Recently a proposal gained consensus to remove the admin bit from inactive accounts. Even more recently the issue was raised that inactive Bureaucrat accounts existed for whom the admin bit was removed.

Given that Bureaucrats are potentially now going to receive the ability to de-sysop admins, and given the success of the RFC on de-sysoping of admin accounts I propose that the same policy be applied to to Bureaucrats.

Proposal to add to :

Bureaucrat accounts which have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (without any edits or other logged actions in that time) will be desysopped and have their bureaucrat permissions removed. This is not to be considered binding, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools; if an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may be granted the bureaucrat bit without further discussion, providing they left Wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that their identity is not in dispute. The bureaucrat will be contacted one month prior to the expiry of the one-year timeframe on their user talk page, and again a few days before the limit. If the account has a valid e-mail address, the user will also be contacted via that medium. The summary in the user rights log will make it clear that the removal of bureaucrat rights is purely administrative.

01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1. If this is true for admins, it should be true for 'crats. Jus da fax 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Thank you ErrantX. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
3. A compromised 'crat account could become a compromised sysop account quite easily, even with the sysop inactivity thing in place. Rs chen 7754 01:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I disagree with the premise behind this proposal, but if we do it for admins, why not for crats too? / ƒETCH COMMS / 03:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
5. I don't have a strong feeling on the underlying issue, but I agree with Jusdafax and Fetchcomms, if we do it for admins, it is crazy not to also remove the crat bit. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Sure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Removing the bit from inactive bureaucrats reinforces the concept that we aren't "better" than admins. Inactive editors should have extended userrights removed, whether they be admin or 'crat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Per consensus on de-admining. Pedro :  Chat  06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Support. The concerns about inactive admin accounts apply a fortiori to 'crats. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Same reasoning as for removing inactive admins, surely. Not sure if "desysopped" should be part of the wording -- that's already covered by the current policy, no? Jafeluv ( talk) 07:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Perfectly logical.— S Marshall T/ C 07:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
12. I was against the inactive admins proposal but since that passed, I think it's only logical to handle crats in a similar way. Regards So Why 07:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
13. Duh. AD 10:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Most certainly; having two different standards for two different userrights is illogical. Ironholds ( talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Standards should be the same for admins and crats. GB fan ( talk) 12:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Consistency between admins and bureaucrats in this aspect of policy is ideal. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Makes sense. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Obviously. It would be illogical to desysop inactive admins but not inactive bureaucrats. Robofish ( talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Most definitely. If we're moving to desysop admins for inactivity, then this is a logical by-product of that. — Ched :  ?  15:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Only reason it wasn't in the inactive admin proposal was that the RfC was already well underway when someone brought it up. Since we already have inactivity removals for admins, checkuser and oversight, there's no reason not to have the same for 'crats. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
21. Support, with the proviso that if consensus changes for inactive admins, it should likewise change for inactive bcrats.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
22. We aren't special over any other usergroup. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
23. We're doing this with admins, it makes just as much sense to do this with crats. -- Atama 頭 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
24. Just makes sense. Marcus Qwertyus 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
25. A big kiss from me. Ben Mac Dui 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
26. I was pretty neutral on this proposal for admins, but now that's passed it doesn't make any sense for 'crats not to have the same applied. Peter 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
27. This is consistent. Acalamari 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
28. A small step to institutional health I wouldn't have thought tenable a year ago. Happy days. Skomorokh 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
29. Obviously inactive bureaucrat accounts need handling just as much as inactive admin accounts. Indeed, given the greater power (above all, sysopping any account), arguably the bar should be set a bit higher. Not perhaps as high as Arbcom sets it for checkusers/oversighters, but higher than admins (bearing in mind easy return of rights). It's probably best to establish the principle first, but I think the admin bar should be a minimum for 'crats, and the issue should be revisited down the line. (Consider, for example, that Commons sets the admin bar at six months activity.) Though, if anyone wants to argue that having admins and bureaucrats on the same footing keeps things simple, I'd be hard pressed to disagree. :) Rd232 public ^talk 22:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
30. Wouldn't be fussed if it were only bureaucrats under discussion, but Eluchil404 et al have it right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
31. The same standards that apply for admins should also apply for crats. — mc10 ( t/ c) 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
32. It just makes sense. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
33. Admin, Crat, CU, OS, ahem... certain mailing lists... all of them need this provision. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
34. Makes sense to me. 28bytes ( talk) 01:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Per SoWhy. -- causa sui ( talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
36. Plain logic, since inactive admins lose the flag now. Courcelles 05:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
37. Logic. -- The Σ ^talk _contribs 06:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
38. Agathoclea ( talk) 09:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
39. Let's have fixed terms as well but allow someone to run for as many terms as he can get elected. There is a problem not only with inactive accounts, but people who have become cynical, lazy, etc. What is wrong with making people re-run? HJ Mitchel and the like showed that good admins get re-elected. I don't think the "bully boys" are worried about vandals voting against them, but about the rank and file community who thinks they are bad apples. Look how hard it was to "pry the mop from RHE's dead hands". Let's not have all that drama and PROCESS TIME (could be writing articles) spent on old moderators. Plus it would really make things feel more equal if the terms were not for life. Would reduce class resentments. TCO ( reviews needed) 14:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
40. Logical extension of policy on inactive Admins. jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
41. Makes just as much sense for bureaucrats as it does for admins. Kcowolf ( talk) 16:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
42. A logical extension. Ladyof Shalott 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
43. Yes, makes sense to do this if we're doing it for admins as well. -- El on ka 02:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
44. Support—Logical, practical. Tony (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
45. Support Per User:Jusdafax: “If this is true for admins, it should be true for 'crats.” ‘Taint more complex than that. Greg L ( talk) 04:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
46. As others have said, it makes sense to apply this to 'crats after sysops. Nolelover ^{Talk· Contribs} 04:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
47. Support - FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
48. We've already done this for admin rights, now it's time to do it for bureaucrat rights. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
49. Any conditions we impose on keeping admin rights should be kept at least as strict on 'crat rights. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
50. Good housekeeping and safe. This is how it should always have been. Lightmouse ( talk) 09:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
51. Same reasoning as Od Mishehu and a host of other !votes of the same nature. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 11:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
52. Yoenit ( talk) 11:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
53. per TCO. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
54. Of course. Surprised this doesn't already exist. Jd2718 ( talk) 17:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
55. Support - if inactive administrators are now liable to be desysopped, it is only logical that a similar system be adopted for inactive bureaucrats. Super Mario Man 19:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
56. Per above Griffinofwales ( talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 21:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
57. Support - Any inactive account with privileges just makes the security of the site that much looser. Guy Macon ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
58. Support. To address the potential for risk. Tide rolls 21:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
59. Whether or not you agree that inactive admins should lose their bit, it would now be inconsistent to allow inactive buros to keep their more advanced rights Bob House 884 ( talk) 23:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply
60. Support Don't know if this would affect me or not. I don't remember when I last used my rights. Have been on a nearly year long wikivacation, and am only gradually returning. But at least on my case, I would support it being applied to me. Would save me the hassle of formally asking be revoked ;-) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

    To clarify, this proposal would only affect bureaucrats who are completely inactive (i.e. no edits or log actions _at all_ in over a year). Since you are active on the project (though not necessarily in bureaucrat activity), it would not be applied to you. – xeno ^talk 21:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

61. Support as a logical extension of the currently existing inactive administrator desysopping policy. hare j 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
62. Support, for consistency, and for security - ProtoFire^{→ talk} 01:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
63. jorgenev 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
64. Support this kind of thing has been a long time coming. Glad to see the community is on board with basic security best practices. Gigs ( talk) 02:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
65. Support - basic security issue. demize ( t ·  c) 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
66. But of course. -- JaGa ^talk 04:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
67. Support, essentially per Demize ( talk · contribs), above. — Cirt ( talk) 07:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
68. Support, same standard for all; I approve of equality. And the reasons for desysopping admins apply all the more to 'crats. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
69. T. Canens ( talk) 08:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
70. Support, this is a logical move for me. If the users return a day, they can ask a bureaucrat to have their tools back. Hey Mid ( contribs) 08:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
71. Makes sense to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
72. Support It makes sense for admins, it makes more sense for crats. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
73. Support It's common sense that inactivity policy should apply to bureaucrats as well as admins. TotientDragooned ( talk) 20:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply
74. Support Protonk ( talk) 00:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
75. Support, seems sensible. -- Taelus ( talk) 09:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
76. Support makes logs consistent, makes actions reversible and shows maturity in en.wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
77. Support for consistency with the removal of admin buttons in such a situation. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
78. Logical, sensible, reasonable, practical... whatever you want to call it. Juliancolton ( talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
79. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
80. Yet another supporter to this proposal. I was not aware and thus did not weigh-in on the previous proposal to procedurally de-sysop inactive admins, but think that that policy makes sense, as does carrying over the same standard to inactive bureaucrats. -- Sgt. R.K. Blue ( talk) 08:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
81. Support We have it for sysops, so why not here? ~~ EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 22:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
82. Support. Cla68 ( talk) 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
83. Support as it makes sense. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
84. Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 09:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
85. Support So long as in practice, as with admins, there are no excessive delays in returning the bit to crats if they turn up again and they are given plenty of warning of their impending loss of the bit. — Tom Morris ( talk) 12:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
86. Support. No big deal. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply
87. Support my support for measures such as this (and indeed stronger measures) is well documented. Happy‑ melon 00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
88. Support Probably should have been included in the previous change.  A p3rson  ‽ 17:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
89. Support. A year is an extremely long time, and I see this as a sort of "no harm" step. It's much easier to reinstate the bureaucrat rights after they've been removed than to undo the potential damage by a compromised 'crat account. Furthermore, I support the idea that the policy be the same for 'crats as for admins. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
90. Support. mabdul 02:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply
91. Inactive accounts are more likely to be attached to inactive email addresses, the combination of which may make hacking them easier. Bureaucrat accounts are a graver risk than inactive admin accounts, which cannot make new admins. Better to avoid the risk.-- Chaser2 ( talk) 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply
92. Support - as per the inactive sysop desysopping RFC. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
93. Support - Makes sense with the equivalent proposal for administrators already passed. CT Cooper · talk 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
94. Support - like a returning good faith sysop, having 'Cratship restored should not be an issue, so removing flags from inactive accounts is reasonable. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
95. Support - Without this policy we would have a ridiculous system with crats being able to give themselves administrative rights at any time, completely negating the purpose of the inactive admin policy for them. Plus the even greater risks associated with compromised crat accounts. —  Train2104 ( talk • contribs • count) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply
96. Support - Of course! My76Strat ( talk) 05:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
97. Support - frankie ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
98. Support - its just common sense if you ask me. Good idea. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
99. Support, what's sauce for the goose... Mjroots ( talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose this is just ludicrous. "Bureaucrat is as Bureaucrat does" is what I've always said. Dormant accounts are just that for a reason. Some of the things that should be considered are:

1. How often they did bureaucratic stuff when they were doing stuff like that.

2. How long they have been editing in total(not counting weekends).

4. How long they tend to be dormant when they are not editing.

Basically it should be looked at like hibernation, annual migration, or lapses in judgement. In the end, all is good, but If they were getting paid for it, then it would be different. Think about it: If Bureaucrats had their bit pulled at the Alamo, things would have been much worse. Personally, I think we should lighten up on them a little, obviously they have a lot on their plate. To remove the bit at a time like that is needless pile-on. Now lets get back to building the encyclopedia! Red Lettered Handle ( talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Indented, Red Lettered Handle has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I pretty much copied the same content as was approved for admins :) However the re-granting wording may require further discussion -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think the "bureaucrat action" part is excessive. As long as they're either editing actively or they're performing sysop actions, it'd be silly to de-crat them for not cratting enough—especially considering that unlike sysop actions, bureaucrat actions are much fewer and further-between simply because there are considerably fewer renames/botflaggings/sysoppings and therefore considerably fewer opportunities to use their flag over the same period of time. Instead, I'd say just remove the crat flag if they meet the same criteria for removing the sysop flag. -- slakr^{\  talk /} 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It may be a grammar issue but I think the phrasing is meant to mean a lack of both edits and crat actions (which are not edits, per se). The phrasing is the same as with the de-sysop procedure. That said; I agree and will reword it given no !votes so far :) -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, you should probably say "have the bureaucrat flag removed" instead of "desysopped". -- Rs chen 7754 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I've amended it to say "and have their bureaucrat permissions removed". Ncmvocalist ( talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I read it four times to make sure I had tweaked everything, but I knew I'd miss something :) thanks guys! -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Would it make sense to have a similar policy from non-Arbcom inactive CU/OS accounts? If we're worried about both lack of use and misuse, it seems silly to leave these tools hanging around people who may be retired or not using them. Ironholds ( talk) 11:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  I think it makes more sense to let ArbCom take care of CU/OS removal when necessary since they're the ones that control access to the tools in the first place. ^[2] The situation with those tools is significantly different from community-granted sysop/bureaucrat rights. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  ArbCom already has a policy of removing these rights from inactive users. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Advanced permissions and inactivity. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  Yes... and in fact, the CU/OS permissions may also removed from active users who aren't meeting minimum use requirements that have been set. – xeno ^talk 18:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• While I'd understand that current crats will likely be "grandfathered in" with any new abilities (being able to remove the admin. bit), I'd have to wonder if I might not prefer a returning crat to actually need to reapply through the RfB process. — Ched :  ?  15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

By that logic, should we also force all admins through RfA again who passed before the current set of tools was handed out (e.g. those like me who passed long before RevDel was granted)? Regards So Why 15:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

If you'd been away for X years and just come back to editing - there is an argument for this being the case. If your a sysop right though I think it's assumed you've picked up the necessary knowledge, but a returning one. I'm not a fan of that argument, per se, but it is at least valid -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, I'd think that the "grandfathered in" part might be acceptable on all sides of it. You certainly bring a good, and valid point to the table. I guess my end result thought on it would be that no matter what ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander". To be honest, I was against the "remove bits for inactive" thing from the beginning. (for ALL user-rights.). Ched 173.75.58.10 ( talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (not at home) reply

While never "inactive" I was very low profile with some minimal editing for some time hardly touching admin related subjects, so the situation is not all to different. Any admin worth the trust of the community will act after checking what the sq of policy is in particular if new tools are available. I even would reread 3rr if I ever had to sort out such a messy situation. In short admin/cratship gets given to a person trusted by the community. s/he can be trusted to read up even after a break. Agathoclea ( talk) 09:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it is also worth noting that Wikipedia has quite a number of policies and guidelines, and they change over time. Some areas also have common practices that aren't written down but that influence the behavior of the "regulars" in those areas. So even an active admin or 'crat can by out-of-synch on a particular policy or practice. The key is to be open to correction and gracious in accepting it. Those are traits some admins and 'crats have and some don't, and I'm not sure they are closely correlated to when the person got the tools. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Implementation

Should this proposal carry, there are currently two bureaucrats who would be considered 'inactive' per the criteria. I have notified them both of this ongoing proposal with a note that, should the proposal carry while they remain inactive, their bureaucrat permissions will be removed pending their return. I've also emailed them a copy of the note. They should be dropped a followup note a few days prior to the closure of this RFC. I would suggest that, similar to WP:INACTIVITY, the m:SRP request should be issued by a bureaucrat who has verified the notification requirements were met. – xeno ^talk 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that, if this proposal carries (which appears will be the case), the one month notification mentioned in the proposal be effective from the time this proposal is put into place. This would make sure they have at least one month from being notified, per the wording of the proposal. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

No, the proposal is to be enforced in line with its intended spirit and not in line with wikilawyering; xeno got it right by providing the advance notice. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Eh? I'm not wikilawyering, so please don't say that I am. I'm merely wanting to make sure they have the full one month notification as indicated in this proposal. Calling that "wikilawyering" is patently absurd. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You are wikilawyering, and until you stop, you should not assume you have a license to continue; I seriously dread the trouble you are going to bring to your fellow crats one day with this type of foolishness. That is, you're very deliberately proposing to act counter to the very purpose of making this proposal at this time: namely, not to prolong the management of this risk any further (the comments between me and xeno, followed by the willingness of another user, ErrantX, to take the next step, is why this is here), and to have a method of dealing with such risks hereafter (reflected in the preliminary wording being supported so far). Fortunately, such absurdity can only go so far, given crats like you don't get to wikilawyer over when their permissions are removed, particularly when such a delay in removing permissions is not in the interests of the wider project. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't need any sort of license from you to express an opinion here, and merely expressing an opinion is certainly not wikilawyering in any sense of the word. Nor is trying to make sure the proposed policy is applied fairly and evenly across the board. You disagree with my suggestion. Fine; disagree with it. That's just as much your right as it is mine to express my own opinion. But don't accuse me of trying to game the system (which is what wikilawyering really is, when you get right down to it). There's no need not be civil in this discussion, and immediately accusing me of wikilawyering is certainly not civil. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The policy is being applied fairly, evenly, and with an understanding of the ultimate purpose of this proposal and the underlying priority. When a crat marches along and then tries to demolish the purpose of the proposal (as designed by the three proposing users: myself (an editor who said this needs to be done asap), ErrantX (an admin who had the willingness/ability to take the next step), and xeno (an admin/crat/arb who sent the advance notice)), it is more than just a little troubling that he fails to recognise how that is problematic. This is not the first time you've done something like this either. When someone suggests that people should act counter to the spirit of a policy provision, that is disruptive; your intentions may have been good, but that doesn't change the fact that you were wikilawyering. I'm not sure where there's the unjustified perception that policy is not being applied fairly or evenly is coming from, and frankly if anything, that appears to be the only uncivil suggestion in this discussion. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not trying to "demolish the purpose of the proposal". I am not suggesting "that people should act counter to the spirit" of this proposal (quite the opposite, in fact). I'm not going to bother commenting on anything else as you are apparently bent on reading into my comments far more than was ever there. I've tried to explain what I was intending since you obviously don't understand, but it seems to me that you are just intent on assuming the worst here. Believe what you will; it will be completely off the mark if your comments here have any resemblance to what's actually going through your mind. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It has nothing to do with assuming the best or the worst; the bottom line is good intentions do not make something any less disruptive - it merely mitigates the sanction (if necessary). It's funny how you (a random crat) can continue to say you know the spirit of the policy when the users who brought about the proposal are indicating that you really don't understand the spirit (and are demolishing the purpose of it by proposing to act counter to it). I have to wonder...is this really just another case where you're lacking clue or are you just not listening again? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply

"The users" you mention are only you. No one else has commented, so don't presume to speak for anyone other than yourself unless you're psychic and can read minds. As for you other comments, this is quickly descending into multiple personal attacks on me, for what reason I can not fathom. You seem to have some sort of bee in your bonnet about me, and you've done nothing but assume the worst of me here. I've racked my brains and can't think of exactly why you appear to despise me, since you attacked me as soon as I posted my first comment here. Whatever it is, you can't seem to let go of it, though I would encourage you to do so so that something productive may come of all of this. I hold no grudge toward you, even after all of this, and I would prefer to be able to work productively with you whenever I happen to run across something to which we both want to contribute. The ball's in your court on this one. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC). reply

I understand the spirit of my own proposal, thanks (unless, quite ironically, you're claiming to be a mindreader); ErrantX also understood what I was expecting (and found there was a basis for it) so formalized it; and xeno clearly understood what I was getting at (evidenced by the fact that it was xeno who gave the advance notice). So I am speaking for myself and the users who clearly understood what I was expecting from this. The only problem I have with you is that you aren't helping, you retaliate with frivolous accusations when faced with that possibility, and then you have the nerve to keep that up while claiming you'd like to work productively. Everything is certainly not OK, and as a crat, I expect you to reflect on what is being told (or what you are being told)...even if you don't like it. So far, you've done the complete opposite. And no, that doesn't amount to a personal attack; what it amounts to is a serious concern about your conduct (which is the type of thing that a policy on crats might help out with). If you were to have held a grudge, it would only reflect poorly on you anyway, but it is good to hear that you aren't. But that doesn't change the fact that the ball is actually in your court: are you going to reflect on the concerns or not? I don't appreciate false assurances anymore than any other editor does, so I hope yours do not turn out in the same way as it will reflect poorly on you as a crat in this discussion. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Seeing as this is going nowhere, I'm not going to bother with further replies. We disagree on your interpretation of what I was trying to do with my first comment above, and apparently nothing will change that. I'm going to leave it at that. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I think it worth noting that, to the extent that the issue has come up in the past, some bureaucrats have shown a greater reluctance to restore bureaucrat permissions that might be the case if restoration of admin permissions were requested. See question 12E from MBisanz's RFB, question 7 from Avi's RFB, and question 10 from Anon Diss' RFB. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that the removal of permissions under this policy might therefore be more permanent than that under the corresponding admin policy. WJBscribe (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The immediate priority is to safeguard/protect the Community's interests. 1 year is a very long time, and unless very exceptional circumstances exist for an unexplained long period of inactivity, all crats should take steps to ensure this part of policy need not be invoked to remove their bits. This is just the start of crat policy, with more to come in the very near future. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't have a problem with it being a little more permanent in practice. An entire year going completely AWOL is kind of a long time, and unless they left a note saying they were going to be gone, it does raise questions. Gigs ( talk) 02:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Whilst I understand WJB's thrust in these particular cases the historic inactivity of tool use throws an additional dimension into the equation - TUF-KAT I believe notoriously never used his 'crat tools (a quick flick back to 2006 and I couldn't see anything). I suspect the community would be singularly put out to see TUF-KAT turn up and close a marginal RFA. The permanancy in this instance may not actually be a bad thing (with no disrespect intended - just commenting on reality). Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It seems the last time TUF-KAT used their 'crat toolset was March 2004 - before the actions were recorded in Special:Log! (cf. Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log) – xeno ^talk 20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh - that recently. I withdraw my observation ... ;-) Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC) reply

FWIW, if this proposal passed and people were decratted for inactivity, I would not apply a different standard to recratting than I do to readminning, which I don't think is more or less strict then general expectations. MBisanz ^talk 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC

I'd like some clarification: when this proposal passes, will this also allow bureaucrats to remove bureaucrat flag on inactive accounts, or do they have to go to Meta every time they want to de-bureaucrat an inactive account? Hey Mid ( contribs) 09:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC) reply

No, a request would still need to be made to meta to de-bureaucrat an inactive account. Another set of RfCs need to be opened about (a) crats having the technical ability to decrat another crat, and if that passes, (b) the circumstances in which a crat may use that power. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Why should a bureaucrat' rights be removed? Is there a reason regarding potential compromises or something? If nothing's happening, why remove the rights? Sp33dyphil ^{" Ad astra"} 06:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Since an RFC on removing the rights of inactive admins has been passed, it only makes sense that bureaucrats would be subject to the same treatment. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Why remove an admin's rights in the first place? Sp33dyphil ^{" Ad astra"} 08:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Because if the account is inactive, it is not neccasary to still maintain the user right.-- GoldenGlory84 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, there's a potential security issue (see the relevant section of admin policy for some information about this). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, this has been inactive for a while now. Time to close? -- JaGa ^talk 23:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It should run for 30 days as an RfC. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thirty days is the default removal time for the RFC bot, but it is not a requirement that all RfCs run for 30 days. If there has been no new discussion for over a week and there is a clear consensus in the discussion that has occurred, closing would be entirely reasonable. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, but since it's so close to the 30 days, there's no reason to not let it run the full course. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The closing date is still a week away, August 7. Considering there are other running RfCs concerning bureaucrats, it would be good to have this one put to bed. -- JaGa ^talk 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

So find someone who hasn't participated here and ask them to close it if you're keen on having it end. Perhaps post on WP:AN. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, now there are two new comments on the proposal itself today, so the rationale of closing it because it is inactive no longer applies, although the consensus is so overwhelming that further discussion seems unlikely to change the outcome. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply