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 23:52, 9 May 2011 editMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 edits →Requesting early close on RFA: not fpr the fiorst time← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:12, 7 January 2025 edit undoHey man im josh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators345,357 edits →A discussion on Signpost: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 21 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 0 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">


__TOC__
<!-- Header section, please do not change or move this --><br style="clear:both;">


== Bot help needed == == Desysop request (Ferret) ==


{{rfplinks|Ferret}}
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] have now been open starting since last October. No one on ] wants to decide on the tasks because we're all either conflicted out (like myself) or unwilling to touch the operator/task with a ten-foot pole because of the highly political history/nature of the situation. Since BAG can't resolve these requests and they are otherwise clogging our docket, could some uninvolved 'crats please step in and help out here? Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:25, 4 May 2011 (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)
:Note that there's currently an ongoing discussion between BAG members on this. No need for 'crat involvement in the immediate future, but 'crats would be welcome to jump on IRC (#wikipedia-BAG) or might need to get involved in the next few days. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 04:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Would you care to point out to me where it is? or were you in fact referring to your own ], where you already ruled out in principle support for most of the tasks that Lightmouse was ever likely to propose? --] ] 04:37, 4 May 2011 (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
::*The discussion(s) were on IRC. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎]</small> 08:31, 4 May 2011 (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==
I'd like this resolved too. Over many years, I've done a huge amount of good work converting units efficiently and contributing to debates. I've tried two angles:
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.
* Apply bottom-up step-by-step for small changes. For example, we already have 'feet+miles' running very efficiently now and I've applied to include inches. The advantage of this is that the doubters can see that semi-automated conversion of units isn't so bad. The disadvantage is that it takes lots of applications to get any decent scope.
* Apply top-down for entire categories e.g. 'units of temperature'. The advantage is that the scope is sufficient. The disadvantage is that people want to have long debates about theoretical possibilities.
If it's ok to convert feet and miles, then it's ok to do other units. I'm not the enemy. There are lots of options:
** have a 50 edit trial, then a whole series of them.
** Have a 100 per-day or 50 per-hour limit on the edits.
** Have a 10 day limit on the edits.
** Have a restriction to manual (i.e. press the 'save' button each time) mode for Lightbot.
** Have a restriction to a non-bot account i.e. Lightmouse
** Have a mentor
** Any combination of the above
Lightbot1 to Lightbot3 ran over the entire scope of 'units of measure'. It was hugely successful and it's code has been copied widely by other editors. There are frequently repeated assertions that I'm a bad person and it baffles me how they can conclude that from my work with units. The date linking saga has had lots of consequences including collateral damage to the good work by Lightbot doing units. That's all behind us now. I'm running a bot now for feet and miles. If two units can be converted, then so can other units. Simples. I'd be happy to drop or merge applications if they were being processed. ] (]) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (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)
== Temp sysop for testing ==


:October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Resolved}}
:]. — ] <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)
I'd like someone to temporarily +sysop an alternate account of mine ], so that I can have it block itself identically to the way I blocked myself , and see if it is able to unblock itself. I was unable to unblock myself when I was blocked (unless I did something wrong), but unblockself is a userright admins are listed as having. I repeated the scenario on testwiki and it worked as expected there. I'd rather do it without blocking myself again. Thank you, ] <sup>]</sup> 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:See ]. ]_] 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
::Ah ha, that explains everything. Thanks, saves me some testing! ] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 4 May 2011 (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)
== Closing ] ==
: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 ==
The RFC ] has run for over 30 days and due to the size, importance and strong feelings on both sides of the debate any closure/summarization is going to be difficult and controversial. It was therefore suggest to ask a bureaucrat to close it, for "capable judges of consensus" is part of your job description. A notice has already been posted at ], but they are typically slow to respond to calls of closure. Would one of you be willing to take the job? '''Yoenit''' (]) 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
{{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)
== Account deletion ==
::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 ==
For personal reasons, I want to exercise my right to vanish and to close my account for good (] (]) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC))
:As you have very few contributions, the best thing to do is to just abandon your account. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;">···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small></span> 01:46, 9 May 2011 (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. ]
== Requesting early close on RFA ==


I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. ] (]) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The percentage at ] has been pretty stable for the past few days, so I wouldn't mind an early close, so that the question is resolved before the work week restarts. If you feel it would be valuable to let it run the full length, that's fine too. Thanks. --] (]) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:I could switch my !vote if that would help juggle the numbers around if you'd like? j/k .. good luck no matter how it closes SoV. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::Not a great idea. I'm sure there are many !voters, example moi, who wait to read all the oppose and support !votes before actually voting. Best to let things run their course to the end. --] <small>(])</small> 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with RegentsPark. While I personally think that RFA is not the place for such reconfirmation-requests, once initiated and discussed, it should run until the end. Otherwise, people will probably feel that their time has been wasted with this RFA. Regards ''']]''' 20:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::::I also agree. To be frank, I am astonished by this request by Sarek. Once initiated, the process should run its course. ]]] 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::::An unfortunate request.--] (]) 22:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Surely an RfA is conducted at the convenience of the community, not the candidate? Particularly when the RfA process being endured is entirely of candidate's manufacture. A somewhat shocking request under the circumstances. ] (]) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm. I think people may be misunderstanding Sarek's intentions here. I think he was hoping for the best but fully expecting the worst since his RfA has been in the ''judgement call'' zone the entire time and probably just wanting to "get it over with". - ''''']''''' (]•]•<span class="plainlinks"></span>) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:Yeah. That 72% I was referencing above is pretty low in the judgement call zone, and I wasn't foreseeing anything that was likely to change the percentages radically, since it's been sitting between 71 and 74% for the last 4 days (until I posted this, which seems to have started to have that effect. *headdesk*). Consider the request withdrawn, please, and let it run the full length. --] (]) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::The correct move, then, is to withdraw. As it stands, it very much looks like you were trying to get the crats to make a judgement call early. That really, really looks bad.→&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;00:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
::: I'll endorse the withdrawal suggestion (Nach, as I opposed;). ] 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't think the early close request is a big deal personally, it appears to have had a negative effect on your RFA, which, frankly, should have been pretty obvious. While some bureaucrats have discretionarily closed at this level of support in the past (I am called to mind Ryulong's promotion, which would be an unpopular precedent given his later behavior), even a liberal interpretation of the applicability of anti-recall opposes might be a difficult sell at this point. ''']'''] 01:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:I wasn't asking for a discretionary close as ''support'', I just wanted it over and done with. I'm quite aware that the 72% it was at at the time was very low, and there were far too many legitimate opposes to bring it much over 75% by discounting questionable ones. I was willing to accept the outcome either way, as the community had spoken clearly -- it was just left to the closing crat to summarize what they actually said.--] (]) 03:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::If you wanted it over and done with, why didn't you just withdraw? Surely you must know that the appearance of asking for it to be closed early carries with it an implication (or hope, perhaps) that such a close would be in your favour. Wanting it over and done with is nice and easy; you withdraw. Asking for a close keeps open the possibility that you would be (re)promoted. Whether or not that was your intention (and I'm willing to AGF enough that it wasn't), the implication is quite clear, and one would hope that admins would be more circumspect about appearances of impropriety, and more observant of how their actions appear. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
::No, I know, that isn't what I meant. I'm saying since the post-request fallout, it has become less defensible to promote. ''']'''] 03:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
]—wait, too late. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/]]]'''</span> 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:Many people here know Sarek fairly well and are familiar with how he interacts with others. Some have described it as ''cowboy diplomacy'', which seems to be the case sometimes. Certainly he must have been comparing his RfA to HJ Mitchell's, which must have been depressing. I'd just ask that people review Sarek's last few responses to his RfA and see if you feel anything is different (e.g. , ). What I noticed is that he had taken on a more compliant and somewhat defeated tone. Like somebody that had received a serious wakeup call. I believe it's been a (wiki)life changing experience for him. - ''''']''''' (]•]•<span class="plainlinks"></span>) 09:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::I agree that this is an astonishing request. For the record, 65.8% of non-admins support (probably insufficient by itself to reconfirm); 75.7% of admins support. Many supports seem to have come from the fact that this is a reconfirmation. Clearly, non-admins bear the brunt of the trigger-happy blocking of established editors, and the wanton disregard of ]. It is a sorry situation. ] ] 11:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If one discounts the "oppose because it's a reconfirmation" commentary (2, 18, 19, at time of posting) - and franky even if one does not - this is very much in the discretionary zone (72%). I do agree this request for an early close was probably misguided but for Tony to opine that ''"Many supports seem to have come from the fact that this is a reconfirmation"'' without noting that three opposes come from the opposite camp is rather unfair. Of course I supported the "re-rfa" and Tony opposed so we're all biased. I just admit it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


*shucks, I'll run for RfA and the moment I get a single support vote and no opposes I'll come here and ask the 'crats to close it as succeeded. ] (]) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (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)
*:This is what people mean when they say people are misunderstanding the purpose of this request. The request (I believe) was made in good faith, saying that if a bureaucrat thought it appropriate, the request could be closed early, partially to get it over with and partially so that it could be closed without anybody having to wait after the point at which it was supposed to (which is what's currently happening). I see how one could easily interpret it as "I'm winning, better make sure of it staying that way <.< >.>", but this request doesn't seem like that to me. ] <small><span style="color:black">(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</span></small> 21:56, 9 May 2011 (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)
*::Current percent: {{diff|User:X!/Tally|next|428319171|72.1%}}. Percent when I volunteered for early close: {{diff|User:X!/Tally|428107183|428093441|72.1%}}.--] (]) 22:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks @], that is a bit less straight forward than I originally thought. ] (]) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to close because I supported, so we need to wait for another bureaucrat to come along and take on the task. ''']'''] 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
*'''Shocked''' - I was actually quite shocked when people took this close the wrong way. I had been watching the RfA and seeing how Sarek had changed. Look at the RfA, Sarek was being hammered, and by people he respects. My gawd people, he's not made of stone. I knew exactly what the request meant. He just wanted the hammering to be over with and that's all. - ''''']''''' (]•]•<span class="plainlinks"></span>) 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
*:{{ec}}Yeah, I understand what you mean by that. Were I to do an RFA right now (which I'm not really interested in, I still wouldn't trust myself with those tools :p) I doubt I'd get <s>very many</s> any people supporting, and any of the people I've worked with often would probably oppose. That would hurt, and seeing people like that oppose/hammer you at a reconfirmation would hurt even more. ] <small><span style="color:black">(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</span></small> 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
*So why didn't he withdraw? If all he wanted was for it to be over, withdrawal is the only option. Or posting here and saying "this isn't going well, can a crat please close this?' As it stands, the ''appearance, as I noted above, is that SoV was hoping it would be closed in his favour. It stretches credulity to believe that SoV is unaware of how RFA works. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
:But you, Andrevan, just closed HJ Mitchells's RfA, which you also supported. ] ] 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::HJ's wasn't in the discretionary zone; it was a clear pass. No impropriety there. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::I wasn't suggesting impropriety, just a logical inconsistency. ] ] 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Oh. I figured the words ''"and it's in the discretionary zone"'' were implied between 'supported' and 'so' in Andrevan's comment. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;23:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::::Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English, so let me explain as clearly as I can. Andrevan voted in HJ Mitchell's RfA and was quite happy to close it. He also voted in SarekOfVulvcan's RfA but declined to close it because he had voted. I have a word for that kind of inconsistency. Can you guess what it is? ] ] 23:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Oh goody, you're being insulting ''and'' attempting to draw me into a bloody stupid argument about semantics. Whee. There ''would'' be an inconsistency if HJ's RFA was in the discretionary zone. It isn't, so there isn't. Something something different circumstances something something. Whatever. Please grow the hell up. You know full well that I am a native speaker of English, you're just being a giant dick to win some Internet Points so you can level up to full-fledged troll. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;23:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
::::::::Alright gentlemen, we're all adults here. Let's try to be civil. ''']'''] 23:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::"Intelligent"? :-) --] (]) 23:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::"Dishonest". ] ] 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I have no qualms about closing an RFA I voted in as long as it's uncontroversial (see Catfish jim and the soapdish from a few days ago, which I supported and promoted). ] states: ''In cases which are straightforward..., the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.'' I see no reason why that same principle should not extend to closing RFAs. ''']'''] 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ec}}{{od}} But 87% (164/19/20) is well above the success figure in HJ Mitchell's RfA, whereas 72% in Sarek's is in the grey area, and that is why Andrevan should have, and did, recuse from making such a fine decision. In the former case, there was no room for exercise of discretion, as far as the numbers stood. ] (]) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:But bureaucrats commonly ignore opposes they don't agree with, and presumably supports as well, so one has to question the judgement of any bureaucrat who would both vote and close an RfA. But only if they were sensible and honest, agreed. ] ] 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::<nowiki>*goes for the NPA block button, but stubs his finger because it's not there*</nowiki>
--] (]) 23:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::And hopefully you won't be able to repeat your antics. ] ] 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::I can't speak for others, but I do not ignore comments I don't agree with. I rarely ignore comments at all for that matter. Reading of consensus is separate from one's own opinion. In the past I have in a bureaucrat discussion read the consensus in the opposite way from my opinion, for example ], where I opposed but supported a promotion based on the interpretation of consensus. Another example is ], where I opined that consensus supported promotion, but closed as no consensus per the bureaucrat discussion. ''']'''] 23:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::{{ec}}Well, I would like to see some evidence of that. Of course the closing crat should take into account the quality of the !votes as well as their number, but when the numbers clearly show a consensus to promote, and there is no obvious vote-stuffing or fatuuous (!) reasoning, the judgement should follow the facts. I have no reason to believe that HJ Mitchell's RfA would, should, or could, have been closed any other way, by any crat, but in the grey area of Sarek's, there is clearly, as far as you are concerned, a risk of a perception of bias, and correctly, to avoid that, Andrevan didn't close it. If you took his !vote out of HJ MItchell's Rfa, it wouldn't have made any difference in the slightest, which (I believe) is why he felt secure in closing it per the clear consensus. ] (]) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::You may believe whatever you like, but my conviction is that it is completely improper to close any vote in which you have expressed a preference. Where the Hell did common sense go? 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== Bot flag request ==

Could somebody please place the ] flag on ]. The bot has been work flawlessly since 2008 but has never had the bot flag. Regards. ''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>'' <sub><font color="blue">(])</font></sub> 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
: - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:{{done}} ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== Request to usurp an existing account on EnWiki ==
Hello... I received ] from an IP that identifies as on the French Misplaced Pages. The user wants to inquire about claiming the name ] on EnWiki. As the admin who blocked Druth on this project, it appears that the two are different individuals based on contributions. I have left a note on asking them to confirm the request there (to verify the account). Thanks in advance for your assistance. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
: has since replied on their French talk page to verify the request. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
::Restoring; bot archived this before it was addressed. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 11:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:12, 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 14:01:28 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)
    Categories: