Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Counter-proposal: Abolish Crat activity requirements: a simple solution to 3, |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit |
||
Line 106:
*::::That sums it up nicely. 3 is the tricky one, but the least likely to be an issue as a practical matter. Not convinced we need a rule for that. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The simplest way to handle 3 would be to apply the standards as if they were an admin, i.e. if they make no edits or logged actions for one year or fewer than 100 edits/5 years then remove the crat tools for inactivity. The tools/bots that track activity would require a bit of tweaking but I'm guessing that wouldn't be particularly difficult. In addition to simple it also seems reasonable to me, but of course others may think differently. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] I really don't understand why this is an issue to obsess about. We don't have many 'crats and when have we had rogue 'crats? The only time I can remember an actual rogue 'crat was in the very early days of 'cratship, when there was an argument on whether a certain persn should be an admin, more or less because he was "famous", a discussion I participated in. One of the 'crats decided to simply promote him because he. personally, wanted him to be an admin. That admin and crat were both deleted. End of story.
:Moral: Any compromised account can and will be shut down expeditiously. [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] ([[User talk:Cecropia|talk]]) [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] ([[User talk:Cecropia|talk]]) 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||