Misplaced Pages

:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:27, 7 January 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:54, 7 January 2025 edit undo28bytes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators32,522 edits →A discussion on Signpost: cmt 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}} {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}} <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-move-indef}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 46 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 14: Line 13:
__TOC__ __TOC__


⚫ == Desysop request (Ferret) ==
== ] ==


⚫ {{rfplinks|Ferret}}
The following ] administrator is being desysoped due to ]. Thank you for your service.


Hi Bureaucrats. I'm requesting the removal of my administrator rights as of January 1, 2025, as I will be generally retiring. I would like my previous rights (autopatrolled, extended confirmed user, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor) restored. I would have waited a little closer to request but might not be online the next couple days. Thank you! -- ] (]) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
#{{admin|Nunh-huh}}
:I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
#:<small>Last admin action: September 2016</small>
:Per your wishes, I have removed the tools. I realise this is a day or so early, so if you do need to use the tools in the meantime I can revert
⚫ :— ] <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
:On a personal note, I'm sad to see you go. Thank you for your service. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your years of service, ]. Enjoy your retirement! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Appreciate all you've done to get us here. ] (]) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:], thank you for all your service, and thanks especially for being such a great mentor, colleague, and friend. ] (]) 18:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


==Query==
== Interface admin request (Galobtter) ==
So, are we losing ZERO administrators in January 2025 due to inactivity (see ])? When was the last month that happened? I guess most inactive admins have already lost their privileges (there was a big group in ]) and we are down to just active admins, well, at least active in editing if not admin work. That Criterion 2 made a big impact.
⚫ :{{rfplinks|Galobtter}}
Hi, could I be reassigned the interface admin flag. Got a bit of time to work on ] so it'd be useful. ] (]) 05:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Galobtter}} are you currently enrolled for ]? — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
⚫ ::Yes. ] (]) 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}} (no additional wait period as has previously held). — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


Happy New Year, everyone! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
==Desysop request (Cimon Avaro)==
:{{rfplinks|Cimon Avaro}}
This is me. I don't know what the current policies are. I cannot be an effective sysop. Remove my admin rights. It will be a blessing. -- ] (]) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
:Done. Thank you for your long standing service (]), and for self-requesting. I think we should create a special barnstar for admins who honourably request desysop after long service. ] (]) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
::I second this. It shows, hopefully without patronizing this or similar admins, great character, honesty and self-reflection. ]] 17:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I'm heartened by this trend of admins acknowledging such things. ] (]) 19:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
::Agreed. I'm seeing multiple of these, and I'm always impressed with the self-reflection. ] (]) 18:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
*Can we have RfAs like his? —usernamekiran • sign the ] • ] 21:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
::Cimon Avaro was the fifth admin to be appointed by the community under RfA: . ] (]) 08:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
:::They were made an admin because they wanted to "stop thinking about the subject", and three others agreed. Happy days. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 14:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Note of trivia. {{u|Cimon Avaro}}, your RfB was used by {{u|MBisanz}} in ]. I also thank you for your very long service. --] (]) <small>]</small> 14:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


⚫ :October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Periodic bureaucrat activity review ==
⚫ :]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think we may have indeed at least approached a time when inactivity desysops will go down to almost nothing. I think this is the first time that I can say I think our standard for admin activity are sufficient and are working as intended. It's been a long road. ] ] 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Careful not to mistake a data point for a trend. ] (]) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::True, I've just causally observed it, I haven't kept stats, but when the latest round of inactivity rules were established we were seeing about three per month. We're still seeing that some months, but other months there are just one or two, and apparently this month, none. I have also noticed an uptick in admins voluntarily handing in tools but I haven't got stats for that either. On the other hand, we may be losing as many as seven next month. ] ] 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::All desysoppings of administrators due to inactivity have been logged by month at ] since shortly after the process started. ] (]) 03:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


A more useful statistic would be drawn from the actual admin action logs from the admins lost due to inactivity over the last 14 years. It would reveal just how significant their loss was - or wasn't. A random check I just made tends to show that many of them hardly ever used their tools at all. This might bust the myth that the attrition is as critical as the community is led to believe. Many admins also lost interest in the use of the tools shortly after passing their RfA, which could lead one to believe that there is a certain ] to be gained with having one's signature highlighted in yellow everywhere - active or not. ] (]) 04:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello all, FYI: a periodic review of bureaucrat activity has been performed. There are ''no inactive bureaucrats requiring action'' at this time. See ] for details. The next possible action will be in September this year. As there are no imminent removals, an exhaustive search for possible edits which could have earlier timestamps has not been completed. Best regards, — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


