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 06:32, 24 November 2011 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,026 edits →Some crat work needed: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:36, 9 January 2025 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,642 edits →Resysop request (Arcticocean): this is a redirect, so nothing to see; removing rfplinks 
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 = 23 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;"> }}</noinclude>
{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">


__TOC__
== RfA behaviours ==


== Desysop request (Ferret) ==
I wondered if any other Crats had seen ], or (permanent link)?


{{rfplinks|Ferret}}
'''Leaving aside discussions of specific individuals' behaviours''', I wonder if we should consider some, erm, policing of RfAs? --] (]) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:I think ] would be a more appropriate venue for discussion on this topic. Crats have a mandate to judge the consensus at an AfD, not to enforce civility or other conduct guidelines. If crats start to take an active role in policing RFA conduct, it will undermine their appearance of neutrality in making RFA closes. ]] 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'm aware of the difference and of our responsibilities. I wanted to communicate with the other Crats, not with the regulars at WT:RFA. As it's not a privacy matter, the mailing list is inappropriate and this is the appropriate forum. Any Crat can intercede at any RfA without breach of neutrality, and we often do. We just opt not to close it. --] (]) 17:09, 8 November 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)
What do you mean by "policing" of RfA/Bs outside of deciding on the consensus, which includes, at times, the weight given to particular opinions? DO you mean striking out unhelpful comments? If so, we are going to have to decide between someone voicing honest passion and someone acting like a troll. Do you mean flat out removing certain statements? Do you mean applying blocks to troll-like or highly incivil respondents at RfX in order to protect the integrity and dignity of the process and the project? -- ] (]) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
: sigh, so much of the discussion at Misplaced Pages is so, well, bureaucratic. Someone raises a point that is at least worthy of discussion and the first response is to quibble over the venue for discussion and the second is to quibble over meaning. Avi, if you think it would be far too difficult to decide who is voicing honest passion and who is acting like a troll, come out and make that point. Cut to the chase. Enter the debate. There is one of those bluelink thingys that some people love to pepper their posts with that talks about Misplaced Pages not being a bureaucracy. It is must be Misplaced Pages's most widely ignored guideline. ] (]) 19:49, 9 November 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
Hi Avi. I have an open mind on what we do. What I am convinced about is that we should do ''something''. Happy to let consensus guide what that something is. But first, I want to know if other Crats think 'something' ''needs'' to be done. --] (]) 20:42, 9 November 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==
{{ec}}Dean, this ''is'' the '''Bureaucrats'''' noticeboard ]. In all seriousness, my response to Dweller would depend on what Dweller has in mind. Personally, I would like for bureaucrats to be as non-intrusive as possible in RfX. If someone is acting like an idiot in RfX, I'd hope we, as bureaucrats, would recognize it and take the activity into consideration when we measure consensus. As for more extreme measures, we do have processes in force for handling disruptive editors (RfC's etc.) and any admin (bureaucrats included) can take protective measures in the case of harassment. A question for you, Dean (and everyone else, of course), if you saw a bureaucrat take protective action by blocking a misbehaving editor, would you feel that would affect said bureaucrat's impartiality when closing the discussion? -- ] (]) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (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.


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)
:I don't think a crat who "policed" an RfX should close it; they might not be partial because of those actions but there is no point in a crat acting in any way that might make people even slightly question their impartiality. Although we don't imho have a sufficient amount of crats, there should be enough of them to ensure that "policing" crat and closing crat are two different people.
:On the topic itself, I think Dweller is correct. Of course crats shouldn't watch RfXs like hawks and delete any possibly offending content or block anyone making a slightly unorthodox comment but they should intervene when people use the RfX for off-topic discussions or general discussions not related to the candidate and move such discussions and/or block people insisting to have them on the RfX despite warnings. For example, discussions about whether admins should be article creators belong to ], not the RfA of somebody who did not create articles; on the other hand, the discussion why ''this'' user did not create articles belongs there (or maybe the talk page). Of course any user can already "clean up" RfX discussions but they are often challenged by others, leading to more controversy and potentially edit-warring (for example there was an edit-war about the inclusion of one of Keepscases' questions recently). Crats on the other hand are respected by almost all participants in such discussions and their job is to preserve the "institution of RfX", so if they "police" an RfX it will be better for all involved. Regards ''']]''' 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessary. Policing of behavior is not a part of a bureaucrat's job. (And I don't see why incivility in an RfA is different from incivility elsewhere. I looked at the link above and it would have been far better to have taken it to ] that to rant and discuss it on the RfA itself. Determining what is or is not civil is a consensus issue rather than a straightforward judgement.) --] <small>(])</small> 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


:October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Bureaucrats may no more act as police than admins. Bureaucrats may judge finished RFAs, and nothing more. The community is more than up to the task of policing incivility. ''']'''] 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:The community has not been policing incivility at RfA very well. --] (]) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (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)
::Then that's the community's failing. I'm not sure that bureaucrats should necessarily step in and pick up the ball that's been dropped. If we (as 'crats) police an RfA, it shouldn't be because it's part of our job description, but because we're seasoned editors with relatively level heads, a description that can easily be applied to non-bureaucrats. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Careful not to mistake a data point for a trend. ] (]) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That is certainly true in theory but in practice a crat "policing" such problems will not be met with the same resistance as a non-crat seasoned editor. Maybe the better way would be to accept that the community failed and make it part of the crats' job description instead. Regards ''']]''' 22:16, 14 November 2011 (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)
::::Yes, bureaucrats do tend to enjoy a bit of added freedom in policing stuff, but I prefer to consider it being because of who we are as individual editors, rather than just because we have a userright flag that most people don't. So... we're agreeing about how things currently are, just with different points of view about it. :)<br />I'd rather it not become a codified part of our job description, however, if only because it's not something that has to do with gauging consensus (such as with RfX closures) or something assigned to us for technical reasons (renaming and userright modifications). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:54, 14 November 2011 (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)
See ] for a relevant proposal. --] 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:That proposal seems to have been stale since July. As such we still have a problem with no solution. --] (]) 16:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::To be honest, neither of the two links you provide in your original post are symptomatic of a problem. The first is to an essay by Dayewalker (disclosure: I !voted support and still believe, on the balance, that that is a reasonable !vote) on his/her experiences. It is a personal statement, and I respect that, but the facts are that the candidate has a weak content contribution, did point to content contributions that were not borne out under scrutiny, and much of what the opposers said was legitimate. I'm not sure what a bureaucrat, or even the community can do in this sort of situation. The second link, to the ANI report on BadgerDrink, is where the comments ended up (disclosure: I !voted support and then withdrew my !vote). Badger's original comments, while harsh, were neither disruptive nor uncivil and this is borne out by the fact that several !voters used that as a basis for their oppose !votes. Do we really want to police RfA to the point where these sort of useful comments will disappear? The reality is that the RfA process, because it involves comments on people rather than content, will always be at the edge of civility. It is better to acknowledge that and let the community figure out when someone crosses the line. Appointing guardians of civility will only kill useful debate. --] <small>(])</small> 17:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:Well, OK, but looking at the bigger picture. We have about 730 active admins (this includes bots, I think. There are also 557 "semi-active" admins (fewer than 30 edits in the last two months), and that counts for something, so the effective number is higher than 730.) But anyway, we're loosing close to 200 a year.


: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 extrapolate the number 200 by looking at ]. If none of those who have been active for getting on a year resume activity, then we'd have to de-sysop for inactivity the following numbers: December 2011, 13; January 2012, 18; February 2012, 15; March 2012, 16; April 2012, 17. Some will surely resume activity, but not many -- it's been near a year after all -- and then there are active admins who will resign or be de-sysopped by ArbCom, so this probably balances. This works out to about 200 a year.
: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 ==
:And the number of new admins being admitted is almost negligible at this point. At this rate we will have zero admins in a few years. But we don't have to get to zero before it becomes a problem. I'm assuming that admin attrition is is not increasing in ''rate''; if it is, so much the worse. But even if steady, simple arithmetic progression indicates we'll run low on admins in a shorter time than one might think. We have maybe a few years, but not a ''lot'' of years.
{{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)
:Unless there's a way to slow admin attrition (can't think of any), then perforce something needs to be done at at the admission end. I'm not sure what, but in my opinion efforts such as ] aren't a good way to get things done and aren't likely to succeed. Therefore, sooner or later the 'crats will have to step up, I think. Whether this would be in form of more active intervention as suggested above, ''de facto'' taking less account of raw vote totals, or what, I'm not sure. But probably something. Not today, not this year, but it's something to be mindful of, maybe. ] (]) 16:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
::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)
::*I agree with your analysis of the difficulty. I'm certainly willing to help but remain unsure how best to do it. More active crat managements of RfAs has in the past hit a lot of resistance. Of course, I could simply grant +sysop to 20 accounts every month that I think deserve the bit to combat attrition, but I suspect I wouldn't remain a bureaucrat long if I started doing that... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 19:27, 22 November 2011 (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 strongly disagree with your analysis. We have seen that the number of admins promoted per given time period varies widely, but it is certainly not negligible. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that, as you say, "Some will surely resume activity, but not many." Many Wikipedians are active or not at a given time depending on how much free time they have in their own lives, and we have seen many cases of inactive admins returning years later to request re-adminship or similar. There is no pending admin crisis, and if there ever were, it would be easily fixable in ways other than bureaucrat policing of RFAs (for example, if the Foundation were to offer some kind of editing stipend a la Mechanical Turk, an idea I've not heard proposed). I have yet to hear any explanation as to how bureaucrat policing of comments would lead to more admin promotions. The problem isn't there, the solution wouldn't fix the problem that doesn't exist. ''']'''] 01:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::If RfAs still looked like ], I'd agree. But they don't. We've evolved a monstrosity that is increasingly off-putting to good candidates. I used to be able to persuade roughly one editor per month to run, but those I've asked this year have all declined for pretty much the same reason - ''they're volunteers, it's a hobby, going through RfA doesn't look like much fun, thank you very much''. You're probably right that "policing" RfAs is unlikely to be the solution, but sometimes I think it'd be nice to try something new. I suspect we're already running a bit short on admins. There may not be huge backlogs, but I suspect there are few admin actions (especially speedy deletions) that anyone has time to double check these days. An admin crisis may be hyperbole, but I do think the project's diminishing number of admins (when IMO it should be growing) is an issue that needs to be tackled. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
::::We're all no doubt reassured that ''"The problem isn't there, the solution wouldn't fix the problem <u>that doesn't exist</u>"''. Clearly Andrevan's detailed analysis is that there is no issue at RFA at all, that all is sweetness and light in fact; and that we're merrily giving lots of people +sysop after a vigorous but courteous and collegial debate. Obviously he's right - and after all his log clearly indicates how he's right in touch with RFA promotions over the last year. And his regular input at RFA is such that he . I think I'd be more interested in the opinion of bureaucrats who take an active interest in RFA to be honest. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:56, 23 November 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. ]
== Some crat work needed ==


I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. ] (]) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|no work needed}}


: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)
{{resolved}}
: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)
] has returned from retirement. As there is no policy reason in my view not to unblock him, I did so at his request. Can one of you guys do whatever is needed to merge with ]? Many thanks.--] (]) 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:Accounts can't have their contributions merged. At most, we could rename RetiredUser12459780 back to TCO, but I'd rather they make that request themselves (with either account). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 18:44, 23 November 2011 (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)


== Resysop request (Arcticocean) ==
::Please rename the Retired account to TCO. (I realize it is a yarn-snarl of work. :( ) ] (]) 19:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Are you going to do this whole RTV and return thing again? The community (and patient 'crats etc) should know if this is going to be habitual. ] (]) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


* {{rfplinks|Arcticocean}}
::::I donno. That was one part of my hesitancy in coming back. I sort of have the feeling that you will not indulge that though. I guess you could just not honor this request. (Serious, not flippant). ] (]) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
* Previous username: AGK
::::::Uh huh, TCO. You put the cat among the pigeons with , you have to stay here to face the heat, or if you choose to go, it should be your decision, not a crat's. JMO. Sorry about mixed metaphor, but I lack the motivation to fix it. :)--] (]) 23:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


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)
1. I understood that I would get cursed either way (deservedly). If I returned, then I had wasted work...and was indecisive. If I posted a criticism externally, then I was scared to face the heat. (And trying to stop ad hominem dismissal of the arguments.) I think coming back and having the dialog is more the better of the two bad choices.


*Desysop request is at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I am fine with my current username. '''I do not require any 'crat action.'''
*Last admin action appears to be May 2021. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

3. I think it is not surprising that people think I left, because I was in trouble (vice unhappy with the site). And they do this even knowing the RTV is only allowed to users in good standing. However, if anyone wants to test that theory, I would be glad to bet a gold class ring against someone's next paycheck that a polygraph proves I vanished under own horsepower. ] (]) 23:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

TCO comes and goes, posts as an IP, posts as RetiredUser, requests blocks, requests unblocks, ad nauseum ... he has never vanished even though he exercised the RTV. OK, so if he is now going to stay as RetiredUser, could someone please do whatever needs to be done to assure that both accounts indicate that TCO is RetiredUser and vice-versa (aren't alternate accounts supposed to be identified, and he still signs as and identifies as TCO)? The right to vanish shouldn't be so abused-- editors should know that retired user is TCO, and his unstable editing history should be available to editors for judging the validity of the grenades he's lobbing. ] (]) 05:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
: Diffs (see ] for context):
:* (to a member of ])
:* (from a participant at ]) ] (]) 05:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I know you are upset, but please calm down. Even if you want to tear me apart, there's probably a way to do it more effectively (even just tactically). This whole site seems to run around different cliques and factions and alliances and things get interpreted in terms of that. Sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar. If any more "betters" want to check, then I can prove that most of my Wiki quality criticism Powerpoint was written before I became aware of USEP/IEP, etc. That's just ANOTHER interesting drama going on. You can also even dig out the diff where I said to Jimmy that Sandy was 90% right on the WMF criticism. And when I tried to buck him up, it was to buck him up, not to try to play some faction game. Or look for an ally or any of that crap. He's a civilian and a high school teacher. Let's not AK-47 him--I'll take the bullet.

And what does Piotr/USEP have to do with comments on my Powerpoint about lack of traction on important articles? He's a part of the research council isn't he (the thing wrt studies on Wiki, that user DAR runs.)

Happy Thanksgiving to all. Yes, Sandy, you too. Srsly.] (]) 06:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I am fine with Sandy's plan being implemented (rename my account back to TCO). I think I asked for it and got shot down. So the whole thing is sort of "don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer 'crat".

: Patronize much? I get upset about stuff that matters-- that's rarely, usually ''not'' stuff on Misplaced Pages, and this little kerfuffle doesn't matter. Where it's going is both of your pages need to declare who you are, since you've made such a mess of your contribs and various accounts, and have never vanished, have posted as an IP and as two different VanishedUsers, and continue to sign as TCO, and that you should declare the alternate accounts on both accounts, and something should be shut down, since you're now getting posts on multiple talk pages. Your "Happy Thanksgiving" fluff doesn't cover for how you've abused of admins and crats, asking for blocks and unblocks, vanishing and unvanishing-- just declare who you are on all accounts, and then stick with one. And go patronize high school students-- they might not be able to see through it. ] (]) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (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 01:13:30 on January 10, 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: