If they have made an error, then a more seasoned bcrat (usually me) explains to them what was wrong, and why, and what procedure is. If the day comes when we start adding bcrats like cannon fodder in wartime, so that these instructions would really be needed, I think RfA will have become such a mess that the instructions won't much matter. Anyway, Angela says we already have this information posted for the general community, so duplication is not a good idea. There should be one definitive place where the curious can have their questions answered. -- Your Cecropia 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that it should be posted only in one place.  But if it is placed on the guide to RfAs page, then the above proposed language really should not be stated again, in ANY form on the bureaucrat page but perhaps rather have a referral to the guide to RfAs.  That would be perfectly acceptable.  Having said that though, I've read over the applicable sections on guide to RfAs page and they don't explain the process of determining whether to promote or not to promote either.  The proposed language would therefore need to be added almost in it's entirety to that page.  But I agree with you, that it would probably be better to have it there so not to give the impression that bureaucrats don't know how to go about the process. --Mmounties (Talk)   00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed language to better explain the "Process bureaucrats follow for sysopping someone" to replace the currently posted "instructions" 

message: #The bureaucrat waits at least seven days after the listing was made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship before closing the RfA.
#If it is not a self-request, the bureaucrat checks to makes sure that the user has accepted the nomination.  If it hasn't been accepted the bureaucrat contacts the nominated user via a post on his/her talk page to make sure he/she is aware of the nomination.  If the user then does not accept within [fill in a reasonable period - I suggest 24 hours] the nomination is pulled from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and nullified.  In such a case the nomination is considered neither succeeded, nor failed, but simply removed from the page and the nominating user is informed in a supporting manner. 
#At the end of the seven day "open" period, the closing bureaucrat makes a determination that the vote did not suffer obvious undue influence from the use of sockpuppets or otherwise bogus votes [need to give an example for what other factors might make a vote "bogus"].  If there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry or other undue influence and the suspicion is confirmed (by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser in the case of sockpuppets), the tally is updated to reflect only valid votes.
#Then the closing bureaucrat checks if there is a "general consensus" that the person should be sysopped.  The rule of thumb is that
#:*nominees with less than a 75% of support are not promoted without extenuating circumstances. Consequently, it is very rare indeed that a nominee is promoted with less than 75% of support.
#:*nominees with 80% or more support are generally promoted.  Similarly, it is very rare that a nominee is not promoted with this level of support.
#:*nominees with a support ratio between 75% and 80% are promoted at the bureaucrat's discretion taking into consideration the comments made and discussion conducted on the nomination page, including comments made by "neutral" votes.
#:*For purposes of determining the above percentage benchmarks, "neutral" votes are disregarded entirely and the following formula is applied:
#::\begin{matrix}\frac{support}{support + oppose}\end{matrix}
#Important: For bureaucrat nominations a support ratio of at least 90% is generally considered necessary for promotion.  Consequently, in a year and a half, no-one has become a bureaucrat with less than 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes.
#If a sysop promotion is made or denied outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, the bureaucrat explains the reasoning behind the decision on that nomination's talk page for interested editors to see.
#If the here outlined conditions for promotions are met for a particular nomination, the bureaucrat makes the nominee an admin or bureaucrat using Special:Makesysop and adds his/her name to the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.
#Then the bureaucrat uses - as a header and footer, respectively, when closing a successful nomination and, similarly, - for a failed nomination. The "Vote here" link is then removed and the word "Final" is placed before the parenthetic voting results, "ending" is changed to "ended" and the ending time and date are updated to reflect the current time and date.
#For successful nominations, the bureaucrat moves the listing from requests for adminship to recently created admins or recently created bureaucrats. For unsuccessful administrator nominations, the listing is moved to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies and for unsuccessful bureaucrat nominations, the transclusion from requests for adminship is simply removed. 
#If the nomination has succeeded, the bureaucrat informs the user that he or she is now a sysop or bureaucrat.  If the nomination has failed, the user is informed of this in a supportive manner.
--Mmounties (Talk)   02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording is taken verbatum from the current language.  I didn't see the need to restrict or expand it as it is apparent from current practice that the circumstances must be quite extreme before someone with less than 75% is promoted. (that is also why I added the additional sentence following that phrase.) --Mmounties (Talk)   04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that.--MONGO 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that the fraud or sockpuppetry must be obvious either to the bureaucrat or to at least one or more editors that must have pointed their suspicions out.  I don't think it is reasonable to expect the bureaucrat to do research on the off-chance that there may be fraud in every RfA but I do think that there is an obligation to follow up on obvious or suspected fraud prior to finalizing the tally.  I don't think that obligation should apply only in close votes because sockpuppets can be used quite extensively.  One recent example reduced Oppose votes on a page move from 11 to 5.  On an RfA that could mean the difference between 80% and a clear pass and 72 and a clear fail.  --Mmounties (Talk)   03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing the beginning of the "If there is a suspicion of..." sentence to "If a suspicion of sockpuppetry or other undue influence has been voiced or if fraud is otherwise suspected by the bureaucrat and the suspicion is confirmed..."?  I think that wording would make it clear that there is no expectation for the bureaucrat to rule out fraud in every RfA, whether suspected or not.  Do you agree?  --Mmounties (Talk)   04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This looks a lot like instruction creep. If the instructions are going to be changed, they should be simplified, not expanded. We already the guide to RfA for explaining this, so the I don't see a reason that the instructions on this page can't be aimed just at bureaucrats. Angela. 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This page is mainly about bureaucrats and their responsibilities, with some basic non-exhaustive procedures mentioned. This looks to me like trying to include the full details on how arbitration works on WP:AC/C. Johnleemk | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument we had this past weekend made clear that people do not sufficiently understand how bureaucrats go about the RfAs.  The above is not saying anything that isn't already done today.  It's just making it clear to those who have questions.  By adding clarity it will help avoid the heat and fury that was thrown around this weekend from all sides in the future.  This is not instruction creep but rather clarification of existing procedure.  There is really nothing added that good bureaucrats don't already do (thereby adding nothing to their load).  Instead it relieves them because it adds to the understanding of others and thereby reduces possible confrontation and that helps everyone.  Regarding Angela's point, fact is that people look to the bureaucrats' instructions because that's the horse's mouth.  It would be wrong to ignore that behavior.  It would be wise to write them so that both groups can take away what they need.  --Mmounties (Talk)   06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One point seems to be submerged in all of this. Unlike a number of other Wikipedia activities, there is nothing permanent in failing an RfA nomination. Nominees are encouraged to return in as little as a month. Related to that, it seems that every time someone disagrees with a Bureaucrat decision, we have calls for "fixing the process." When Wikipedians were asked whether they trust the current system in regard to the way Bureaucrats are handling it, they overwhelming affirmedWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_27#Poll:_Is_Bureaucracy_in_Need_of_Reform. IOW, if the process ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Cecropia 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this comment is all about.  You know this proposal doesn't intend to change the process.  It merely aims to provide clarity to those who have questions about how it works by explaining what process is currently being followed.  --Mmounties (Talk)   05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for commenting, Cactus.man.  Just to make it clear though, and I have stated this before, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that AzaToth's candidacy failed.  I think he would have deserved it but I respect the rules.  This proposal has, however, everything to do with trying to avoid the same sort of aftermath and painful fallout we had over this failed candidacy when the next close, "AzaToth 1"-type of candidacy comes around.  Because it will come.  And the "aftermath" is entirely avoidable.  What's more, it is easily avoidable.  It makes absolutely no sense to have "instructions" for the bureaucrats here and different instructions/explanations for the general public elsewhere.  The "instructions" to the bureaucrats should be written in a way that is sufficient for both (i.e., similar to the proposed text) and the other page should point to here for this part of the RfA process.  Currently neither instructions or explanations satisfy this very basic requirement.  That, and only that, is what this proposal is about.  --Mmounties (Talk)   05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (copied here from User talk:Mmounties) --Mmounties (Talk)   14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See response below. --Mmounties (Talk)   14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both Cactus.man and Splash mistakenly deduct from what I have previously said that this language is intended to eliminate mistakes on the part of bureaucrats.  This is an erroneous deduction.  Not only do I believe bureaucrats know the process, but I think they know it so well that they do not see that their "instructions" do not clearly explain it to others who come to this page to help gain an understanding of the process.  The proposed language is not intended for the benefit of bureaucrats, except to the extent that it will help eliminate some of their stress by clarifying the process to everyone else who comes here to get clarification.  I agree that the proposed language would not have avoided the innocent error (yes, I firmly believe it was accidental and not intended).  What it would have avoided is a lot of pain and stress by helping everyone understand the process that is followed by bureaucrats.  For that reason the clarification provided in this language is very much necessary.   Again, the aim is not to eliminate innocent mistakes (that would be futile as mistakes are a necessary by-product of just about any human activity).  The aim is to give a better explanation of the existing process to everyone else in the community.  I have written too many user guides and software instructions and taken too many support calls from users who misunderstood what everyone in the know thought were clear instructions, to not know that the language that's currently on this page does not suffice for that purpose.  It is therefore in the interest of everyone, bureaucrats in particular, to modify it so that it does provide clarity to all those in the community who don't already know.  --Mmounties (Talk)   14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you are not going to get anyone to agree to this if you are to insist on including a formula in it. It's more or less out of the question. With that gone, the new wording you propose doesn't add anything apart from a lot of words, so, given the desire to actively avoid m:Instruction creep, why bother? If people don't understand from the instructions that candidacies with less than about 75% support fail, those with more than about 80% support succeed and those in between are subject to a non-explicit bureaucrat determination, then well, I don't think we can help them. And if the use of the word "about" is the problem, then they just need some time to get used to how Wikipedia works. -Splashtalk 14:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see what there is to misunderstand in the instructions as they stand. They're simply written, and comprehensive. So they don't include a formula. It makes no difference to the fact that they are right. What do you suspect my hidden purpose might be, especially since I can't promote users to admins anyway? But, since you're no longer on the Azatoth thing, what is that you think could be misunderstood from the current instructions? It seems that the only difference would be the handling of "neutrals". Though honestly, if we're about to start muttering about conspiracy theories, then... -Splashtalk 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on sysoping should really be on an RfA page or somewhere else where the general community should be able to readily access it, not the Bureaucrats page. When you set down these procedures step-by-step like this, it can have the effect of giving people something new to parse, and nitpick, and argue about. This is not like Admin instructions; there are eight Bureaucrats currently performing promotions. They are supposed to know all this before even applying for the position. When a new bcrat makes an error, they hear about it big time (in fact, even if they don't make an error--look at Francs). If they have made an error, then a more seasoned bcrat (usually me) explains to them what was wrong, and why, and what procedure is. If the day comes when we start adding bcrats like cannon fodder in wartime, so that these instructions would really be needed, I think RfA will have become such a mess that the instructions won't much matter. Anyway, Angela says we already have this information posted for the general community, so duplication is not a good idea. There should be one definitive place where the curious can have their questions answered. -- Your Cecropia 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that it should be posted only in one place.  But if it is placed on the guide to RfAs page, then the above proposed language really should not be stated again, in ANY form on the bureaucrat page but perhaps rather have a referral to the guide to RfAs.  That would be perfectly acceptable.  Having said that though, I've read over the applicable sections on guide to RfAs page and they don't explain the process of determining whether to promote or not to promote either.  The proposed language would therefore need to be added almost in it's entirety to that page.  But I agree with you, that it would probably be better to have it there so not to give the impression that bureaucrats don't know how to go about the process. --Mmounties (Talk)   00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process bureaucrats follow for sysopping someone 

message: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack! When I saw the long Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ... o I was afraid I died but didn't know it, like in Ghost. But I see it's just because I resigned. I feel better now. -- Cecropia 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cecropia 

message: We now have had more than 100 name changes in the past 30 days. I just removed Warofdreams from the active name change list because his last action was February 22nd. Rdsmith4 will shortly be removed for having his last change on March 3rd. Perhaps doing it by the last 100 changes makes for too short a time period. We could do it by "last 3 months" or "last 2 months" or whatever. Thoughts? NoSeptember talk 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easier to follow the last 100 because the ability to display the last 100 changes is built into the software. There is no special disability in being on the "less active" list and it encourages bureaucrats to be more active. So why make it more complex? -- Cecropia 17:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but with name changes, sometimes they can do 20 at one sitting. We could set it for the last 250. For that matter, one can edit the Url to "limit=X" and get a list of any X length long. NoSeptember talk 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an upper limit of 5000 on all such limit parameters. This comes from the software. Rob Church (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also - not every name change is valid/required - this is encouraging people to do unneccessary name changes. Secretlondon 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 actions

message: I have merged these because I don't see any particular value in maintaining three different "degrees" of activitiy.  I think that it is worthwhile to separate out those bureaucrats who have never participated in any bureaucrat-related duties in order to give the reader an idea of the number of 'crats who are actively partcipating.  Further subdivisions seem unhelpful, particularly when the logs are readily available for those who are interested in exact details.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity lists 

message: I was just noticing, as I was discussing the new bot flagging responsibilities with someone, that quite a few of the individuals listed as "active" haven't done anything since the beginning of the year. Would anyone object to moving bureaucrats who have not done anything since the beginning of the year into the "inactive" category? It seems a bit deceptive to list someone who hasn't done anything since March, June, or September 2005 as "active." Essjay Talk • Contact 01:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity reports 

message: Are bureaucrats able to revert confusing and unclear (due to high-frequency editing) history pages? If not, who is? -- dreadlady 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody can revert history pages; some revisions can be deleted, either with deletion and selective restoration by an administrator, by hiding revisions by an oversight, or direct database manipulation by a developer, but this is only done to remove personal information or libelous content. Every version of every article (excluding those removed for personal information or libel) must be available via the history page in order to comply with the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: More information is available at Wikipedia:Oversight by the way. ~Kylu (u|t)  18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert history? 

message: The instructions for sysoping curently read Check the history for the transcluded page to be reasonably sure that the votes are genuine. but that makes no sense as transcluded pages aren't included in histories.  Surely the bureaucrat should check the history of the transcluded page where the "votes" are made.  I was bold and changed the wording, calling it a typo, but was reverted, so I'm asking here if the wording has another meaning that is simply opaque to me.  Eluchil404 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it tells us to check "the history for the transcluded page".  This means the history of the page that is being transcluded.  The history of the transcluded pages (all the specific RfAs) are not included in the history of the RfA main page, so we must check each RfA's own history when closing.  It seems clear enough to me, but then again this is such a basic wiki-structure knowledge that it really goes without saying.  In any case, it doesn't seem to be too important, really, since we would still check the history, regardless of how exactly this sentence is worded.  If you are closing a discussion on Wikipedia, you check the history of the page you're closing, it's Admin procedure 101 — and it applies to closing RfAs and (if it's the case) sysoping a user.  Redux 11:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right as to procedure but at least to my ear "check the history for the transcluded page" doesn't mean that.  It means check the main pages history to see the transcluded page.  As you say one should check the history of the transcluded page itself. Eluchil404 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (This is purely a question of semantics not of actual policy which is why I described my change of "for" to "of" as fixing a typo. Eluchil404 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Check History

message: During a recent event in RfA, a [known, but often left-aside] situation caused me to think about a detail in the structuring of this page.  I'd do it myself right away, but I thought it would be interesting to get a little feedback here first.I propose we move the account Dannyisme to a sui generis line, removing it from the "inactive" list.  That's because Dannyisme really is a sui generis account: it belongs to Danny and it exists (and holds admin and Bureaucrat status) solely for the purposes of WP:OFFICE.  As such, it is not really supposed to be active in the common assertion of the term.  I'm thinking it's somewhat misleading to have it listed as an "inactive Bureaucrat".  Thoughts?  Redux 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, Dannyisme sure isn't inactive. Oh, while you're at it, I added some pics to Commons. Check out (:Image:special.makesysop.png) (:Image:special.makebot.png) and (:Image:special.renameuser.png). ~Kylu (u|t)  18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not terribly so, no. ~Kylu (u|t)  21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slight modification 

message: While writing on the Bureaucracy of the English-language Wikipedia, specifically about the active Bureaucrats, I came to think that the list on this page is not really reflecting the actual state of affairs.  So, based on recent activity (Bureaucrat logs) and inspired in the list of Administrators, I would like to propose the following rearrangement of the list:
*Active Bureaucrats: in reality, there are 4 Bureaucrats performing the duties with a degree of regularity (which should define "active"): myself (Redux), Essjay, Taxman and Nichalp.
*Semi-active Bureaucrats: that would be new for this page.  I propose we list there the Bureaucrats who are not inactive, but who have been using the tools only sporadically.  According to my assessment, at this point in time those would be: Angela, Danny, Ilyanep, Linuxbeak, Pakaran, UninvitedCompany and Warofdreams.
*Inactive Bureaucrats: that would be everyone else, except for Dannyisme, which is a sui generis account (and should stay in a separated place).
Thoughts?  Redux 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Noticing that the present active/inactive distinction is already based on use of the specific tools, and not on general activity (editing namespaces or using Administrator tools).  Redux 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Semi-active" is a good midway description, in my view.  Right now, we are considering as "active" Bureaucrats that have been mostly inactive as of recently.  At the same time, it would be too much to name as "inactive" users who have, even if occasionaly, been using the tools.  This method of listing would also have the advantage of requiring less updating.  Right now, the list of "active" Bureaucrats uses the reference of activity in a given period of time (the past three months as of X), which, in actuality, is already in need of updating (which would result in moving some of the Bureaucrats currently described as "active" to the "inactive" list).  This new method would already recognize that some Bureaucrats are not inactive, but they only use their tools sporadically.About the other point, Danny is a Steward of the Wikimedia Foundation, not of the English-language Wikipedia per se.  He holds this status on the Meta-Wiki (that is, his account over there does), not on Wikipedia itself.  But more importantly, Dannyisme is a sui generis account in the sense that it was set up for a unique purpose: to be used in the WP:OFFICE actions.  As such, it is not going to be active in the common assertion of the term: Danny doesn't use it to perform regular Bureaucrat functions, which means that it is always going to be an "inactive Bureaucrat".  Besides, it is not a separate individual, but rather it is opperated by Danny, a condition unique amidst all the accounts with Bureaucrat access.  Redux 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more significant modification