:I was poking around the admins due to be desysopped under criterion two next month, and one of them hasn't used an admin tool in eleven years. ] ] 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
⚫ == Desysop request (Jehochman) ==
:It has probably always been true that the 80-20 rule applies. Looking at , a few admins performed thousands of logged admin actions last year, while there is a quick drop as you go down the list, with a long tail of admins with a very low number (or none) of logged admin actions. Rather than worrying about how many admins we have, we need to worry about retaining the small number of admins that do most of the admin work. ] 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::An important aspect to keep in mind is that there are plenty of administrative tasks that don't log admin actions, such as declining unblock requests, declining protection requests, processing entries at ], and a number of other tasks (with those just being the ones that sprung to mind for me). While I'm sure we all know this, I wanted to mention it for anybody reading that hadn't considered that the raw numbers aren't everything. I can think of a number of admins with less than a thousand actions last year who had more of an impact than I did with my 18 thousand+ actions (fifth overall for non bots). ] (]) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know, but I suspect that <s>most</s> <u>very few</u> admins that have few or no logged actions are instead performing a lot of unlogged admin tasks. Personally, I don't remember performing any unlogged admin tasks last year, and I try not to assume that I'm unique. ] 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think the "not all admin actions are logged" argument is perhaps relevant in the short term, but if you haven't found occasion to preform any logged actions in over a decade, I find it highly unlikely you are doing admin work and just never, ever see a reason to use the tools. ] ] 03:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, to be entirely clear, I don't think there's a niche of admins doing no admin actions but working exclusively in admin areas that don't log actions.
:::::I know that a few users who process submissions at ], such as Fayenatic london and Ymblanter, don't have their entire efforts and work reflected by the action count. My point was to illustrate that the numbers themselves don't necessarily reflect the actual work put in by some admins in general. ] (]) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: We already have an edit filter logging edits to protected pages. We should ideally set up edit filters for all of the other types of unlogged "admin" action, along the same vein, and kibosh this entire concept. ] ] 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You mean like closing XFD discussions or assessing unblocks, etc., as ] notes above? - <b>]</b> 14:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: Yes. ] ] 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Still not seeing it. What admin is active in closing AFDs, but never deletes anything, or is active in reviewing unblock requests, but never unblocks anyone? ] ] 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If an admin !votes at RFA and especially if they nominate, I would be very disappointed if they hadn't checked the candidates deleted edits. So that's one area where an admin might be using the tools without any recent logged admin actions. Looking at those stats I seem to do hundreds of edits for every logged admin action, and in recent years that ratio may have increased to around a thousand edits per admin action. But I like to think most of my 7,000 or so logged admin actions have been useful. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] problem ==
{{userrights|Jehochman}}
{{atop|1='''Jokes have no place on Misplaced Pages.''' Because I am an extremely, extremely serious person, I have blocked JavaHurricane and desysopped Sennecaster. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I was checking the page and found that one '''oppose''' vote is found in the ''support'' section. @] closed it at 230-0-0. But as per @]'s vote on support no. 207, it should be ended as 229-1-0. I didn't expected that administrators or monitor @] has overlooked it. Can this issue be fixed? {{small|(P.S.: I don't know whether should I brought this in BN or AN but as I think RfAs are handled by Crats, so I brought it here.)}} -- ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️<sup>(] ● ] ● ])</sup> 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Tagging @] for informing this. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️<sup>(] ● ] ● ])</sup> 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I have been an administrator for 14 years and have been thinking about retiring for the last year or two. I am not that active as an administrator and have not kept up with Misplaced Pages's expanding bureaucracy. I can be more helpful as an editor than as an administrator. For the avoidance of controversy, I want this resignation to be permanent, no resysop without a new RfA. That isn't going to happen any time in the next decade because I'm busy in real life. Afterwards, who knows. Also, may I please have rollback and any other goodies you give to experienced users?
::I also sense that JavaHurricane was making a joke—{{tq|poor judgement because of running late for mop?}}, clearly a joke. ] (]) 07:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: It's a joke. ] ] 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I apologize for not getting that joke and wasted my time bothering you all. I got it well now. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️<sup>(] ● ] ● ])</sup> 07:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== A discussion on Signpost ==
I have a request for ArbCom. ''Please do not let concerns about me detract from your important work.'' I have requested arbitration over serious editing misconduct that has caused extensive damage to our articles related to ]. Please take care of the articles and ignore all the flak. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{re|Jehochman}} removed, thank you for your prior service. I can't promise that every 'crat would refuse a reinstatement request - but I would defend the position that should you want to run an RfA in the future you should be fully allowed to. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
::{{tpq|I would defend the position that should you want to run an RfA in the future you should be fully allowed to.}} is there any reason why a crat would deny a former admin the chance to stand at RFA, whether they are eligible for automatic restoration or not? The only reason I can think of why a former admin (who is not blocked or banned) would not be allowed to run at RFA would be if ArbCom had explicitly prevented it (<s>I don't recall them ever having done so</s> ''which they have not done in many years'') or set a time limit (which they haven't done in the last 6 years at least) that has not yet elapsed. ] (]) 12:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:::(I have amended my comment after it was that my recall was not perfect and a remedy to that effect was passed in 2006, but withdrawn in 2014. ] (]) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC))
::::{{re|Thryduulf}} I'm not going to hunt them down - but have seen arguments forwarded that using RfA when BN request is available is ''waste of the community's time'', so shouldn't be used. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::I've not seen such arguments, and so don't know the reasoning behind them, but my first impression is that it's a not a definition of "wasting the community's time" that I agree with. This is probably not the venue to explore the issue further though. ] (]) 19:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{Re|Thryduulf}}I think we're on the same page here - I don't think any 'crat would shut down an RfA with something like "Use BN" - my comment was that if other community members argued that RfA was inappropriate that I would oppose such an argument. Personally, I'd prefer RfA was the default venue for regaining sysop following removal for most reasons (notably short-term declared leaves of absence excepted) - but when acting at BN I follow the policy as it stands today and don't let that personal feeling get in my way of processing reinstatements here. If Jehochman actually asks for reinstatement here, I would not process it - but also wouldn't individually "decline" it, I would request further discussion. Hope that clears up any confusion! Best regards, — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::::{{tpq|Hope that clears up any confusion!}} it does indeed, thank you. ] (]) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:I'm really sad to see this, {{u|Jehochman}}. The project is sorely lacking in administrators. The number of successful RfAs per year is down to single digits, while the number of administrators resigning or leaving for inactivity is growing fast. I hope you reconsider your request and request resysop. Even if you rarely use the tools, we would all still benefit from that occasional use. I can see obvious shades of your recent ArbCom case request coloring this resignation, and I urge you to take heart that a sizable majority of editors and arbitrators do not support desysop; you have not lost the faith of the community. With all that being said, if you prefer to hang up your mop, of course, I respect that. Best wishes. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 03:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:: I can still help clear backlogs. I’ve got the page mover right. I can do non admin closures of things. User rights are trending towards unbundling, which is good. Moreover I recently identified a good RfA candidate. We just have to promote more often and we will be fine. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:::You reckon we're trending toward promoting {{em|more}} often, though? The failure of ] doesn't fill me with confidence. {{frown}} ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 05:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:Regrettable. If I knew ''anything'' about the ''Holocaust in Poland'', I'd quickly make corrections to that article, where required. I don't have ''email'', so should a banned editor ''try'' to intimidate me? the best he could do would be entertain me. ] (]) 04:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:Given there are currently sanctions being discussed at Arbcom (albeit opposed except an admonishment) I do see a potential cloud here, combined with Jehochman's decision for a new RfA, I would hope that it is a request that is respected.
:Having said that, Jehochman didn't need to do this, and I for one would like to thank him for taking this step, which reflects well on both him and the project, allows him to carry as a valued member of our community.
:Personally, I hope he does enjoy his time focussed on contributing as an editor, and when he has done for a couple of years he might come to me for an RfA nomination. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


There is a discussion on an article on Signpost that maybe of interest to bureaucrats, on whether it is appropriate of an admin should close his own re-request for adminship as a sign of resigning. ]
That's a name that makes me sit up and be respectful. Thank you for your hard work and wisdom down many years. --] (]) <small>]</small> 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. ] (]) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
One more thing while I'm here. Could somebody blast the second username on this list -> . If you can't delete it, can you rename it to something humorous instead of threatening? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|Jehochman}} I dropped a global hide request at ] for that. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:: Thanks! ] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC) :Opposition to your stated position has been unanimous over the two days since you posted it. There's nothing for 'crats to do here. ] ] 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see how it would be inappropriate to withdraw your own RfA. ] (]) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sorry to see you go as an admin. You've done a lot of good work over the years. I'm glad you're sticking around to do regular editing. ···] · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 17:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
::@], AIUI the issue ] has is not with withdrawing, but with ''closing the discussion'' following (or at the same time as) withdrawal. In the linked discussion I've given a lengthy reply why I don't regard that as inappropriate either, but the distinction may be important to you (or others reading this). ] (]) 13:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Aw thanks, but you won't miss me. I am going to keep helping figure things out, though somebody else will have to push the button. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks @], that is a bit less straight forward than I originally thought. ] (]) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
My 2¢: In general one should avoid closing discussions they've participated in (or are ''about'' them) but I see no problem whatsoever with withdrawing from an RfA and closing it as withdrawn. It would be a different matter if (for example) someone started an AN/I discussion, it started to boomerang, and they closed it with a "nevermind" before they received any warnings or sanctions... but that's very different from what Graham did. Kudos to him for saving the 'crats a step with the paperwork. ] (]) 18:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:54, 7 January 2025

Notices of interest to bureaucrats

Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    		 Centralized discussion
    Bureaucrat tasks
    Archiving icon
    Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50


    This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
    For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats. Click here to add a new section Shortcuts

    The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

    This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

    If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

    To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

    Crat tasks
    RfAs 0
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 17
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 23:01:34 on January 7, 2025, according to the server's time and date.


    Desysop request (Ferret)

    Ferret (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

    Hi Bureaucrats. I'm requesting the removal of my administrator rights as of January 1, 2025, as I will be generally retiring. I would like my previous rights (autopatrolled, extended confirmed user, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor) restored. I would have waited a little closer to request but might not be online the next couple days. Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per your wishes, I have removed the tools. I realise this is a day or so early, so if you do need to use the tools in the meantime I can revert
    On a personal note, I'm sad to see you go. Thank you for your service. Lee Vilenski 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your years of service, Ferret. Enjoy your retirement! Liz 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed. Appreciate all you've done to get us here. BusterD (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    ferret, thank you for all your service, and thanks especially for being such a great mentor, colleague, and friend. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Query

    So, are we losing ZERO administrators in January 2025 due to inactivity (see Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators#January 2025)? When was the last month that happened? I guess most inactive admins have already lost their privileges (there was a big group in 2023) and we are down to just active admins, well, at least active in editing if not admin work. That Criterion 2 made a big impact.

