Knowledge talk:Bureaucrat removal

3472:

could be designed and tested. But the intended benefit here is still eluding me. Like Garion, I can see point 1 from two perspectives. Moreover, a purged crat doesn't magically become any more contactable and I don't imagine (tho do prove me wrong!) that many projects and decisions are in limbo because people are spending months waiting for particular absentees to rematerialize and weigh in. (I can understand that the category listings may get outmoded, but if you want to contact an active bureaucrat, there is a noticeboard for that - and even if you prefer to send a private message, activity on the board would be a surefire way of knowing who's been about the last couple of days. Firing off at someone randomly selected from the category is always going to be a hit-and-miss affair, even if the very-long-term absentees have been removed.) I can also see that a liberal rule, e.g. requiring complete lack of editing for 18 months (maybe including editing at relevant sister projects, and exemption for Wikimedia staff etc.) and automatically granting rights back on request, does no apparent harm except ruleclog (I dislike ruleclog but suspect it's inevitable in a consensus model; I can sympathise with the "no implementing new solutions if they don't have clearly defined problems" camp as a result), I can't work out the proposed gain. Moreover, I can't work out how tightening the rule would reap greater benefit, and at some point an over-tight rule probably does do harm.

226:

possible, this does not seem to have been an issue, and our selection of bureaucrats in general expects of them to be clueful in all situations, including if they are coming back from hibernation. Idly following WP:BN, I've seen examples both of long-tenure, not-very-active bureaucrats raising somewhat anachronistic viewpoints, as well as such bureaucrats acting as a welcome counterweight to active more recent bureaucrats who were getting too caught up in complexifying processes. So on this count, while AD doesn't like the wording, I agree with others saying this is a solution in of a problem and so unnecessary. Second, one can be of the philosophical persuasion that all admin functions should have term limits or inactivity limits and bureaucrats as a good starting point. I tend to be slightly opposed to this as well, though I see the point - but if that is the approach, I think we should debate and come up with an de-admining protocol first and then debate what it should mean for bureaucrats.

3679:: It seems to be that Bureaucrat is one of those positions that is best performed by being a Bureaucrat as little as possible. I haven't seen anyone state a clear need for Bureaucrats to be continually active. We don't want Bureaucrats using their power capriciously; that's why the power isn't handed out like candy. However, by telling Bureaucrats "you must use your special powers or they will be taken from you," wouldn't we be encouraging them to act capriciously? Would not a person in that position start looking for an excuse, any excuse, to do something that would reset the clock? I fear that this proposal would lead to bad judgements, because Bureaucrats would no longer choose whether or not to exercise their powers based solely on the issues at hand; they would start factoring in "...but it's been a while since I did anything, so even though I have doubts, I guess I'll do this..." Without any argument 1030:

We currently list 1741 editors with administrative privileges, but this does in no way equal the amount of active users as only a fraction still edits. My condition is that this "De-rights" process only applies to extremely inactive users, for example, who have not made a single edit in 2-3 years. This can easily be run as a batch job with little user involvement, so bureaucracy would be little. I am aware that people will argue "Nothing bad happened so far, so why 'fix' it"? I would however argue that a security issue is an issue even if not exploited - especially if fixing it would generate negligible negative response.

1020:. I would point out that a generally accepted computer security methodology is limiting system access to the absolute minimum unless otherwise required. Every bureaucrat/administrator is technically a small though ever present security risk - man cannot remove administrator/bureaucrat rights due to this risk because the rights are needed, but i see no reason why someone who is completely inactive should retain rights. As a secondary concern i would point out that (very) long absence would mean that a users knowledge of Knowledge policies degenerates due to policy changes or simple "forgetting". 985:

longer-standing bureaucrats. Fine. Creating a catch-all administrative process encompassing all current and future bureaucrats, so that a subset of them can be stripped of their tools is a poor solution. Either decide that the group damages the encyclopedia because of their tools (you'll need to find some evidence) and then tackle them individually as you would an abusive admin, or decide that actually, there's no evidence of misuse of tools and no real danger of it without recourse, in which case... --

3356:- we can discuss the details later; time period, and possible considerations for re-application, etc. But if they've been inactive for years...is it really a big deal to have to re-apply? Some say it is unnecessary, and solves a non-existent problem; well, if that is the biggest downside, then is that really significant? Because the up-side is improved security, prevention of damage, etc etc. Seems a no-brainer to me; I see no compelling reason for someone inactive for a huge length of time to 638:, at least support for exploring this further. I'm broadly sympathetic to the idea that such positions should not come with tenure. On the other hand, I'm not seeing evidence that this has been a major problem. Based on the discussion so far, I'd say that any workable proposal should count all editing activity as being active, and should only allow removal after the person has been contacted and been given a fair opportunity to respond that they are still active. -- 740:

enjoyed the confidence of the community (whether due to inactivity or otherwise) could be removed. I think there is merit in what SilkTork proposes - a yearly reconfirmation requirement for bureaucrats makes sense to me and may be a better option than recall. I'm not saying a new RfB every year, but that a certain level of community confidence would need to be demonstrated (even if it is just 50%+).

912:

nearly as long or detailed as a real one) where people would ask questions about current policy\consensus\policy\ and !vote on whether they should be kept a bureaucrat. There might also be a limit on how many times they can do this (once or twice with exception of if they can mail proof to the foundation they were seriously sick or injured?). If not some kind of light reconfirmation process,

801:

it. As to the point about there needing some sort of misconduct, it's a shame that it's seen as a waster of time to tell the rest they're doing a good job - everyone's a volunteer after all. I always thought meta's admin reconfirmation process was a good one (though I know not everyone agrees). It wouldn't scale here due to number of admins, but for crats I think it would be a good idea.

3638:: as said elsewhere, this seems to be a solution looking for a problem. If a bureaucrat has misused the tools, we have a review process for that, namely the arbitration committee, much like admins who misuse the tools. Tool use is not rocket science, and an out-of-circulation 'crat can easily become familiar with developments by a little discussion. 344:

ceased to be active 4 years ago can come in and simply regain the 'crat tools today. As for institutional knowledge... if they haven't been active for 4 years, I'm more worried about their current understanding than how things used to be. Plus, we have plenty of 'crats who have been around for years and have that institutional knowledge already.---

836:

controversial activity; however, the potential drama of that could be modified by setting up a flexible review system which gave time spans rather than fixed occasions. If the community were still significantly unsettled some months after an incident, then that would suggest the decision made by the 'crat in that incident was inappropriate.

3385:: Do we have any technical constraints on the number of bureaucrats? I doubt that wikipedia suffers through having some inactive bureaucrats remain on the roll. If the problem is one of bad bureaucrats (perhaps returning after a long break and then making some bad decisions), I think that problem should be addressed more directly... 3759:, there is no rule that says that crats have to maintain a token activity to keep their status. Crats are chosen based on the level of trust that the community has in their ability to use the tools correctly and if they misuse the tools they can be removed. There has never been a token level of activity that is expected. 3803:

time (and succeeded) even though some editors thought it should just have been granted to me by right, since I was not removed. As to the instant issue, it does seem like a problem in search of a cause: we have had bureaucrats removed for cause, and there is no reason not to continue to do this. IIRC

3528:

admin rights are also removed for inactivity. This is because 'crat rights are actually less 'dangerous' than admin rights. If a hacker hacks an admin account, chances are he wants to block users or delete pages. I can't imagine why a hacker would want to rename an account or make people admins. BTW,

3839:

their tools doesn't mean they don't deserve the position. Sometimes, the best leader is the one who remains invisible. And, I'd like to reverberate what several above me have stated-- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Sounds to me as if someone just wants to click a de-sysop feature...create a test

1260:

and imposition of pointless bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Given the rigor of the process that bureaucrats have to go through at RfB, putting fewer candidates through that process and having more approved bureaucrats at the end of the day is a good thing. And for those who have been inactive,

911:

I would support a reconfirmation process after a certain low-activity period (perhaps average below 3edits\day for five months). Maybe "Adoption" by a current bureaucrat for a certain amount of time who would graduate or keep them longer when it finishes. Or they might go through a short "RFBR" (not

800:

Sometimes I worry that "avoiding drama" has become a goal in itself. Where that means that issues fester unaddressed, I think it's unhealthy. As others point out below, there will only be drama if there is an issue with the conduct of a bureaucrat being reconfirmed. If there is one, I'd like to hear

343:

but willing to listen to counter arguments. I've seen 'crats rise from the dead and wondered who the hell they were only to drift back into obscurity after performing a few 'crat actions. I would not be opposed to a simplified re-cratting process. But I do think it is ridiculous that somebody who

1029:

as an example - We have admins with less then 1000 (Or even 200) edits, and who'se last edits have been years and years ago. Could such a person function as an admin when he or she returns after such a long break? I really doubt it. Besides, a general cleanup every now and then is never a bad idea.

277:

The "institutional memory" is nonsense really - there's nothing really an inactive bureaucrat would be able to do that an active one couldn't. This is why we appoint new ones, under ridiculous scrutiny. I think they are plenty capable, but the old ones, who for one reason or another never use their

3808:

did not support removing 'crats simply because of inactivity. TO speak only for myself, I have been inactive to mildly active on Knowledge for over two years because of personal business, which I said at the time. I would not resume bureaucratic duties until I have thoroughly reviewed the state of

739:

I'm not sure this is the right solution to the underlying problem. Activity is only part of the picture. I suspect there are fairly inactive crats who retain community confidence and there may be active crats who do not. I would prefer a recall system for bureaucrats so that any crat who no longer

655:

removal of access for crats who aren't editing much at all. If a crat is still a reasonably active member of the community, participates in discussions, edits, etc. and makes a crat action just occasionally, I'm fine with that, but if they barely edit at all, then I'm not sure how they can keep up

3425:

of active ones which is surely the statistic of practical importance - and it's not even obvious that this is a number that it is desirable to raise. Although I sympathise with the "solution looking for a problem" position, it's possible I'm missing something and there is indeed a genuine problem

1277:

Your comment makes little sense to me. For a start, WP:CREEP – an essay which is frequently misquoted – does not really pertain to the topic at hand; please take the time to read it more carefully. Next, it should be noted that the rigorousness of RfB has not always been present. For example, see

1220:

in part. Inactive bureaucrats should be awarded the title of "Emeritus Bureaucrat". Then have new bureaucrats. When there is a shortage, then the emeritus crats can be considered to be an active one. In other words, we keep respecting them but retire them and give them priority to un-retire.

835:

If there is no cause for concern, why would there be drama? And if there is cause for drama/concern, then all the more reason to discuss it openly rather than allowing concerns to fester under suppression. There may be occasions when the timing of a review might be influential because of a recent

482:

the inactivity. You don't find it a problem, I do. I think it's disrespectful to the community to ask for such rights and never use them (or stop using them without good reason). RFB is probably the hardest thing to pass on Wikimedia projects, so it's inappropriate that someone who got the bit in

461:

It's creating bureaucracy to manage a 'problem' that doesn't exist. It isn't just the mere minute it takes. You have to come up with standards for removal. Then you have to come up with a process for removal, including notifications via talk pages, e-mails, etc. Senseless addition of bureaucracy.

3854:

I think it should be discussed, but I don't think a single specific system or non-specific proposals are going to go far. I think a discussion should start with a few specific proposals where users comment and then if modified proposals are needed, those are drafted and users comment on those. I

3471:

Same here. Please don't take me for being hostile towards the proposal. I actually think the wiki consensus model is inherently far too resistant to change, and on principle, even in the absence of any evidence that it'd work, I'd usually support a time-limited trial if suitable benefit measures

1048:

Any permissions unused in a community-defined idle period (I suggest 365 days) should be removed without prejudice to reduce the impact of an idle account being hacked. The permissions should be restored for the asking once the editor in question requests them, presuming the 365-day idle period

949:

for one simple reason: I don't think it's good for long-inactive users to have extraordinary rights such as that of bureaucrat. Beside providing that inactive bureaucrats be de-bureaucratted, we could also include a provision that a de-bureaucratted account, upon becoming active again, could be

720:

There has been discussion bubbling under for a little while that the community should have the opportunity to review the activity of admins, bureaucrats, stewards, et al, at regular periods to ensure that the community trust is being upheld. I'm not sure that inactivity in itself is cause for me

158:. A proper definition of "highly inactive" is yet to be determined; such a discussion should probably wait till the basic principle is adopted. The intention is rather that we discuss the merits and faults of the idea, as well as potential alternatives. Thanks in advance for your participation. — 1328:

as there are many very good reasons to deflag inactive bureaucrats, including the potential for a more practical and convenient list of currently flagged users. Near as I can tell nobody has presented any sort of argument as to why retaining bureaucrats who haven't so much as edited in years is

984:

anything that adds an additional impediment to people thinking of standing to be Bureaucrats. I further oppose as I perceive this as a wide-ranging problem to a specific problem. It's clear from discussions at BN over the last year or two that there are some Wikipedians who distrust some of the

685:

the concept. Conditional on taking a markedly different approach to the one that Commons takes with admins. For the record, I do not understand why this is being restricted to crats. But if this is to be brought in, it should be based on inactivity of all kinds, not just a lack of crat or admin

503:

Or stop using them without good reason? What? So, bureaucrats will have to come to a review board to determine if they have a good reason to stop using them, or else suffer...what? The rest of your arguments don't suggest bureaucrat removal, they suggest reconfirmation. That's a different beast

225:

at this time. There are two ways of framing this (see AD's raising of the topic at WT:BN). First, driven by a sense that inactive bureaucrats can now "reactivate" themselves at will and could misjudge consensus given changing mores of the community - i.e, a specific issue for this role. While

1078:

removal of only those that are unreachable, that is, those that are not around to protest the removal themselves. If, after months of inactivity, one suddenly speaks up and does not want to be demoted, then he should not, even if he continues to be inactive afterwards. I suggest a "period of

3683:

the proposal more compelling than "some subset of Bureaucrats have been inactive, and at least one such Bureaucrat made a decision that at least one editor felt was made only because said Bureaucrat was out of touch"... I can't see that the benefits outweigh the risks of this proposal. //

3238:

People can sometimes be busy with stuff and not be able to help. They will always, one day or another, come back and return to activity. Having bureaucrats that are busy (a.k.a. inactive) doesn't hurt anybody, and there isn't a limit on the number of bureaucrats that can be on a wiki.

1282:

from 2004, which passed (10/0/0) with no questions asked. Finally, the statement that this proposal "will not function as a deterrent to " misses a crucial point: The proposal will affect not just the current group of inactive bureaucrats, but those who will be inactive in the future.

865:

I've always been against term limits as it will serve to cause people (crats/sysops) to, even subconciously, try and cater to what they perceive is the whim of the people as opposed to filling their duties and making tough decisions. Bits can always be removed through an RfAR. I

3277:

it may be appropriate. Most often if someone loses their bits, they can ask for them back, and get them back without a question asked (Unless arbcom/jimbo/community says otherwise). I would assume that they could say something like "I don't want my 'crat taken away".

3737:

The same argument can be used against 'active' bureaucrats. We know who they are, therefore they can be targeted. Whether a bureaucrat is active or not has no effect on whether they can or would be hacked. The more central issue is requiring more secure passwords.

483:

2004 with 8 votes (all from people who haven't edited in years) and never used it, still has the right to use them, but someone just as capable editing actively today will be turned down for "not been an admin a year, not enough featured articles"-type thing.

3813:

I would support asking both admins AND 'crats on their talk pages if they intend to become active again or if they would voluntarily give up their bits. I would support a non-response for a full year as meaning they are not interested. -- Cheers, your loving

330:

on principle. As with sysops (which I also support and have supported in the past), this would go a long way in dispelling the notion that we have some cabal, group of elite, etc. This would also reflect the ever-changing and evolving community that we have.

440:

Don't need a catastrophe to implement a new idea. We also don't need a problem to introduce a new idea. There are what, 30-something bureaucrats? It'll take about a minute to remove inactive ones. That's it. Hardly bureaucracy. Just simplistic housekeeping.

1195:

Aw, I hadn't noticed that Angela resigned. I need to pay more attention. That's the trouble of being an IP, I can't have a watchlist. But that's two 'crats to have resigned this year (plus X! temporarily) after have no resignations in three years.

1103:, which is already at toxic levels anyway. I would like to see what happens when an administrator steps away from his computer for a year, comes back, and gazes in horror at what's been wrought by those who've been at Knowledge the whole time. 383:

solution looking for a problem. Has any inactive bureaucrat ever created a problem? Why on earth even propose this solution when no problem has been identified? The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

278:

tools, or use them badly, I believe are not so much. Bureaucratship is completely overrated for what it is, so I don't see why it should be a big deal for inactives to have it taken from them. If they never use it, they won't miss it.

3510:

no actions in the last year is pretty inactive. They can always be re-nominated. Especially the ones who haven't been active for two years. Also as above its a security issue to keep people with rights they haven't used for years. --

242:

Martinp raises an important point here; "old hand" bureaucrats often supply useful institutional memory: even if semi-active/rarely active, they may be able to provide insight into aspects of a situation that newer bureaucrats have

261:

I find this point relatively unimportant. Knowledge and its community change quickly, and old practice is old practice for a reason. I for one can't recall a recent situation in which an "old hand" has provided unique insight.

3798:

Those of you who know me probably recall that I was the most active bureaucrat for quite a while in the early days of the bureaucracy. You may also recall that I withdrew voluntarily for a year and stood for the bureaucracy a

3835:. It's quite possible these people are busy with something in their life and will return once that is over (I actually virtually left Knowledge for over a year at one point in time). Besides, just because a beaurocrat hasn't 3718:

technical removal of privileges for inactivity, with their restoration upon request. It's never a good idea to leave extra privileges hanging around, waiting to get hacked, especially when the targets are freely known.

870:

be partial to the concept that an incative crat/sysop of significant duratino (1+ year) would need some kind of "refresher" class before re-entering the venues as policies and accepted practice does change over time. --

769:

I'm against that. A !vote should only be resorted to in the case of perceived misuse of the tools. We shouldn't be wasting our time on them just because it happens to have been 12 months since the last inquisition.

705:

For the exact same reason I opposed this the last time it came up, it is a solution in search of a problem to solve, nobody has demonstrated that there are significant ongoing problems caused by inactive crats.

967:, the bureaucrat permission allows conferring of significant rights and users who are not up to date with the policies on conferring those rights (evidenced by absence from the community) should not keep them. 3855:

think in this case it'll be the details which will be the make/break rather than the general thing, and hopefully people would approach it with a collaborative outlook and they will compromise where they can.

721:

personally to lose trust in someone - each case would need to be examined on its merits. So I am not in favour of removing inactive people, but I am in favour of the principle of a periodic check up.

3661:

It's not a bad idea to instantiate the idea that privileges are not retained forever. I see no possible harm in striking privileges after prolonged inactivity. A zero-pain precautionary measure.

1329:

necessary. I've grown quite irritated with the "solution in search of a problem" cliché being used as justification to oppose anything in sight, as seems to be an issue in this discussion.

3360:

this right - a right that we are so very careful to assign, these days. It only becomes a big deal if we have to endlessly discuss it; really, it's a trivial issue, given long timeframes.

1302:

closer, but its not Jeff, it's you. This is creating yet more unneeded process to correct a "problem" that's not actually a problem. This idea is wrongheaded and unnecessary. --

39: 246:

I'm of the mind that any proposal like this should come from without, not from within. Any removal of inactive bureaucrats will create a hegemony in the remainder. –

1156:, edited infrequently and easily watchlisted. The criteria for "active" should be loose and generous, along the lines of "keeps up to date with current practices". 3698:

Your objection misses the mark. The inactivity time scales we are discussing are on the order of months and years, not days and weeks as you seem to be assuming. —

128: 307:

As nobody has ever provided a single solid argument in keeping inactive bureaucrats, but plenty of good arguments for removal, supporting is the only way to go.

198:

on the grounds of lack of evidence that this is actually a problem, much less a problem of such magnitude that we need a process specifically to deal with it.

1177:

There should be no pressure on bureaucrats discovering real life responsibilities to resign. The wisdom of old experience is only valued when it is needed.

3304:

almost half of the 'crats haven't made a 'crat action in over 1.5 years, probably no need for them if they're not using them (As i said in my comment above)

1279: 545: 98: 593:

That was the first thing that came to mind. There may be more problems, or a bigger problem, that I'm not recalling at the moment but someone else might.

3417:

I can understand that some people might feel uneasy with "50% of bureaucrats are inactive" but in what sense does a mass decrat solve this? What exactly

1442: 74: 1430: 3459:

I still don't see a genuine problem in that discussion though. Perhaps point 1 is, although I actually think point 1 isn't a problem but a benefit.

2912: 2812: 174:

Addendum: Participants are asked to consider the notion of removing bureaucrats without a great deal of regard for the merits of the content on

2900: 2800: 1436: 3421:

the proposed benefit of making sure that 100% of bureaucrats are active, simply by decrat of those who are inactive? It doesn't increase the

1596: 80: 3620:: The proposed policy is well-written and will help editors find bureaucrats who are active and can actually help them in a timely manner. 1584: 1330: 1197: 820: 594: 557: 367: 3341:, certainly if the definition of inactivity is related to recent use of the tools, though under any formulation it seems a waste of time. 151: 2906: 2864: 2806: 2612: 2096: 2046: 1648: 1116: 3581:- Remove only if user is completely inactive (no edits of any sort) for a minimum of 2 years. Should apply to both admins and crats. — 1344:

I have compiled a sortable list of all current bureaucrats and their last crat actions performed (i.e. +-bot, +sysop, or user rename):

2964: 2852: 2600: 2084: 2034: 1744: 1636: 1181:

recent resignation is a loss for the project notwithstanding the statistics on her recent rate of exercise of bureaucrat function. --

462:

What problem does it solve? And why on God's green earth create more bureaucracy when there is no problem? Just for the hell of it? --

2952: 2664: 2144: 1732: 1590: 3016: 2652: 2196: 2132: 777: 693: 665: 3222:

inactive crats. If it applied to active users who haven't performed crat actions in a long time, I would oppose such a measure.

3593: 3004: 2858: 2606: 2456: 2300: 2184: 2090: 2040: 1692: 1642: 1390: 898: 573:

small of a problem??? That was a landslide promotion. Creating a bureaucracy to deal with a niggling problem like that? Wow. --

178:– in other words, with a fresh outlook. As a result of these discussions, much of the content on that page might be changed. — 3649: 2958: 2712: 2444: 2404: 2352: 2288: 2248: 1996: 1892: 1840: 1796: 1738: 1680: 1494: 1378: 20: 3560:- For starters, I can't think of any good reason not to remove the crat bits if they haven't been used in 2 years or more.-- 3706: 3452: 2760: 2700: 2658: 2560: 2392: 2340: 2236: 2138: 1984: 1880: 1828: 1784: 1482: 1424: 1291: 1244: 762: 270: 186: 166: 69: 3345: 3010: 2748: 2548: 2508: 2190: 1944: 1546: 175: 24: 1149: 3607: 3542: 3120: 2496: 2450: 2294: 1932: 1686: 1534: 1384: 60: 3108: 2894: 2794: 2706: 2398: 2346: 2242: 1990: 1886: 1834: 1790: 1488: 93: 3068: 2754: 2554: 1067: 1010: 520:

I'd prefer reconfirmation actually, but seeing as it's unlikely any inactive bureaucrat would pass such a thing,

107: 3700: 3446: 3056: 2502: 1938: 1578: 1540: 1419: 1334: 1285: 1238: 1201: 824: 756: 598: 561: 371: 366:

I would like to, at minimum, discuss it further. There are some good points for removing inactive bureaucrats.

264: 180: 160: 3841: 3441: 3342: 3114: 1110: 819:

What if it was a mesh of the two? A reconfirmation of some kind if some "inactivity" threshold was reached.

1095:

Any change in policy which makes it more difficult to participate in Knowledge's development unless you're

2846: 2594: 2078: 2028: 1630: 933: 3860: 3516: 3477: 3431: 3062: 2946: 2889: 2789: 1726: 1153: 3206:

hope that if automatically removed, the tools may be freely returned simply upon the user's request. -

3743: 3625: 3621: 3548: 3188: 2646: 2126: 1005: 774: 711: 690: 670: 643: 578: 532: 509: 491: 467: 449: 429: 412: 389: 353: 315: 286: 1261:

such a policy will not function as a deterrent to inactivity because they won't know about it. —

1002:. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem; however, I support a 'crat recalling process. 3587: 3498: 3390: 2998: 2178: 1573: 1186: 1159:

Inactive bureaucrats should not exercise their bureaucrat functions without moving themselves from

1085: 893: 806: 745: 136: 50: 3809:

the bureaucrat and its decisions, and I would expect other inactive bureaucrats would do the same.

3819: 3724: 3669: 3643: 3567: 3463: 3406: 3313: 3287: 3250: 3174: 2438: 2282: 1674: 1372: 1105: 1054: 846: 731: 332: 112: 65: 400:

Yes actually, they have. Can't recall details though, can anyone? I assure you, there very much

3764: 3689: 3271: 2841: 2694: 2589: 2386: 2334: 2230: 2073: 2023: 1978: 1874: 1822: 1778: 1625: 1476: 1267: 990: 955: 925: 919: 876: 791: 231: 46: 3529:

this is the way Wikibooks is working: admin rights are removed after one year of inactivity.

504:

entirely. For what its worth, I believe Jimbo himself has previously shot down both ideas. --

3856: 3785: 3512: 3473: 3427: 2941: 2742: 2542: 1721: 1311: 972: 109: 3864: 3844: 3823: 3790: 3768: 3747: 3739: 3728: 3708: 3693: 3671: 3653: 3629: 3612: 3573: 3552: 3538: 3520: 3502: 3481: 3466: 3454: 3435: 3409: 3394: 3377: 3348: 3333: 3320: 3294: 3257: 3230: 3210: 3194: 3177: 2641: 2490: 2121: 1926: 1528: 1338: 1316: 1299: 1293: 1272: 1257: 1246: 1230: 1226: 1205: 1190: 1123: 1087: 1070: 1058: 1038: 1012: 994: 976: 959: 950:

restored to those rights without needing to go through a new request for bureaucratship.

941: 903: 880: 849: 828: 810: 795: 781: 771: 764: 749: 734: 715: 707: 697: 687: 677: 660: 647: 639: 630: 602: 582: 574: 565: 539: 527: 513: 505: 498: 486: 471: 463: 456: 444: 433: 425: 419: 407: 393: 385: 375: 358: 346: 335: 322: 310: 293: 281: 272: 256: 235: 217: 188: 168: 140: 111: 3583: 3494: 3386: 3370: 3102: 2993: 2173: 1182: 1080: 888: 803: 742: 254: 199: 155: 132: 154:, and is designed to gauge community support for the idea of removing highly inactive 3815: 3720: 3663: 3639: 3562: 3460: 3403: 3307: 3281: 3240: 2433: 2277: 1669: 1367: 1050: 1031: 839: 724: 3169:

10 (28.6%) have not logged a crat action within the past 24 months (2 years) or more

3760: 3685: 3330: 3050: 2689: 2381: 2329: 2225: 1973: 1869: 1817: 1773: 1471: 1264: 986: 951: 872: 787: 624: 227: 1174:, the bureaucrat bit should probably be removed, if only as a security precaution. 404:

a problem, and not just the problem they continue to hold rights they never use.

3777: 3166:

11 (31.4%) have not logged a crat action within the past 18 months (1 1/2 years)

2737: 2537: 1303: 1178: 968: 3599: 3186:

I don't like the fact that "more than the 50% of the bureaucrats" is inactive.

3531: 3268: 3223: 2485: 1921: 1523: 1222: 1100: 544:

Perhaps Aiken is referring to Cimon Avaro coming out of nowhere to close his

3363: 3207: 3097: 247: 3163:

14 (40.0%) have not logged a crat action within the past 12 months (1 year)

1066:. There's enough real problems without addressing low-risk hypotheticals.-- 3274: 3426:

that can be practically solved or at least alleviated. But what is it?

3045: 3840:

account and do that instead of disendowing someone of their rights.

1221:

Every crat should be a bureaucrat for 5 years then become emeritus.

552:

a support to the oppose section, which resulted in an edit war and

3805: 3160:

17 (48.6%) have not logged a crat action within the past 6 months.

3157:

20 (57.1%) have not logged a crat action within the past 3 months.

129:

Knowledge:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_20#Inactive_bureaucrats

3402:

per MartinP. Plus it really is a solution looking for a problem.

3154:

23 (65.7%) have not logged a crat action within the past 1 month.

1236:

This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. —

113: 15: 3150:

According to the above table, of the 35 current bureaucrats:

3329:

Solution looking for a problem. Really unnecessary process.

524:

sounds like a bigger time-waster than simply removing them.

3776:

As mentioned, this is a solution in search of a problem. --

1152:. This should be a simple page, not to be confused with 1133:

sometime less legalistic than the current (failed) page.

1026: 553: 549: 152:

Knowledge:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Inactive bureaucrats

424:

Ah, a very memorable, catastrophic problem then. :) --

754:

I'd support such a reconfirmation process as well. —

1140:The current bureaucrats should be divided into 8: 1049:wasn't following departure "under a cloud". 916:- it doesn't cause that much of a problem. 1346: 1154:Knowledge:Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats 786:Strong oppose to annual dramafests. -- 548:in five years. During his closure, he 622:I've been saying this for years now. 7: 3202:- And if this motion is carried, I 23:for discussing improvements to the 3526:Conditional support if and only if 14: 3804:the last time this issue came up 1150:Knowledge:All bureaucrat accounts 1097:obsessively checking in every day 656:with policy changes and whatnot. 40:Click here to start a new topic. 123:more discussion July 2010 WP:BN 1: 3865:17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3845:21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 3824:19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 3791:19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 3769:23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 3748:23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 3729:00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 1317:19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 150:This request follows on from 37:Put new text under old text. 176:Knowledge:Bureaucrat removal 3833:Super majorly strong oppose 3709:06:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 3694:20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 3672:03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 3654:13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 3630:15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 3613:22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC) 3574:21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC) 3553:09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC) 3521:22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 3503:15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3482:15:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3467:13:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3455:11:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3436:10:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3410:20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3395:15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3378:06:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 3349:18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 3334:16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 3321:01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 3295:01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 3258:21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 3231:15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 3218:, as long as it applies to 3211:03:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 3195:00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 3178:00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1170:After 1-2 years listing as 45:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3881: 1339:22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1294:06:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1273:05:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1247:06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1231:03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1206:15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 1191:23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1124:21:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1088:02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1079:inactivity" be 1 year. -- 1071:23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1059:07:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 1039:22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 1013:16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 995:10:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 977:09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 960:01:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 942:23:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 904:23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 881:16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 850:23:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 829:16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 811:12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 796:13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 782:11:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 765:11:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 750:11:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 735:10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 716:00:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 698:23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 678:21:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 648:19:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 631:18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 603:17:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 583:17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 566:17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 540:16:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 514:16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 499:16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 472:16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 457:16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 434:15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 420:15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 394:15:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 376:15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 359:15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 336:15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 323:14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 294:14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 273:14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 257:13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 236:13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 218:13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 189:10:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 169:09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 146:Bureaucrat removal revival 3493:: What Scott Mac said. -- 554:temporary page protection 141:12:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 1298:Someone needs to read 1027:list of administrators 70:avoid personal attacks 3216:Support conditionally 1025:I would point to our 683:Conditionally support 3702:Anonymous Dissident 3579:Conditional support 3448:Anonymous Dissident 1420:Anonymous Dissident 1287:Anonymous Dissident 1240:Anonymous Dissident 1018:Conditional support 909:Conditional Support 758:Anonymous Dissident 266:Anonymous Dissident 182:Anonymous Dissident 162:Anonymous Dissident 3842:Bob the Wikipedian 3784: 3705: 3668: 3451: 3343:Christopher Parham 2778:September 14, 2009 2625:September 25, 2007 1310: 1290: 1243: 809: 761: 748: 269: 185: 165: 127:See (archived at) 81:dispute resolution 42: 25:Bureaucrat removal 3782: 3699: 3662: 3551: 3445: 3376: 3319: 3293: 3148: 3147: 2987:December 12, 2007 2683:February 20, 2007 2672:February 20, 2007 2630:November 20, 2007 2526:November 26, 2007 2375:February 21, 2010 2370:February 12, 2010 2360:February 21, 2010 2167:November 30, 2009 2152:November 30, 2009 1408:February 17, 2009 1308: 1284: 1237: 802: 755: 741: 589:Hey, I only said 263: 179: 159: 120: 119: 61:Assume good faith 38: 3872: 3788: 3780: 3703: 3666: 3611: 3602: 3572: 3547: 3545: 3534: 3449: 3375: 3373: 3367: 3361: 3318: 3316: 3305: 3292: 3290: 3279: 3256: 3253: 3246: 3245: 3228: 3191: 3144: 3139: 3134: 3129: 3124: 3092: 3087: 3082: 3077: 3072: 3040: 3035: 3030: 3025: 3020: 2988: 2983: 2982:November 1, 2009 2978: 2973: 2968: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2921: 2916: 2890:UninvitedCompany 2884: 2873: 2868: 2836: 2831: 2826: 2821: 2816: 2790:The Rambling Man 2784: 2783:December 9, 2009 2779: 2774: 2769: 2768:December 9, 2009 2764: 2729: 2721: 2716: 2684: 2673: 2668: 2636: 2635:January 17, 2008 2631: 2626: 2621: 2620:January 17, 2008 2616: 2584: 2579: 2574: 2573:January 29, 2009 2569: 2564: 2532: 2527: 2522: 2517: 2512: 2480: 2475: 2470: 2465: 2460: 2428: 2423: 2418: 2417:January 15, 2008 2413: 2408: 2376: 2371: 2366: 2365:February 3, 2010 2361: 2356: 2324: 2319: 2314: 2309: 2304: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2220: 2219:November 3, 2007 2215: 2210: 2205: 2204:November 3, 2007 2200: 2168: 2163: 2158: 2153: 2148: 2113: 2105: 2100: 2068: 2063: 2055: 2050: 2018: 2013: 2005: 2000: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1916: 1911: 1906: 1901: 1896: 1864: 1859: 1854: 1849: 1844: 1800: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1748: 1716: 1715:October 14, 2007 1711: 1710:January 16, 2008 1706: 1701: 1700:January 16, 2008 1696: 1652: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1568: 1563: 1555: 1550: 1518: 1513: 1508: 1503: 1498: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1451: 1446: 1414: 1409: 1404: 1403:February 3, 2010 1399: 1394: 1353:Last crat action 1347: 1314: 1306: 1288: 1270: 1241: 1119: 1113: 1108: 1083: 1036: 1009: 936: 932: 928: 901: 891: 848: 842: 759: 733: 727: 675: 673: 668: 663: 627: 537: 535: 530: 496: 494: 489: 454: 452: 447: 417: 415: 410: 349: 320: 318: 313: 291: 289: 284: 267: 252: 215: 212: 209: 206: 183: 163: 114: 16: 3880: 3879: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3786: 3778: 3701: 3664: 3600: 3582: 3561: 3543: 3532: 3447: 3371: 3365: 3362: 3314: 3306: 3288: 3280: 3251: 3248: 3243: 3241: 3224: 3189: 3142: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3100: 3090: 3085: 3080: 3075: 3048: 3038: 3033: 3028: 3023: 2996: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2971: 2944: 2934: 2929: 2924: 2919: 2892: 2882: 2871: 2844: 2834: 2829: 2824: 2819: 2792: 2782: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2740: 2727: 2719: 2692: 2682: 2671: 2644: 2634: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2592: 2582: 2577: 2572: 2567: 2540: 2531:January 9, 2009 2530: 2525: 2520: 2516:January 9, 2009 2515: 2488: 2479:January 1, 2010 2478: 2473: 2468: 2464:January 1, 2010 2463: 2436: 2426: 2421: 2416: 2411: 2384: 2374: 2369: 2364: 2359: 2332: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2280: 2270: 2265: 2260: 2255: 2228: 2218: 2213: 2208: 2203: 2176: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2151: 2124: 2111: 2103: 2076: 2066: 2061: 2053: 2026: 2016: 2011: 2003: 1976: 1966: 1961: 1956: 1951: 1924: 1914: 1909: 1904: 1899: 1872: 1862: 1857: 1852: 1847: 1820: 1776: 1766: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1724: 1714: 1709: 1705:October 7, 2007 1704: 1699: 1672: 1628: 1618: 1613: 1608: 1603: 1576: 1566: 1562:August 18, 2006 1561: 1553: 1526: 1516: 1511: 1506: 1501: 1474: 1464: 1459: 1454: 1449: 1422: 1412: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1370: 1312: 1304: 1286: 1263: 1239: 1121: 1117: 1111: 1106: 1081: 1032: 1003: 934: 930: 926: 899: 889: 840: 837: 757: 725: 722: 671: 666: 661: 658: 625: 533: 528: 526: 492: 487: 485: 450: 445: 443: 413: 408: 406: 347: 316: 311: 309: 287: 282: 280: 265: 248: 213: 210: 207: 204: 181: 161: 148: 125: 116: 115: 110: 87: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 3878: 3876: 3868: 3867: 3848: 3847: 3828: 3811: 3810: 3793: 3771: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3732: 3731: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3674: 3656: 3632: 3615: 3576: 3555: 3523: 3505: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3469: 3412: 3397: 3380: 3351: 3336: 3323: 3298: 3297: 3261: 3260: 3233: 3213: 3197: 3171: 3170: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3146: 3145: 3143:August 9, 2010 3140: 3138:August 9, 2010 3135: 3133:August 9, 2010 3130: 3128:August 9, 2010 3125: 3094: 3093: 3088: 3086:April 24, 2010 3083: 3078: 3073: 3042: 3041: 3039:August 9, 2010 3036: 3031: 3029:August 8, 2010 3026: 3024:August 9, 2010 3021: 2990: 2989: 2984: 2979: 2974: 2969: 2938: 2937: 2932: 2927: 2925:April 30, 2010 2922: 2917: 2886: 2885: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2869: 2838: 2837: 2832: 2830:April 24, 2010 2827: 2822: 2817: 2786: 2785: 2780: 2775: 2773:August 8, 2009 2770: 2765: 2734: 2733: 2730: 2728:March 17, 2004 2725: 2722: 2720:March 17, 2004 2717: 2686: 2685: 2680: 2677: 2674: 2669: 2638: 2637: 2632: 2627: 2622: 2617: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2570: 2565: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2482: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2430: 2429: 2424: 2419: 2414: 2409: 2378: 2377: 2372: 2367: 2362: 2357: 2326: 2325: 2323:August 8, 2010 2320: 2315: 2310: 2308:August 8, 2010 2305: 2274: 2273: 2271:August 9, 2010 2268: 2263: 2258: 2256:August 9, 2010 2253: 2222: 2221: 2216: 2211: 2206: 2201: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2149: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2112:April 16, 2006 2109: 2106: 2104:April 16, 2006 2101: 2070: 2069: 2067:March 28, 2009 2064: 2062:March 14, 2007 2059: 2056: 2054:March 28, 2009 2051: 2020: 2019: 2014: 2009: 2006: 2001: 1970: 1969: 1964: 1959: 1954: 1949: 1918: 1917: 1912: 1907: 1902: 1897: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1855: 1853:April 25, 2010 1850: 1845: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1770: 1769: 1767:March 21, 2008 1764: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1718: 1717: 1712: 1707: 1702: 1697: 1666: 1665: 1662: 1659: 1656: 1653: 1622: 1621: 1619:August 2, 2010 1616: 1611: 1606: 1604:August 2, 2010 1601: 1574:Bibliomaniac15 1570: 1569: 1567:March 15, 2009 1564: 1559: 1556: 1554:March 15, 2009 1551: 1520: 1519: 1517:August 2, 2010 1514: 1509: 1504: 1502:August 2, 2010 1499: 1468: 1467: 1465:August 8, 2010 1462: 1457: 1452: 1450:August 8, 2010 1447: 1416: 1415: 1413:March 14, 2010 1410: 1405: 1400: 1398:March 14, 2010 1395: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1342: 1341: 1331:69.121.245.182 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1198:67.136.117.132 1175: 1168: 1157: 1148:, recorded at 1135: 1134: 1127: 1126: 1115: 1090: 1073: 1061: 1042: 1041: 1022: 1021: 1015: 997: 979: 962: 944: 906: 883: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 821:67.136.117.132 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 737: 718: 700: 680: 650: 633: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 595:67.136.117.132 586: 585: 558:67.136.117.132 517: 516: 475: 474: 437: 436: 397: 396: 378: 368:67.136.117.132 361: 338: 325: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 244: 239: 238: 220: 200:Andrew Lenahan 192: 191: 147: 144: 124: 121: 118: 117: 108: 106: 105: 102: 101: 89: 88: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3877: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3853: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3843: 3838: 3834: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3807: 3802: 3797: 3794: 3792: 3789: 3781: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3755: 3754: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3707: 3704: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3678: 3675: 3673: 3670: 3667: 3660: 3657: 3655: 3651: 3648: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3616: 3614: 3609: 3606: 3603: 3598: 3595: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3580: 3577: 3575: 3571: 3569: 3564: 3559: 3556: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3541: 3540: 3536: 3535: 3527: 3524: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3509: 3506: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3489: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3468: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3443: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3405: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3379: 3374: 3369: 3368: 3359: 3355: 3352: 3350: 3347: 3344: 3340: 3337: 3335: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3322: 3317: 3311: 3310: 3303: 3300: 3299: 3296: 3291: 3285: 3284: 3276: 3273: 3270: 3266: 3263: 3262: 3259: 3254: 3247: 3237: 3234: 3232: 3229: 3227: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3212: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3198: 3196: 3193: 3192: 3185: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3176: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3156: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3141: 3136: 3131: 3126: 3122: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3104: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3091:April 7, 2010 3089: 3084: 3081:June 21, 2010 3079: 3076:June 21, 2010 3074: 3070: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3055: 3052: 3047: 3044: 3043: 3037: 3034:July 28, 2010 3032: 3027: 3022: 3018: 3015: 3012: 3009: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2995: 2992: 2991: 2985: 2980: 2977:June 19, 2010 2975: 2972:June 19, 2010 2970: 2966: 2963: 2960: 2957: 2954: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2940: 2939: 2933: 2928: 2923: 2918: 2914: 2911: 2908: 2905: 2902: 2899: 2896: 2891: 2888: 2887: 2883:July 19, 2006 2881: 2878: 2875: 2872:July 19, 2006 2870: 2866: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2835:July 16, 2010 2833: 2828: 2823: 2820:July 16, 2010 2818: 2814: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2796: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2781: 2776: 2771: 2766: 2762: 2759: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2739: 2736: 2735: 2731: 2726: 2723: 2718: 2714: 2711: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2696: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2670: 2666: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2651: 2648: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2633: 2628: 2623: 2618: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2599: 2596: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2583:July 29, 2010 2581: 2578:July 25, 2010 2576: 2571: 2568:July 29, 2010 2566: 2562: 2559: 2556: 2553: 2550: 2547: 2544: 2539: 2536: 2535: 2529: 2524: 2519: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2504: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2492: 2487: 2484: 2483: 2477: 2474:July 11, 2009 2472: 2467: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2449: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2435: 2432: 2431: 2427:July 17, 2009 2425: 2422:April 2, 2009 2420: 2415: 2412:July 17, 2009 2410: 2406: 2403: 2400: 2397: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2383: 2380: 2379: 2373: 2368: 2363: 2358: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2321: 2318:July 26, 2010 2316: 2313:March 4, 2010 2311: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2284: 2279: 2276: 2275: 2269: 2266:July 29, 2010 2264: 2261:June 12, 2010 2259: 2254: 2250: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2232: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2217: 2212: 2209:June 14, 2006 2207: 2202: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2175: 2172: 2171: 2165: 2162:June 28, 2009 2160: 2155: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2110: 2107: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2083: 2080: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2065: 2060: 2057: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2025: 2022: 2021: 2015: 2010: 2007: 2002: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1967:July 16, 2010 1965: 1960: 1955: 1952:July 16, 2010 1950: 1946: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1923: 1920: 1919: 1915:July 28, 2010 1913: 1910:July 29, 2010 1908: 1905:June 16, 2009 1903: 1900:July 29, 2010 1898: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1863:June 26, 2010 1861: 1856: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1824: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1789: 1786: 1783: 1780: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1765: 1762:April 6, 2010 1760: 1755: 1752:April 6, 2010 1750: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1731: 1728: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1713: 1708: 1703: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1671: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1617: 1614:July 10, 2010 1612: 1609:March 3, 2010 1607: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1575: 1572: 1571: 1565: 1560: 1557: 1552: 1548: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1530: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1515: 1512:July 13, 2010 1510: 1505: 1500: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1469: 1463: 1460:June 21, 2010 1458: 1455:March 4, 2010 1453: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1411: 1406: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1369: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1324: 1318: 1315: 1307: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1269: 1266: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1120: 1114: 1109: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1086: 1084: 1077: 1074: 1072: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1035: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1001: 998: 996: 992: 988: 983: 980: 978: 974: 970: 966: 963: 961: 957: 953: 948: 945: 943: 940: 937: 929: 924: 923: 922: 915: 910: 907: 905: 902: 897: 896: 892: 887: 884: 882: 878: 874: 869: 864: 861: 851: 847: 844: 843: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 826: 822: 818: 812: 808: 805: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 785: 784: 783: 779: 776: 773: 768: 767: 766: 763: 760: 753: 752: 751: 747: 744: 738: 736: 732: 729: 728: 719: 717: 713: 709: 704: 701: 699: 695: 692: 689: 684: 681: 679: 676: 674: 669: 664: 654: 651: 649: 645: 641: 637: 634: 632: 629: 628: 621: 618: 617: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 587: 584: 580: 576: 572: 569: 568: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 542: 541: 538: 536: 531: 523: 519: 518: 515: 511: 507: 502: 501: 500: 497: 495: 490: 481: 477: 476: 473: 469: 465: 460: 459: 458: 455: 453: 448: 439: 438: 435: 431: 427: 423: 422: 421: 418: 416: 411: 403: 399: 398: 395: 391: 387: 382: 379: 377: 373: 369: 365: 362: 360: 357: 356: 355: 351: 350: 342: 339: 337: 334: 329: 326: 324: 321: 319: 314: 306: 303: 302: 295: 292: 290: 285: 276: 275: 274: 271: 268: 260: 259: 258: 255: 253: 251: 245: 241: 240: 237: 233: 229: 224: 221: 219: 216: 201: 197: 194: 193: 190: 187: 184: 177: 173: 172: 171: 170: 167: 164: 157: 153: 145: 143: 142: 138: 134: 130: 122: 104: 103: 100: 97: 95: 91: 90: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3851: 3836: 3832: 3827: 3812: 3800: 3795: 3773: 3756: 3715: 3680: 3676: 3658: 3646: 3635: 3617: 3604: 3596: 3590: 3578: 3565: 3557: 3537: 3530: 3525: 3507: 3490: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3399: 3382: 3364: 3357: 3353: 3338: 3326: 3308: 3301: 3282: 3267:: There are 3264: 3235: 3225: 3219: 3215: 3203: 3199: 3187: 3183: 3172: 3149: 3117: 3111: 3105: 3065: 3059: 3053: 3013: 3007: 3001: 2961: 2955: 2949: 2935:May 25, 2010 2930:May 11, 2010 2920:May 25, 2010 2909: 2903: 2897: 2861: 2855: 2849: 2842:Tim Starling 2825:May 16, 2008 2809: 2803: 2797: 2757: 2751: 2745: 2709: 2703: 2697: 2661: 2655: 2649: 2609: 2603: 2597: 2590:Secretlondon 2557: 2551: 2545: 2521:July 9, 2007 2505: 2499: 2493: 2469:May 11, 2009 2453: 2447: 2441: 2401: 2395: 2389: 2349: 2343: 2337: 2297: 2291: 2285: 2245: 2239: 2233: 2214:July 3, 2006 2193: 2187: 2181: 2157:July 9, 2008 2141: 2135: 2129: 2093: 2087: 2081: 2074:Jwrosenzweig 2043: 2037: 2031: 2024:Infrogmation 1993: 1987: 1981: 1962:May 11, 2010 1941: 1935: 1929: 1889: 1883: 1877: 1858:July 9, 2010 1848:July 9, 2010 1837: 1831: 1825: 1793: 1787: 1781: 1757:July 3, 2006 1741: 1735: 1729: 1689: 1683: 1677: 1645: 1639: 1633: 1626:Brion VIBBER 1593: 1587: 1581: 1543: 1537: 1531: 1507:June 9, 2010 1491: 1485: 1479: 1439: 1433: 1427: 1387: 1381: 1375: 1362:Last rename 1343: 1325: 1262: 1253: 1217: 1216: 1171: 1164: 1160: 1145: 1141: 1130: 1104: 1096: 1092: 1075: 1063: 1045: 1033: 1017: 1004: 999: 981: 964: 946: 938: 920: 917: 913: 908: 894: 885: 867: 862: 838: 723: 702: 682: 657: 652: 635: 623: 619: 590: 570: 525: 521: 484: 479: 478:The problem 442: 405: 401: 380: 363: 354: 352: 345: 340: 327: 308: 304: 279: 249: 222: 203: 195: 149: 126: 92: 19:This is the 3857:Ncmvocalist 3513:Eraserhead1 3474:TheGrappler 3428:TheGrappler 2942:Warofdreams 2017:May 8, 2006 2012:May 5, 2006 2004:May 8, 2006 1957:May 5, 2010 1722:Cimon Avaro 1359:Last +sysop 1280:Optim's RfB 243:overlooked. 156:bureaucrats 3740:Hammersoft 3622:Uncle Dick 3220:completely 3190:Diego Grez 2642:Stan Shebs 2122:Kingturtle 1356:Last +-bot 1101:groupthink 935:Contact Me 708:Beeblebrox 640:Tryptofish 575:Hammersoft 506:Hammersoft 464:Hammersoft 426:Hammersoft 386:Hammersoft 348:Balloonman 3584:Train2104 3495:MZMcBride 3387:bobrayner 2994:WJBscribe 2174:Linuxbeak 1183:SmokeyJoe 1118:(law 296) 1099:promotes 1068:Scott Mac 804:WJBscribe 743:WJBscribe 686:edits. -- 546:first RFA 133:SmokeyJoe 83:if needed 66:Be polite 21:talk page 3816:Cecropia 3721:Jclemens 3686:⌘macwhiz 3650:contribs 3640:Casliber 3634:leaning 3594:contribs 3563:Kubigula 3461:Garion96 3404:Garion96 3309:Pilif12p 3283:Pilif12p 3204:STRONGLY 3175:MuZemike 3109:contribs 3057:contribs 3005:contribs 2953:contribs 2901:contribs 2853:contribs 2801:contribs 2749:contribs 2701:contribs 2653:contribs 2601:contribs 2549:contribs 2497:contribs 2445:contribs 2434:Rdsmith4 2393:contribs 2341:contribs 2289:contribs 2278:Nihonjoe 2237:contribs 2185:contribs 2133:contribs 2085:contribs 2035:contribs 1985:contribs 1933:contribs 1881:contribs 1829:contribs 1785:contribs 1733:contribs 1681:contribs 1670:Cecropia 1637:contribs 1585:contribs 1535:contribs 1483:contribs 1431:contribs 1379:contribs 1368:Andrevan 1300:WP:CREEP 1258:WP:CREEP 1179:Angela's 1172:inactive 1161:inactive 1146:inactive 1051:Jclemens 1034:Excirial 841:SilkTork 726:SilkTork 591:perhaps. 364:Support. 333:MuZemike 94:Archives 51:get help 3852:Comment 3761:meshach 3716:Support 3659:Support 3618:Support 3558:Support 3508:Support 3354:Support 3331:Spartaz 3302:Support 3265:Comment 3244:aterfox 3184:Support 3121:renames 3069:renames 3017:renames 2965:renames 2913:renames 2865:renames 2813:renames 2761:renames 2713:renames 2690:TUF-KAT 2665:renames 2613:renames 2561:renames 2509:renames 2457:renames 2405:renames 2382:Raul654 2353:renames 2330:Pakaran 2301:renames 2249:renames 2226:MBisanz 2197:renames 2145:renames 2097:renames 2047:renames 1997:renames 1974:Ilyanep 1945:renames 1893:renames 1870:Dweller 1841:renames 1818:Deskana 1797:renames 1774:Cprompt 1745:renames 1693:renames 1649:renames 1597:renames 1547:renames 1495:renames 1472:Avraham 1443:renames 1391:renames 1326:Support 1218:Support 1131:Support 1112:stalked 1076:Support 1046:Support 987:Dweller 965:Support 952:Nyttend 947:Support 927:Qwertus 788:Dweller 653:Support 636:Support 626:MBisanz 620:Support 341:Support 328:Support 305:Support 228:Martinp 3801:second 3796:Oppose 3774:Oppose 3757:Oppose 3677:Oppose 3636:Oppose 3539:Voting 3533:Kayau 3491:Oppose 3464:(talk) 3423:number 3407:(talk) 3400:Oppose 3383:Oppose 3346:(talk) 3339:Oppose 3327:Oppose 3236:Oppose 3200:Oppose 3115:rights 3063:rights 3011:rights 2959:rights 2907:rights 2859:rights 2807:rights 2755:rights 2738:Taxman 2707:rights 2659:rights 2607:rights 2555:rights 2538:Rlevse 2503:rights 2451:rights 2399:rights 2347:rights 2295:rights 2243:rights 2191:rights 2139:rights 2091:rights 2041:rights 1991:rights 1939:rights 1887:rights 1835:rights 1791:rights 1739:rights 1687:rights 1643:rights 1591:rights 1541:rights 1489:rights 1437:rights 1385:rights 1254:Oppose 1165:active 1142:active 1107:Jeremy 1093:Oppose 1064:Oppose 1006:Salvio 1000:Oppose 982:Oppose 969:Stifle 914:Oppose 886:Oppose 863:Oppose 807:(talk) 746:(talk) 703:Oppose 381:Oppose 223:Oppose 196:Oppose 3806:Jimbo 3608:email 3601:count 3519:: --> 3415:Query 3366:Chzz 3275:where 3272:cases 3226:Swarm 2486:Redux 1922:EVula 1524:Bcorr 1268:G. ツ 1223:RIPGC 921:Qwerp 868:would 672:comms 662:fetch 550:moved 529:Aiken 488:Aiken 446:Aiken 409:Aiken 312:Aiken 283:Aiken 131:. -- 79:Seek 27:page. 3861:talk 3837:used 3820:talk 3765:talk 3744:talk 3725:talk 3690:talk 3644:talk 3626:talk 3588:talk 3568:talk 3549:evil 3517:talk 3515:< 3499:talk 3478:talk 3442:here 3440:See 3432:talk 3391:talk 3358:keep 3269:Some 3252:talk 3208:jc37 3103:talk 3098:Xeno 3051:talk 2999:talk 2947:talk 2895:talk 2847:talk 2795:talk 2743:talk 2695:talk 2647:talk 2595:talk 2543:talk 2491:talk 2439:talk 2387:talk 2335:talk 2283:talk 2231:talk 2179:talk 2127:talk 2079:talk 2029:talk 1979:talk 1927:talk 1875:talk 1823:talk 1779:talk 1727:talk 1675:talk 1631:talk 1579:talk 1529:talk 1477:talk 1425:talk 1373:talk 1350:Name 1335:talk 1265:Jeff 1256:per 1227:talk 1202:talk 1187:talk 1144:and 1055:talk 991:talk 973:talk 956:talk 877:talk 825:talk 792:talk 712:talk 644:talk 599:talk 579:talk 571:That 562:talk 522:that 510:talk 468:talk 430:talk 390:talk 372:talk 250:xeno 232:talk 137:talk 68:and 3787:ask 3681:for 3665:Ray 3444:. — 3315:Yo 3289:Yo 2732:-- 2116:-- 1812:-- 1664:-- 1313:ask 1163:to 900:Man 873:Avi 780:-- 696:-- 211:bli 3863:) 3822:) 3779:۩ 3767:) 3746:) 3738:-- 3727:) 3692:) 3652:) 3628:) 3544:IS 3501:) 3480:) 3434:) 3419:is 3393:) 3372:► 3312:: 3286:: 3046:X! 2879:-- 2876:-- 2724:-- 2679:-- 2676:-- 2108:-- 2058:-- 2008:-- 1809:-- 1806:-- 1803:-- 1661:-- 1658:-- 1655:-- 1558:-- 1337:) 1305:۩ 1229:) 1204:) 1189:) 1057:) 993:) 975:) 958:) 931:· 918:~ 890:TN 879:) 827:) 794:) 770:-- 714:) 646:) 601:) 581:) 564:) 556:. 512:) 480:is 470:) 432:) 402:is 392:) 384:-- 374:) 234:) 214:nd 208:ar 205:St 202:- 139:) 49:; 3859:( 3818:( 3783:M 3763:( 3742:( 3723:( 3688:( 3647:· 3642:( 3624:( 3610:) 3605:· 3597:· 3591:· 3586:( 3570:) 3566:( 3497:( 3476:( 3430:( 3389:( 3325:' 3255:) 3249:( 3242:W 3239:— 3173:– 3123:) 3118:· 3112:· 3106:· 3101:( 3071:) 3066:· 3060:· 3054:· 3049:( 3019:) 3014:· 3008:· 3002:· 2997:( 2967:) 2962:· 2956:· 2950:· 2945:( 2915:) 2910:· 2904:· 2898:· 2893:( 2867:) 2862:· 2856:· 2850:· 2845:( 2815:) 2810:· 2804:· 2798:· 2793:( 2763:) 2758:· 2752:· 2746:· 2741:( 2715:) 2710:· 2704:· 2698:· 2693:( 2667:) 2662:· 2656:· 2650:· 2645:( 2615:) 2610:· 2604:· 2598:· 2593:( 2563:) 2558:· 2552:· 2546:· 2541:( 2511:) 2506:· 2500:· 2494:· 2489:( 2459:) 2454:· 2448:· 2442:· 2437:( 2407:) 2402:· 2396:· 2390:· 2385:( 2355:) 2350:· 2344:· 2338:· 2333:( 2303:) 2298:· 2292:· 2286:· 2281:( 2251:) 2246:· 2240:· 2234:· 2229:( 2199:) 2194:· 2188:· 2182:· 2177:( 2147:) 2142:· 2136:· 2130:· 2125:( 2099:) 2094:· 2088:· 2082:· 2077:( 2049:) 2044:· 2038:· 2032:· 2027:( 1999:) 1994:· 1988:· 1982:· 1977:( 1947:) 1942:· 1936:· 1930:· 1925:( 1895:) 1890:· 1884:· 1878:· 1873:( 1843:) 1838:· 1832:· 1826:· 1821:( 1799:) 1794:· 1788:· 1782:· 1777:( 1747:) 1742:· 1736:· 1730:· 1725:( 1695:) 1690:· 1684:· 1678:· 1673:( 1651:) 1646:· 1640:· 1634:· 1629:( 1599:) 1594:· 1588:· 1582:· 1577:( 1549:) 1544:· 1538:· 1532:· 1527:( 1497:) 1492:· 1486:· 1480:· 1475:( 1445:) 1440:· 1434:· 1428:· 1423:( 1393:) 1388:· 1382:· 1376:· 1371:( 1333:( 1309:M 1283:— 1225:( 1200:( 1185:( 1167:. 1082:œ 1053:( 989:( 971:( 954:( 939:· 895:X 875:( 845:* 823:( 790:( 778:C 775:F 772:W 730:* 710:( 694:C 691:F 688:W 667:· 659:— 642:( 597:( 577:( 560:( 534:♫ 508:( 493:♫ 466:( 451:♫ 428:( 414:♫ 388:( 370:( 331:– 317:♫ 288:♫ 262:— 230:( 135:( 99:1 96:: 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Bureaucrat removal - Knowledge

Index