User:Barkeep49/Bureaucrats

Should the role of crats:

1. Be expanded (i.e. find other places where consensus finding is particularly important/valued)
2. Kept the same (things are working)
3. Be depreciated (there's not enough to do with the crats and so we should find alternatives for the work that they currently do

Background

Based on current workload, there is little need for there to be a separate Bureaucrat (crat) user group. If passed, this RfC would recognize that reality and provide reasonable time for the community to come up with a plan to rethink and reimagine the role, while having a group of trusted users assume the responsibilities as a back-up.

Prior to 2015, crats were responsible for renaming users on English Wikipedia. As a result of the final implementation of global accounts, username changes must now be completed globally by a user with centralauth-rename rights on meta (Global renamers and Stewards). This dramatically lowered the workload of crats. Today their unique abilities are to grant and remove administrator, interface administrator, and the bot flag and also to grant the bureaucrat flag. They share with administrators the ability to grant and remove pending changes reviewer and account creator and the ability to remove IP ban exempt. From May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022 crats have:

• Given the bot flag to 11 bots and removed it from 17
• Re-granted intadmin to 3 and removed it from 1
• (Re-)Granted sysop to 14, removed it from 64, and closed an additional 3 RfAs as unsuccessful
• Granted 1 simultaneous resysop and recrat

That is a total of 114 actions over a year. By way of comparison, there were 115 user right actions from admins between April 27 and April 30.

This lack of work is probably a reason why there are so few new RfBs. So far in 2022 there have been 5 successful RfAs, while the 5th most recent successful RfB was in July 2016 and it's been over 2 years since the last successful RfBs. .

Previous draft proposal

Should the role of bureaucrat be rethought and reimagined? Specifically, the community will spend a year after the close of this RfC developing a new plan for the role and/or responsibilities of bureaucrat. If no plan gains consensus, the separate bureaucrat user group will be eliminated and instead the role of bureaucrat will be granted (and removed) in conjunction with grants of Checkuser and Oversighter. Background Based on current workload, there is little need for there to be a separate Bureaucrat (crat) user group. If passed, this RfC would recognize that reality and provide reasonable time for the community to come up with a plan to rethink and reimagine the role, while having a group of trusted users assume the responsibilities as a back-up. Prior to 2015, crats were responsible for renaming users on English Wikipedia. As a result of the final implementation of global accounts, username changes must now be completed globally by a user with centralauth-rename rights on meta (Global renamers and Stewards). This dramatically lowered the workload of crats. Today their unique abilities are to grant and remove administrator, interface administrator, and the bot flag and also to grant the bureaucrat flag. They share with administrators the ability to grant and remove pending changes reviewer and account creator and the ability to remove IP ban exempt. From May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022 crats have: Given the bot flag to 11 bots and removed it from 17 Re-granted intadmin to 3 and removed it from 1 (Re-)Granted sysop to 14, removed it from 64, and closed an additional 3 RfAs as unsuccessful Granted 1 simultaneous resysop and recrat That is a total of 114 actions over a year. By way of comparison, there were 115 user right actions from admins between April 27 and April 30. This lack of work is probably a reason why there are so few new RfBs. So far in 2022 there have been 5 successful RfAs, while the 5th most recent successful RfB was in July 2016 and it's been over 2 years since the last successful RfBs. . Details and FAQ Why wait a year to implement? The goal of this RfC is for the community to come to the consensus that we need to fundamentally rethink either the role of bureaucrat or reimagine how their work can be done. While the workload is small, the work that is done is important, and this would give the community time to come to consensus. What would change during the year after a successful close? Nothing, except the community could begin to discuss various options for how to change the role of crat. The existing crats would continue to have the responsibilities they have now. Why have a back-up plan? Often a deadline can help spur action and focus people so a consensus should be found. By having a back-up plan it also ensures that if no consensus on a new plan can be found that the core idea, that role as it exists isn't working, could still be implemented. Why have people with Checkusers and/or Oversighters (CUOS) be the back-ups? Because this is a group of editors who have already passed community scrutiny ensuring they have the trust to operate two of the most sensitive tools a wiki has and this group is regularly audited to ensure that trust remains. The group is large enough that it should be able to absorb the workload. Importantly, nearly all of the 114 actions over the last year were done by crats who also have one of these rights so they could continue to do the good work they've been doing in this scenario. If the back-up plan is implemented and someone lost Checkuser or Oversight would they keep the bureaucrat role? In the back-up plan, if a person has either Checkuser or Oversight they would also have bureaucrat. If they had neither of these roles (even though they did in the past) they would no longer be a bureaucrat. Why not have the Stewards be the back-ups? Stewards would be an option for the community as part of a reimagining, but a transition to the stewards would require changes to some existing procedures and thus would need consensus. For instance, the stewards would likely be reluctant to have a discretionary range at RfA and indeed might ask for it to be a true vote rather than our current format. This could happen, but would need adequate discussion and consensus on its own, which the planning year would allow. Would this change any procedures? If the community passes a plan, it would almost certainly change some procedures. If the back-up plan is implemented, it would not change any procedure. As examples, CUOS would be expected to only give interface admin who've done the appropriate steps (there would be no self-granting) and would be the ones to participate in any "crat chat". Is it possible that crat could be kept as a separate position even if this passes? Yes. The idea of expanding the crat role, to give them more to do and hopefully make it more attractive to a wider group of people, rather than eliminate it is certainly a possibility if this RfC passes. Or, theoretically, the community could decide to keep the role of crat while delegating some of its responsibilities to others.