    Happy New Year, everyone! Liz 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    October 2023? Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Aug 2024. — xaosflux 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we may have indeed at least approached a time when inactivity desysops will go down to almost nothing. I think this is the first time that I can say I think our standard for admin activity are sufficient and are working as intended. It's been a long road. Beeblebrox 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Careful not to mistake a data point for a trend. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    True, I've just causally observed it, I haven't kept stats, but when the latest round of inactivity rules were established we were seeing about three per month. We're still seeing that some months, but other months there are just one or two, and apparently this month, none. I have also noticed an uptick in admins voluntarily handing in tools but I haven't got stats for that either. On the other hand, we may be losing as many as seven next month. Beeblebrox 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    All desysoppings of administrators due to inactivity have been logged by month at Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators since shortly after the process started. Graham87 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    A more useful statistic would be drawn from the actual admin action logs from the admins lost due to inactivity over the last 14 years. It would reveal just how significant their loss was - or wasn't. A random check I just made tends to show that many of them hardly ever used their tools at all. This might bust the myth that the attrition is as critical as the community is led to believe. Many admins also lost interest in the use of the tools shortly after passing their RfA, which could lead one to believe that there is a certain social capital to be gained with having one's signature highlighted in yellow everywhere - active or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I was poking around the admins due to be desysopped under criterion two next month, and one of them hasn't used an admin tool in eleven years. Beeblebrox 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    It has probably always been true that the 80-20 rule applies. Looking at , a few admins performed thousands of logged admin actions last year, while there is a quick drop as you go down the list, with a long tail of admins with a very low number (or none) of logged admin actions. Rather than worrying about how many admins we have, we need to worry about retaining the small number of admins that do most of the admin work. Donald Albury 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    An important aspect to keep in mind is that there are plenty of administrative tasks that don't log admin actions, such as declining unblock requests, declining protection requests, processing entries at WP:CFDS/Working, and a number of other tasks (with those just being the ones that sprung to mind for me). While I'm sure we all know this, I wanted to mention it for anybody reading that hadn't considered that the raw numbers aren't everything. I can think of a number of admins with less than a thousand actions last year who had more of an impact than I did with my 18 thousand+ actions (fifth overall for non bots). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know, but I suspect that most very few admins that have few or no logged actions are instead performing a lot of unlogged admin tasks. Personally, I don't remember performing any unlogged admin tasks last year, and I try not to assume that I'm unique. Donald Albury 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the "not all admin actions are logged" argument is perhaps relevant in the short term, but if you haven't found occasion to preform any logged actions in over a decade, I find it highly unlikely you are doing admin work and just never, ever see a reason to use the tools. Beeblebrox 03:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, to be entirely clear, I don't think there's a niche of admins doing no admin actions but working exclusively in admin areas that don't log actions.
    I know that a few users who process submissions at WP:CFDS, such as Fayenatic london and Ymblanter, don't have their entire efforts and work reflected by the action count. My point was to illustrate that the numbers themselves don't necessarily reflect the actual work put in by some admins in general. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    We already have an edit filter logging edits to protected pages. We should ideally set up edit filters for all of the other types of unlogged "admin" action, along the same vein, and kibosh this entire concept. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    You mean like closing XFD discussions or assessing unblocks, etc., as Hey man im josh notes above? - jc37 14:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Still not seeing it. What admin is active in closing AFDs, but never deletes anything, or is active in reviewing unblock requests, but never unblocks anyone? Beeblebrox 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    If an admin !votes at RFA and especially if they nominate, I would be very disappointed if they hadn't checked the candidates deleted edits. So that's one area where an admin might be using the tools without any recent logged admin actions. Looking at those stats I seem to do hundreds of edits for every logged admin action, and in recent years that ratio may have increased to around a thousand edits per admin action. But I like to think most of my 7,000 or so logged admin actions have been useful. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sennecaster problem

    Jokes have no place on Misplaced Pages. Because I am an extremely, extremely serious person, I have blocked JavaHurricane and desysopped Sennecaster. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi, I was checking the page and found that one oppose vote is found in the support section. @AmandaNP closed it at 230-0-0. But as per @JavaHurricane's vote on support no. 207, it should be ended as 229-1-0. I didn't expected that administrators or monitor @Tamzin has overlooked it. Can this issue be fixed? (P.S.: I don't know whether should I brought this in BN or AN but as I think RfAs are handled by Crats, so I brought it here.) -- ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️ 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Tagging @Sennecaster for informing this. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️ 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I also sense that JavaHurricane was making a joke—poor judgement because of running late for mop?, clearly a joke. The AP (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a joke. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I apologize for not getting that joke and wasted my time bothering you all. I got it well now. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️ 07:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A discussion on Signpost

    There is a discussion on an article on Signpost that maybe of interest to bureaucrats, on whether it is appropriate of an admin should close his own re-request for adminship as a sign of resigning. Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24/Opinion

    I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Opposition to your stated position has been unanimous over the two days since you posted it. There's nothing for 'crats to do here. Beeblebrox 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see how it would be inappropriate to withdraw your own RfA. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hey man im josh, AIUI the issue SYSS Mouse has is not with withdrawing, but with closing the discussion following (or at the same time as) withdrawal. In the linked discussion I've given a lengthy reply why I don't regard that as inappropriate either, but the distinction may be important to you (or others reading this). Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks @Thryduulf, that is a bit less straight forward than I originally thought. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    My 2¢: In general one should avoid closing discussions they've participated in (or are about them) but I see no problem whatsoever with withdrawing from an RfA and closing it as withdrawn. It would be a different matter if (for example) someone started an AN/I discussion, it started to boomerang, and they closed it with a "nevermind" before they received any warnings or sanctions... but that's very different from what Graham did. Kudos to him for saving the 'crats a step with the paperwork. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: