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 23:25, 4 November 2024 editNovem Linguae (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Interface administrators, Administrators50,965 edits →Admin election results - please enact: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:36, 9 January 2025 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,620 edits →Resysop request (Arcticocean): this is a redirect, so nothing to see; removing rfplinks 
(345 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}{{pp-sock|small=yes}} {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
Line 13: Line 13:
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Desysop request (Ferret) ==
== Role of bureaucrats in administrator recall process ==


{{rfplinks|Ferret}}
Note that the ] process that was developed as part of ] has given the bureaucrats a new task. Once a recall petition has gained enough support to pass, the administrator in question must make a re-request for adminship or stand in an administrator election within 30 days. The bureaucrats are responsible to ensure that this is done in a reasonable time frame. If neither take place, then bureaucrats can remove administrative privileges at their discretion. Thus there is flexibility for judgement regarding what time frame is reasonable. Note the phase 2 consensus was reconciled in discussion at {{section link|Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator recall|Initiating RRFAs}} (]) to work out this task. Your support of this process will be greatly appreciated! ] (]) 16:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:There is also an ongoing discussion about whether there is any flexibility with the 30 days here: ]. ] (]/]) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


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)
At {{slink|WP:AN|Is WP:RECALL a policy?}} (see most recent posts at the bottom), some editors have asked whether bureaucrats are actually authorized to desysop based on this process. Is it possible to get an "official" answer from the 'crats? ] (]) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 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. '''] <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==
:Probably, but I'd like to see a little bit more added regarding such at ], where referencing the rfc would be nice. Also in the newer addition {{tq|If an administrator abuses administrative rights, the community can require a re-request for adminship (RRfA)}} section -- did the empowering RFC require an actual showing of "abuse" of "administrative rights" - or could a recall be initiated for any reason? I think it is likely the later (such that showing consensus of "abuse" is not a necessary element.) I think the updates to the admin policy should specifically state that this type of involuntary removal may be performed by bureaucrats. Arguments of if the policy change is supported or not should continue in the appropriate venues as needed (i.e. not this page). — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
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.
:Doesn't the original RFC proposal 16C specifically note that it will be the bureaucrats removing the admin flag during this process? The alternatives, I suppose, would be that a steward remove it, which seems atypical, or nobody removes it, which means the recall process has no teeth. I would doubt that the RFC participants had either of those outcomes in mind, and so it would fall to the bureaucrats to perform that actual bit removal. ] (]) 04:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::Useight, I don't think "who" should do the bit-flipping is being debated, if it is appropriate to be done, it should be done by us. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed. I don't think there's any question of if it would be us who would handle any removal of the bit. We would handle any removal of adminship if suitable.
:::I think the issue is the details of when a removal of admin privileges should be inforced. I agree that the process shouldn't be limited to "abuse of administrative rights", there's many reasons why one might get consensus for someone to have their rights removed.
:::Most of our job is to evaluate consensus, so we should handle a recall process now it is policy. I would for one, want the policy to specifically state what the correct format should be - should it be a case of an uninvolved user coming to BN and asking for the bit to be removed? Should crats be checking and closing the proposals themselves (if that's already been discussed, I missed it, sorry). '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 11:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The actual "recall election" is effected either by a reconfirmation RfA, which presumably must be closed by a crat, or through admin elections, if those stay, where it will presumably be handled along with the rest of the election results. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- ] (])</b> 11:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::What I'd like to see is the 2 new involuntary removal conditions be clearly listed in the admin policy: (a) being unsuccessful in a recall election; (b) refusing to start a recall election. Linking to the rfc that established the consensus for that policy update would be useful as well assuming debate about that rfc closure and its affect is over. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you, xaos, Usesight, and Lee for the feedback. I've made edits to WP:ADMIN to clear up the "abuse" issue, link to the RFCs, and explicitly specify the 2 removal criteria (failure to start, failure to pass). Hope that helps. ] (]) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, Levivich. I made a slight grammatical change to your addition (changing "does not timely start" to "does not promptly start"), but I would like it even better if it specified just how long the user had. Either way, I liked that the wording allowed for any reason of not starting the RRFA, not just refusing to do so - as an admin who ignored the whole thing would be failing to start one but not refusing to start one, per se. ] (]) 15:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks! I just changed it again to specify "30 days" (per the RFCs). ] (]) 15:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm so glad there's a discussion of recall here, the other twenty discusions spread scross half of project space really were not enough. ] ] 21:57, 30 October 2024 (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)
:Well, the one 'crat who has weighed in here thus far ] to mass-pinging, so I'm not sure what else one would do to get 'crat input. ] 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:I don't mind the question of "hey crat's are you willing to do this, if not what do you need"? being here - but yes, please don't fork the rest of the discussion here. My colleagues may certainly have their own takes on the current status as 'crats, or as community members. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


:October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Desysop request (Daniel) ==
:]. — ] <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)
*{{rfplinks|Daniel}}
Please remove my administrator tools for now. Thanks, ] (]) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (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)
:I'm super bummed to see this @], but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for everything. You've been an amazing administrator who was always someone to look to as an excellent example of how to be, and I really do hope you pick the tools back up some day. If you don't, that's fine, I understand, but you've had an awesome impact on the site in a positive way. ] (]) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (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. ] 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{done}}, let us know if you need any advanced perms. ] (]) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (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)
:Other admins are going to have to step up their game. Daniel, thanks for the hard work and I hope you're sticking around as a mere mortal. --] (]) 21:42, 29 October 2024 (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)
::Thanks for the kind words Floq and Josh. I will still be active for sure, albeit at a lower level (I have 7 weeks away from home in the next 13 and it's summer here, so the 6 weeks I am here I'll probably be at the beach!) - I might even still close some AfD's once in a while :) I also look forward to picking up the tools at some point — likely next year — although I'll be keeping an eye on certain developments that are important to me when making that decision. Cheers all, ] (]) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (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)
:::just adding my voice to the chorus here. Admins with a clear sense of right and wrong are a valued commodity. Enjoy the break. ] ] 22:25, 29 October 2024 (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.
:Thanks, Daniel. We appreciate your dedication to the project. Stepping back is almost always a GOOD thing. Sing out if you need more sunscreen; we're well networked for international response. ] (]) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::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 ==
== Inactive admins for November 2024 ==
{{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)
The following ] administrators can be desysoped due to ]. Thank you for your service.
::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)
;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
: It's a joke. ] ] 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{admin|Yamamoto Ichiro}}
::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)
#: Last logged admin action: October 2023
# {{admin|JaGa}} {{abot}}
#: Last logged admin action: February 2016
# {{admin|Aervanath}}
#: Last logged admin action: March 2023


== A discussion on Signpost ==
;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
# {{admin|Christopher Sundita}}
#: Last logged admin action: December 2022
# {{admin|Kbh3rd}}
#: Last logged admin action: April 2015
# {{admin|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}}
#: Last logged admin action: December 2021


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. ]
:Thank you all for your prior service. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::] why does JaGa's eight years of no admin actions matter? He's not edited for over a year, so indeed he qualifies for desysopping; I just don't understand why you mention the admin actions. ] (]) 05:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Not Xaosflux, but I assume it's to note whether these admins would qualify for resysopping if they were to return to activity. ] states not to resysop if it has been more than five years since the last logged action, so in JaGa's case he would need to go through another RFA. –]<sup>]</sup> 05:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Should a resysop request come in, this is a handy note to help in the checks for restoration - if it has been a long time some eligibilities may have passed or additional discussion may be warranted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. ] (]) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Removal of enwiki Admin rights (Dragons flight)==


: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)
* {{rfplinks|Dragons_flight}}
:I don't see how it would be inappropriate to withdraw your own RfA. ] (]) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (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)
:::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)


:100% agree with 28bytes. -- ] 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I haven't really been active for a long time now, and will hit the admin inactivity threshold soon anyway, so I might as well make the desysop request myself. It's been fun, but for now other interests and priorities have gotten the better of me. Not sure if I'll ever really return to active editing or not. Maybe some day if life slows down, but I'm still proud of what I've contributed to Misplaced Pages over the years, and glad to see the project continue to flourish. Good luck to everyone else. ] (]) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:No concerns with someone withdrawing an RFA and doing the paperwork for it, however for a RECALL RFA this would only be acceptable if immediate notice is also left here (as was done in ]). — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Please let us know if you need any of the advanced perms you held before adminship. ] (]) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::If I ever become active again, rollback and template editor would probably be useful. At the moment though, I'm not doing much of anything, so I'm also happy to sort that out at a later date. ] (]) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for your work over the years. I wish we had an "admin reserve" where trusted accounts could be pulled out of mothballs and reactivated if needed. I guess this is a tiny bit like that. ] (]) 14:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::Getting off-topic here, but the reason for the admin activity requirements is because there is a large community opposition to admins coming out of the mothballs who are unfamiliar with contemporary policy and community norms. ] (]) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in general the community is probably better off finding more ways to place trust in current active users than expecting inactive users to jump back in. ] (]) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


== Resysop request (Arcticocean) ==
== Admin election results - please enact ==


* {{rfplinks|Arcticocean}}
Hi! The results of the 2024 ] have been finalized, scrutinized, and posted ]. The following candidates surpassed the threshold and should be promoted to admin status:
* Previous username: AGK
* {{u|Queen of Hearts}}
* {{u|SilverLocust}}
* {{u|ThadeusOfNazereth}}
* {{u|Rsjaffe}}
* {{u|Dr vulpes}}
* {{u|Ahecht}}
* {{u|SD0001}}
* {{u|DoubleGrazing}}
* {{u|Sohom Datta}}
* {{u|Peaceray}}
* {{u|FOARP}}


Hello. I requested self-removal of my sysop permissions in June 2021. At that time, I was becoming too busy in real life to regularly contribute to Misplaced Pages, a situation made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. I returned as a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages some months ago but have been taking time to catch up on changes in the community. Although I remained occasionally active whilst away, I felt it important not to request the tools back until I was sure of still being in touch with the community's standards. As I'm now permanently back and have been for some time, I am requesting restoration of my sysop permissions. With thanks, ] 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A bureaucrat can now enact the promotions - thank you very much! —] (]) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)


*Desysop request is at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{+1}}. Everything is final and ready for bureaucrats to promote. WMF Trust & Safety made the initial post with the decrypted ] results, and the 3 steward scrutineers signed the results page to ratify it. Here's a link to the if you'd like to double check yourselves. I've also double checked the names list Ganesh811 posted above and it has been correctly copied over. –] <small>(])</small> 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
*Last admin action appears to be May 2021. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:36, 9 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 19:35:59 on January 9, 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)

    100% agree with 28bytes. -- Amanda (she/her) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No concerns with someone withdrawing an RFA and doing the paperwork for it, however for a RECALL RFA this would only be acceptable if immediate notice is also left here (as was done in Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_50#Desysop_request_(Graham87)). — xaosflux 15:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Resysop request (Arcticocean)

    Hello. I requested self-removal of my sysop permissions in June 2021. At that time, I was becoming too busy in real life to regularly contribute to Misplaced Pages, a situation made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. I returned as a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages some months ago but have been taking time to catch up on changes in the community. Although I remained occasionally active whilst away, I felt it important not to request the tools back until I was sure of still being in touch with the community's standards. As I'm now permanently back and have been for some time, I am requesting restoration of my sysop permissions. With thanks, arcticocean ■ 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: