Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat activity/report

Dump
I dumped the current list of crats and last dates, but I'm not seeing a good way to automatically mine for all the things that could qualify - may been to be manual. — xaosflux  Talk 05:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did the "easy" ones (rights log of +/- sysop/bot) — xaosflux  Talk 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank's - poke through the botreq here: User talk:Madman/Archive 9 and see special:Permalink/691208262 for other ideas. Might wanna skip the rename bit, it's been a while since that's been considered core. –xenotalk  13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need to include the renames - that was included in the policy even though it was created after all renames moved to meta, so I think counts... WJBscribe (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Feb 2018
thanks for filing in some gaps. looks like there is nothing to "do" right now. — xaosflux  Talk 16:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks both. –xenotalk 17:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we should check this again in August 2018 (Pakaran & EVula), September 2018 (Addshore), and March 2019 (Kingturtle). After that, there's no point looking at this again until March 2020 (Deskana)... WJBscribe (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking the August date - EVula is no longer a bureaucrat, and Pakaran has qualifying activity from Dec 2016. WJBscribe (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've notified Addshore of the pending removal. –xenotalk 20:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Feb 2019
I see that Kingturtle has been notified. Next times to check this: December 2019 (Pakaran) and then April 2020 (Cecropia & Bibliomaniac15). WJBscribe (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pakaran was removed for simple inactivity in Oct 2019. Now the 3-year no BURACT is also reached, do we need to send the notifications besides? –xenotalk 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * we don't normally notify former rights holders that they pass a threshold where they would need to use the standard process to re-request access. — xaosflux  Talk 15:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being bureaucratic, aren’t the notifications a necessary action to make the change in eligibility effective? Or do we just refer to NOTBURO and the fact the affected user should be aware? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, at least according to Bureaucrats. My analysis of clause 1:


 * 1) Bureaucrat accounts that have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (without any edits or other logged actions) may have their bureaucrat permissions removed.
 * This is declarative, provides authority for removal.
 * 1) The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page and via email one month before the removal of permissions and again several days before the request is made.
 * This is a conditional requirement prior to removal of access being authorized.
 * In this case it was satisfied.
 * 1) Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions.
 * This is a process direction. It was followed.
 * 1) This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools.
 * This is informational.
 * 1) If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years.
 * This is declarative, and also contains a conditional disqualification.


 * In clause 1, statement (5) already includes a disqualifying condition - in this specific case that condition has now occurred. This condition does not have a requirement for any additional notification processes.


 * The path for removal available in clause 2 was not needed, as clause 1 became relevant first. — xaosflux  Talk 00:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ah. In Special:Diff/919200196, I believe you conflated two different paths to removal which were formerly as follows: a) 1 year total inactivity (i.e. no edits whatsoever)/dead at 3 and b) 3 years no widely defined bureaucrat activity, and the bureaucrat was warned about the removal for missed activity requirements. This is all likely academic, but does that scan? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that was just explaining the current practice, notably - in case #2 the notification only occurs "before removal" of permissions, however if access was removed under case #1 the notification wouldn't occur in case #2 as there would never be a "before removal" of the permission. The crat not-quite-a-policy is usually open for interpretation, by us crats. As far as your original question goes, I think it is easy to put this in the same scope as we treat admins: if an admin looses permissions (by inactivity or resignation) we don't then chase after them to inform them when they would need to use the standard request process - and this happens constantly.  —  xaosflux  Talk 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 04:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)