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 10:18, 7 July 2013 editHex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators25,358 edits →Suggestions?: Gee, thanks, Anthony.← 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}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 28 |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__
== ] ==


== Desysop request (Ferret) ==
The following can be desysopped as of July 1 as inactive:
*{{user23|Leonard^Bloom}}
*{{user23|Luna Santin}}
*{{user23|SorryGuy}}


{{rfplinks|Ferret}}
Regards, — ] ] 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
:{{Done}}, may I prevail upon you to update the relevant lists of former admins? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 11:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
::Of course, I've been away recently but I updated former. Regards, — ] ] 20:22, 5 July 2013 (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)
== Rename request ==
: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==
Would a bureaucrat please reply at ]? The user will not accept that the presence of a SUL account in his target name is an obstacle to a simple rename on en:wp. ] (]) 09:50, 4 July 2013 (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.
:I have replied. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 10:59, 4 July 2013 (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)
== Crat Stats ==


:October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Due to an API update, cratstats has ceased to function since June 23. This bug has now been fixed and cratstats now updates instantaneously when something changes.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 00:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:]. — ] <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)
== Desysop please ==


I wish to resign my admin status please - I finally no longer wish to be part of what is becoming an increasingly tainted category of users. -- ] (]) 09:43, 5 July 2013 (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)
: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)
*<s>Can't we hold off on this please? Seems to be a heat of the moment thing and I want to talk to him on his talk page. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 10:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)</s>
::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)
**Sadly, withdraw. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 11:56, 5 July 2013 (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)
*Ditto on the request to hold off for now. We shouldn't lose an admin over this kerfuffle at WP:AN. ]] 10:14, 5 July 2013 (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)
*It's really up to Boing but he probably won't even be watching this page. It's a shame though, because if all the untainted admins were to retire, then we would be left only with the tainted ones and the anti-admin brigade would have a field day. ] (]) 10:22, 5 July 2013 (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.
**That sounds like the email I just sent him. I'm just asking the Crats to delay 24 hours, same as when we rebit someone. It is Boing's decision and I will respect it regardless, but I'm hoping he will reconsider after a few hours. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 10:31, 5 July 2013 (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)
**I echo this concern. ] (]) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (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)
*Thanks for the email, Dennis - I've logged back in just to add a few words here in response. As I said in my reply, "''The core problem is that the Misplaced Pages power structure is fundamentally flawed, and while neither WMF nor Arbcom will do anything about it (the latter repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins), we'll just keep on repeating the same fights over and over again - and I'm not prepared to do that any more''". And 24 hours isn't going to change that. -- ] (]) 11:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::You mean like closing XFD discussions or assessing unblocks, etc., as ] notes above? - <b>]</b> 14:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
**A shame to see you give up the mop. But IMH(and non-crat)O the circumstances do not count as cloud-worthy for the purposes of resysopping if you so feel in due course. ]] 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Yes. ] ] 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
***Like you, I can't how any Crat would see any cloud here. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 12:40, 5 July 2013 (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 only cloud is that we're going to be left with fewer and fewer front-line admins who bravely go about their work without a Kevlar™ vest - unless of course RfA picks up, and in the light of the current environment, I can't see that happening any time soon. ] (]) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (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)
{{Done}}, reluctantly. No cloud whatsoever, and I'll be happy to resysop when and if Boing ever requests it. ] (]) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::Boing puts it well and is spot on. Sad to lose him. The wiki power structure gets worse and worse and AC is gutless to do anything about it. ] ] 16:11, 5 July 2013 (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)
: It's a joke. ] ] 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree but that's what we get when we have a system that allows abusive admins to keep the tools and make it impossible to remove them. ] (]) 16:24, 5 July 2013 (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)
::::::Yepper. We need a quick, efficient way to get rid of the all too common incompetent abusive admins. ] ] 16:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::::::I would be fine with a consensus vote on a De-RFA or somwhere. If the community can vote on someone having the tools they can vote to remove them too. Subject to approval by a beauracrat of course. ] (]) 17:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


== A discussion on Signpost ==
* As one needs to address admin gaining and losing tools systemically, ] (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 17:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:* As much as I hate to say it, we really do need some kind of system for removing adminship without going through ArbCom. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">''']''' ]</span></small> 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::*Yep, ''far'' too much drama to get, too hard to remove—and no culture of having a break, as a consequence. And too little emphasis on smoothing troubled waters, counselling long-standing editors who are arguing with each other (it's inevitable, but needs cautions and mediation by admins when it gets out of hand). Too many gun-toting sheriffs, which might be fine for vandals and persistent sociopaths, but in one prominent case has led to the loss of ''three'' fine editors over the past few months. It's all thoroughly unhealthy, and we see the results here. The German WP does it much much better. Could we learn from ]? ] ] 04:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I remember that. I'd support it. At this point en wiki's processes are almost nonfunctional and we've got to try something. ] ] 10:42, 6 July 2013 (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. ]
==Same here==
I'll have whatever Boing is having. ] (]) 15:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:Sadly {{done}}. Sorry to lose you. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 15:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
*I didn't interpret this as a resignation request until I saw EVula's action on my watchlist. I am finding it impossible to come up with anything civil to say. Nothing against EVula, of course, but goddamn it to hell.--] (]) 15:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::See my post in Boing's request. ] ] 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm deeply, deeply tempted to jump on the desysop bandwagon as well. {{tq|"ArbCom repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins"}} — check. And ] such as ] and ] place blocks that they obviously know are highly controversial, without advising with anybody, without warning the user, and throw primadonna fits if somebody ventures to unblock without first collecting a consensus on ANI. () Yes, I know policy encourages this notion that the blocking admin '''owns''' the block. It shouldn't, that's all. It means that any blocked user, however unreasonably blocked, is supposed to sit and wait for all the timezones to first have their say in a "discussion". Trying to undo a 24-hour block on those conditions is meaningless. Just now, Sandstein's block of ] feels like the last straw for me. If this "corps" isn't cleaned up, and the ArbCom doesn't clean up ''their'' act, you may end up seeing all the reasonable admins leave in disgust. (Remember ]? He didn't even throw in the bit, he just left.) Then Sandstein can block the rest of the community and there will be no more trouble, ever. (This is not a request for people to ask me to stay. Don't, that's all. Just don't. I'm going to think about it by myself.) ] &#124; ] 18:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC).
::::I'm sorry that you see 3 months for someone's sixth block for personal attacks as somehow being an unreasonable block, but yes, I do see unilaterally overriding blocks as more of a problem than placing such a block. If admins would get out of the habit of unblocking chronically disruptive editors, the remaining editors would tend to get more done. To undo a block needs a consensus that the block was improper, not these messy, ugly dramafests at AN and ANI that wind up keeping disruptive editors around for years longer than we need to endure them.&mdash;](]) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::Misplaced Pages is a large online library for anyone to access, not a totalitarian regime like country, the entire community is like ] <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#fff">]]</span> 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::Eh, I think it's ]. '''] <span style="color:#4F4F4F;">(])</span>''' 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Arbcom has become totally ineffective; not just re bad admins, but in total. They have turned down or are about to turn down 6 cases in a row--cases within their remit and with plenty of evidence. I'm not even sure we should keep them around, at least not this year. These guys find excuses not to do their job. It takes countless victims and years and years of pointless RFCs and AC cases to get rid of just one bad admin. It's insane. The system is totally ineffective and in serious need of rebuilding from the ground up. It's 1859 and both the abolitionists and Confederates are about to riot. And don't forget, I'm one of the few people that have seen AC from inside and out. ] ] 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I don't know what arbcom can do about admins like Coren, Kww, Sandstein and Fram. Those admins should have their ability to block anyone but blatant vandals and socks revoked. None has the social sense for anything more nuanced. (Though I think Fram got the last one right. Sorry!). --] (] · ] · ]) 19:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::What we need is a system that can allow the general community to determine if adminship should be revoked. That way, instead of being left with only the ability to vent angrily about it, users could actually do something if they felt an admin needed to be de-sysopped. Adminship has been become a big deal to obtain and that is partly because it is so hard to take away. I believe (and it's only my opinion) that if you make adminship easier to remove, RfA will improve. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">''']''' ]</span></small> 19:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Easier for some, maybe. ]] 19:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, look at it this way: If the community is charged with granting adminship, should not the community be charged with taking it away? <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">''']''' ]</span></small> 19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::: This new <s>notification</s> ] system seems to work; My email pinged Me out of a sound slumber. It troubles Me to read how, in My absence, My children have strayed so far from the Path that I have repeatedly revealed to them. But I am a lazy, if judgmental, God, so I do not plan to do anything about it. Yet.<p>Don't ask for a desysop, ]. There are other ways to differentiate yourself from the gaggle of Hall Monitors around here. For example, Scottywong has had a hardon for punishing Eric for quite a while, so his disingenuous claim that he has increased Eric's block to indefinite "at his request" was really a calculated dick move, and you could revert to the 1 month duration until Eric returns and clarifies if he still wants it. If you request a desysop, you wouldn't be able to do Good Works like that.<p>Now, everyone start acting like grownups again, or I shall visit all of you with a plague of toads like you've never seen. I now return to My well-deserved Rest. I trust that a clear warning that "We are not amused" is sufficient.--] (]) 20:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's the problem: who would we trust to desysop bad admins? Many don't trust arbcom to do so, many don't trust the community to do so, and I don't think anyone would agree on making that an admin or crat responsibility. It's easy to say desysops need to be easier. I've said that for over 5 years and ran on that platform back when I was an arb. It's much tougher to figure out the users and the method. ] 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::A reconfirmation RFA every year or two, you don't pass, you lose the bit. And an Admin Competency Board run by crats, respected admins, and respected non members.] ] 19:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Hell no to the first one; the good admins would be the ones not re-running so we'd just be left with trouble. The second one is an interesting thought though. ] 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Alternately, we could require a reconfirmation RfA for an admin if a requisite number of users expressed a desire than the admin be desysopped. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">''']''' ]</span></small> 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::One thing for sure ladies and germs, if we do nothing, nothing will change. We need to try something because a wiki civil war is about to break out, hell, the shots at Fort Sumter have already been fired. ] ] 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::: Misplaced Pages Civil War with like at the most 1% (if that) that can possibly be affected by it. Let's not cause unneeded drama with comments like that. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::Well, what I said is true. At it's not just admins that would be affected, so 1% is a gross underestimate. ] ] 19:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Let's not get sidetracked. We have a problem and things are getting ugly. We need to find a solution. However, if we propose multiple solutions at one time, none is likely to get consensus. Therefore, we need to find the solution most likely to be supported and present it to the community. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">''']''' ]</span></small> 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Things are getting ugly because we allow the existence of vested editors who flout the same policies and guidelines that routinely end in indef blocks for others. In this specific case, we've seen a block on Eric/Malleus stick for far longer than most would have expected. That suggests to me that Eric's enablers are losing support to people who are just tired of the drama he creates. Wiki civil war? Hardly. 99.99% of Misplaced Pages continues on, oblivious to this small little dust up. And most of that 99.99% manages to contribute content without the attitude problems. Nobody is irreplaceable. To those that leave as a result of this, they will be thanked for their contributions, but Misplaced Pages will continue on with hardly a blip. ]] 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::There's more than just a bit of truth in that. I took a 2-month Wikibreak earlier this year. I didn't announce it, and nobody noticed I was gone. The depressing thing is that when I came back, I just found the same old, same old. And would you believe it - Malleus still in the thick of it. ] (]) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::I see merit to both sides, and I do firmly believe the abusive admin situation is worse than before and we really need to do something about it.] ] 20:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::If we're going to go down that route, we need to do something about abusive ''people'', not just admins. And we need to make very certain that we don't define "abusive admin" as one who blocks someone with a lot of friends. ]] 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
* In this thread, some administrators have been identified as acting in a suboptimal way. How many of them have had a request for arbitration brought? Everytime Arbcom even hints it's thinking about doing something without a direct request from the community, we're pummeled with brickbats (and sometimes justifiably). So...gather your evidence and show up at our door. We can't yank admins out of the admin community without someone making a formal request. Just saying. ] (]) 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
**:UH, anymore when we do that AC finds some excuse not to take a case. You know perfectly well cases have been brought this year that would before have easily been accepted. Throw in that this year AC is wildly inconsistent and you have the total mess we're in now. ] ] 22:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
*:If I may come out of my isolation for a moment... instead of trying to recreate some profound comment I'll simply link to what I wrote during another blowup in December. Pretty much everything, including the article being referenced, applies here too. ] (]) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
*::I've been variously identified in recent times as a candidate to "have my bits removed". Yet the stain of accusation remains without any genuine approach to Arbcom (or elsewhere) to sort it out, despite even advertising that I'm happy for such procedures to go ahead with one caveat, which is that someone tells me it's happening. Bitch on about "bad" admins, "bad" 'crats, "bad" arbs, but does anyone do anything about this? Not that I can see. ] (]) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


I second the sadness about losing two good administrators, as well as Risker's comments above. ] (]) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. ] (]) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
**:UH, anymore when we do that AC finds some excuse not to take a case. You know perfectly well cases have been brought this year that would before have easily been accepted. Throw in that this year AC is wildly inconsistent and you have the total mess we're in now. ] ] 22:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
* '''@ Risker''' Complete respect, I think you know that. But with such diverse views in the 15 or 18 or whatever number of arbs there are - "showing up at your door" is a very hit or miss proposition. When someone says "here is evidence", and Arbcom says ... "yea - we see it, but you forgot to fill out form 1078B (aka RfC/U) and you decline to even ''LOOK'' at the evidence or make some sort of statement? Well gee yea .. some sort of RfC might me nice. Talk about feeling like there is no backup? Then someone complains and bitches too loud .. BOOM ... another admin. comes in and blocks? Well gee .. this guy just filed a request and it got dismissed ... do you think he/she is gonna be anxious to try again? There was a day when Roger saw the situation with Betacommand not being resolved ... and proposed a motion to ban him. No request was filed. Just "there is disruption, and the community isn't dealing with it". Now? This Arbcom? Hell, you folks weren't even 3 months in and you posted a "statement" that "some anon complained that Malleus and George may or may not be the same person" .. Really? Are you freakin kidding me? The committee has no problem "suspending" cases ... and yet in the face of clear and obvious "poor use" of tools .. we get a ... well gee he's a nice guy .. no harm no foul. How do you expect admins to respect the committee? An admin. can call someone a jerk or a fool, and yet a "non-admin" dare call someone an asshole .. or arsehole .. IDK ... IDC ... and BOOM ... gone for a month. We've got a few admins that excel at getting rid of an undesirable (by their own "judge jury and executioner" determination) element. They won the popularity contest that is RfA. They don't don't break "technical" rules ... but they seek out and hound people. Be it Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, some poor soul that runs afoul of WP:AE .. and now it looks like Malleus/Eric is next on the list. You wonder why "''GOOD''" admins leave? Do ya really? Naaa ... I was early on the list of the "it just isn't worth it" folks. Admin abuse? Pfftttt ... yep ... and it goes both ways. Some of us are tired of being abused, and some of us are tired of being associated with those who DO abuse. Meh ... I don't care. Yank my bit - block me - ban me ... I honestly don't care. Whatever. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::GO CHED GO!!!! I don't care either. Yank my bit. Oh wait, I gave it up on my own almost three years ago. So ban me.] ] 22:33, 5 July 2013 (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)
@Risker. Filing a report on an admin at RFAR is a lot of work. Who's going to bother to try with Sandstein or Fram after wasn't even accepted? When not only a desysop didn't follow, but it wasn't even accepted as a case? Appealing at RFAR in these situations looks like a complete timesink to me. Declined because the also horrendous timesink of an RFC/U hadn't been done first? As Ched says, form 1078B. I sure don't have that kind of time and energy to spare, I've got other uses for it. I wonder if anybody does, when the record is so discouraging. ] &#124; ] 22:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC).
:I don't see how it would be inappropriate to withdraw your own RfA. ] (]) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Let's review one case, former admin unnamed--call them ABC, but folks can probably figure it out....users complain about ABC for about 2 years. ABC shows up in a few arb cases but arbcom does nothing. A couple more years go by, with countless victims from day one strewn along the way. Finally ABC shows up in another arbcase the bit is finally taken. Total elapsed time: FOUR YEARS, all spent on one user. So many people's time spent on that when it could have been much better spent on content. ] ] 22:44, 5 July 2013 (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)
:::The point is that all sanctions on Misplaced Pages are supposed to be preventative (and this includes desysoppings); so, if an admin is brought before ArbCom, but shows that he understands he fouled up and promises to change his behaviour (and actually follows through), to remove his bit would just be punitive. Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to go there, but, in that case, you need to show me that there is consensus to codify that approach into policy. You say that ABC got away scot-free; that's not entirely accurate: he was criticised, even harshly, by fellow members of the community and, hopefully, he will learn from this experience. If this happens, that's a very positive outcome. If he fouls up again, he'll have already used up his get out of jail free card and will be sanctioned. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks @], that is a bit less straight forward than I originally thought. ] (]) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::When people do the same stuff for years they're not stopping til their bit is yanked. Your characterization of ABC is wrong. He still thinks he did no wrong. He'd have never stopped with his bit intact. I'm talking a real case here, not hypothetics. Removal was the only prevention and it took 4 years. So yes, he got away scott free for 4 years. And what did the victims get? Diddly squat. Those with erroneous blocks can not get them removed and have to wear the Wiki Scarlett Letter forever. When will AC ever think of the innocent victims? Probably never. ] ] 00:15, 6 July 2013 (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)
*I'm breaking out of my wikibreak to remind folks that last year a number of community solutions were attempted. ] was one of them. Worm ] on it. Jc37 had an equally ]. The community wasn't very interested once the options were on the table. I have concluded that at this time, if Arb doesn't do it, it won't get done. I don't want Arb to go maverick nor do I want them to be passive. I understand the limits on Arb as a whole, but we have a genuine leadership vacuum at Misplaced Pages. The leadership role used to be filled by Jimmy, but those days are long gone. Nature abhors a vacuum, so it will either be filled with new leadership of some kind (formal or by example), or it will begin to devolve into vigilantism and anarchy. It doesn't require much imagination to see which direction we are moving into. It isn't hyperbole to say that if Misplaced Pages were a country, there would have been a military coup by now, fueled by the cheers of the citizens starving for leadership of any kind. Whether that comes from Arb or somewhere else, it is desperately needed. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::Very astute and valid. The community needs to step up to the plate or the coup will happen. ] ] 23:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry to crush your dreams, but nothing even remotely close to a coup d'état can occur on Misplaced Pages without abuse of tools. Then again, abusing tools in staging a coup would be counter-intuitive to trying to end the abuse, wouldn't it? The most you're going to get is something closer to a walkout than a coup. Anyways, we shouldn't just start deposing admins for mistakes, swiftly without any self-recognition that they were at fault or giving them a second chance based on the good work that they have done. If we treated all the long-time editors like that on a regular basis, editors in this very thread probably wouldn't even be here right now. Don't lose sight over what this discussion started over, and it's certainly not the red herring of a despondent Misplaced Pages with hoards of administrator abuse; this discussion was about Eric Corbett. Does abuse (or more commonly, mistakes) occur? Yes, but habitual offenders ''are'' dealt with. Having a different opinion on what the outcome ''should'' have been does not equate to abuse. I'll go ahead and say something that probably should have been said to begin with: Eric should stop acting like a dick and he wouldn't attract the attention he gets. Regards, — ] ] 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh yes it can happen. And as for "habitual offenders ''are'' dealt with". Oh really? Shall I start a long list of those that haven't? And how ridiculously long does it take? ] ] 02:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::::''(after edit conflict, replying to Moe Epsilon)'' Possibly, but what's particularly frustrating is that other editors act like dicks far more frequently (though without using crude words, which doesn't make it any better) but no one gives a shit because they aren't swimming in a fishbowl, like Eric, where everyone is gaping, moving their finger across the glass, and occasionally even poking the fish. This attention is not Eric's fault alone, and even if it were, Eric's net value to the encyclopedia would still remain a high positive mark, in my opinion. I hope the administrators who handed in their tools out of disgust return and get their tools back. ---] ] 02:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::We (the community) have given Eric tons of leeway to keep editing, by far many more chances than any other editor. We've had no less than 30 discussions at AN/ANI about him, arbitration cases, topic bans, blocks, and unblocks with conditions galore. We keep talking about this value to the encyclopedia he has, but really at some point he isn't of value if he keep getting involved in drama no matter how good his encyclopedia contributions are. Is it all his fault? No, but he doesn't help his cause at all. He doesn't walk away, he doesn't ignore the drama, he participates and it sinks himself in a deeper hole every time. The fact is this isn't a lone situation, and this isn't a couple of rogue administrators targeting him. This is a habitual problem of interacting with many, many editors. At some point we have to put a foot down to say Eric must adjust to the norms of this site, or he won't be around anymore. This defense of his poor attitude is rather disturbing; if it was someone else, they would have been indefblocked ten blocks ago, but obviously he has friends. Regards, — ] ] 04:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::My main approach to Misplaced Pages is that of a reader. As a reader, I have greatly benefitted from his work (admittedly, I am interested in UK articles). As a crappy content-contributor and mostly silent observer of the so-called drama-boards, and of his talk page, because I'm one of the gaping gongoozlers, I hardly ever see his cantankerousness interfere with articles, and never on the basis of pushing a certain point of view. While lacking first-hand experience of collaboration with Eric in content-building, I see plenty of fruitful collaboration. I don't see his editing impeding on the improvement and creation of articles, on the contrary. To me, very personally, this is what counts. If he was legally or physically threatening or outting others, for example, I wouldn't care about his net value. I will continue to regard his occasional breaches of civility (a difficult concept, no matter which environment) as negligible, when looking at the big picture. ---] ] 04:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Has anyone identified and analysed the sets of circumstances that lead to Eric's troublesome behaviour? It would be great if we had a few admins willing and able to pursue such a higher-level approach to retaining high-performing content editors. ] ] 04:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*I have some suspicions, including Eric - one of the last Wikidragons - being a good guy (check out how he helps noobs) yet easily irritable, reacting quickly and crudely to needling and ultimately being blocked, then people who are either jealous of Eric's writing abilities or those who are addicted to ] manipulate him to get a kick (chase the dragon, as it were). I've never seen Eric lash out at someone who has a clean slate with him.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 04:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::*I would like to think that—plenty of the people that Eric's slapped deserved a good slapping—but I'm struggling to understand how {{user|Inglok}} lacked a "clean slate". ] (]) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::*Good point. (In this case, I think Eric was unhappy with and possibly other issues at the time. Although I stand by my point that he often helps those in need, particularly noobs,&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


:100% agree with 28bytes. -- ] 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Hey, umm, maybe I'm an idiot and I should just stay out of this, but, after all the various failed proposals for RFA reform and desysopping reform, I can't help but wonder... can't we just go to a 50%+1 desysopping procedure? Sure, it would be filled with drama, but, to quote ], "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 05:35, 6 July 2013 (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)
:*Whenever an admin blocks a disruptive editor with a large fan base you get these kinds of discussions, and that's ''precisely'' why desysopping in that fashion would be a very bad idea.&mdash;](]) 06:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::*I'm giving serious thought to reintroducing ] to the community; I feel like it'd be an excellent venue for bringing admins to task via the community, but still constrained enough to prevent axe grinding against front-line admins who naturally step on toes that deserve to be stepped on. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::: Well, Jimbo was suggesting late last year that he was considering introducing something ... I have ] going through some early phases of preparation, and others have theirs in flight. The community will nto vote for ANY type of reform - the entrenched admins will fight against (usually), and we'll just end up with stagnation. Here's an idea: finish off your proposals. When Jimbo returns, we give him a list of the proposals. He can see a) we've all taken it seriously, b) he's got some smart people, and c) he can take the best pieces and put together something (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::Good ideas except for the Jimbo part. He is extremely out of touch and lost his God King status years ago. Jimbo trying to impose something will only cause backlash.] ] 10:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::I agree 200% with that, PumpkinSky. The godking isn't up to it. And if he has some smart people, I've never noticed him listening to them much. But what is there left of Bwilkins' proposal without Jimbo? There are people here who would perform the putting-something-together part well and who enjoy much general trust (] comes to mind), but I really don't believe anybody except Jimbo has enough authority to be accepted as the . Jimbo's got some of that (in my opinion, Jimbo's authority is an obsolete remnant of instinctive kissing-up, but whatever), but he doesn't have — what was that you said, PS? — Jimbo's out of touch, right. Well put. Bwilkins's idea won't work without a King, that's the problem with it. <small></small> ] &#124; ] 15:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC).
:::::::Unfortunately, I agree that intervention ''ad Jimbonem'' would probably cause such a backlash as to defeat its own purpose. I seem to recall, back in December, that Jimbo's comments vaguely suggested the notion of him passing the GodKingShip to someone else. If that ''is'' a possibility, and he were to make it clear that such a successor's first order of business was to reform our (de)sysopping procedures, unilaterally if necessary, (and that successor were NYB, MBisanz, or someone else highly reliable), then that could have a solid chance of working. Or Jimbo could do it as a sort of "final decree" before finalizing his retirement from active GodKing duty.
:::::::Of course, there's a bit of a Catch-22 here... the awfulness of RFA and the near-impossibility of admin sanctions are a significant contributing factor to this community's excessive tolerance of trolls. I think that if we were to fix all this, in a few years you'd have a lot less people going to admins' talk pages to yell at them, since whenever the discussion gets too heated, the admin could just say "Well, if you really have a problem, go request my desysop." However, either ironically or fittingly, depending on how you look at it, it's those same trolls who will present a problem in any attempt at unilateral action. Especially if you consider that there are multiple ''admins'' who stalk Jimbo's edits to complain about them.''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
{{ec}} Launching three RfCs simultaneously - excellent idea (mine is also ready to go). Needs careful coordination, and they would all need to be RFC/Cent with watchlist notices. It would certainly give the community (and Wales) something to think about, and be a knee-jerk for the anti-admin brigade. Doesn't matter in the slightest if these proposals are similar.] (]) 15:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


== Resysop request (Arcticocean) ==
Bishonen, thank you for informing me of this discussion, you were correct that I did not receive a notification due to my having moved to my old account. Anyway, while I certainly appreciate your concern for the project, as the person who was blocked by ] I cannot get behind any movement to sanction him and/or remove his bit. Consider it this way: I made an uncivil comment and Sandstein blocked me for it. In my opinion he should have attempted to discuss it with me first but he made a judgment call and it's one I respect (even if I was more upset at the time). Point being, I made a mistake and I think he made a mistake by blocking me for it. But to then seek sanctions on him would, in my mind, be making the same mistake I think he made. If you take a look at my block review on AN/I right now I think you'll see that Sandstein and I are engaged in a healthy dialogue about proper blocking procedure and it seems both of us are receptive to the others arguments. With that said, you as an admin likely understand how difficult it can be to balance the dual roles of policy enforcer and regular editor. On one hand admins are theoretically "just another user" but our community dynamic seems to demand that admins be both perfect mediators and strict enforcers. Obviously such competing demands are impossible to manifest in a single editor, and so admins run the gamut from one end of the spectrum to the other.


* {{rfplinks|Arcticocean}}
Now, I don't know if there's a history here I'm ignoring and I'm only going off of my direct, recent experience and my knowledge of his productive work at ], but based on said experience I would not consider our dispute problematic enough to be the proverbial last straw. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
* Previous username: AGK


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)
When I ran for the Arbitration Committee seven months ago, this was just as much an issue then as it is now. I had been around for Misplaced Pages for five years, and I think my position on a wide variety of matters has been made clear from the actions I have taken and the comments I have made. Since my election, which I think it is pretty safe to say was supported by a wide cast of folks, I have served on the Committee for half a year now. I don't know if I have voted to desysop a single administrator so far, nor have I voted to accept a case that seemed likely to lead to that result. If folks want the Arbitration Committee to be more hardline on administrators, it is not me they should have elected, nor (re-)elected half of ] victors. It's not that I'm unwilling to desysop administrators. I simply come and have come to different conclusions than the vocal part (minority) of the community that generally comments on these sort of things. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


*Desysop request is at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Suggestions? ===
*Last admin action appears to be May 2021. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Above, both Risker and Newyorkbrad have invited us to take a problem admin to ArbCom. NYB and Carcharoth seemed to welcome a clear case at {{plainlink|name=Request to desysop Hex|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=531829580#Request_to_desysop_Hex}}. Since a number of editors above have candidates in mind, let's choose one and adjourn to another place and see if we can construct a clear, coherent case. A user's talk page would be fine in my opinion: I see no need for some kind of formal framework or venue for that. If we're satisfied our case is clear and sound, I'm sure ArbCom would give it serious consideration.

One thing, though. I'd be opposed to desysopping any of the admins I'm concerned about. All I'd ask is that they be restricted from blocking outside of obvious vandals and socks or some other narrowly-defined restriction/s addressing their particular shortcoming/s. The admins I have in mind are very hard-working and well-intentioned and generally a huge asset to the community (that view might change in light of evidence) and use many admin tools regularly, so I see no benefit in restricting unproblematical tool use.

See Newyorkbrad's comment ]. (I also commend to you NYB's suggestion regarding a nuanced response to 3RR breaches in the ] that one.) --] (] · ] · ]) 19:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:I guess as well as due process being a foreign concept around here, double jeopardy is too. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 10:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

: I think "let's choose one" sounds a bit Macchiavellian, but I kind of like the idea. We'd've had the perfect test case a few months ago, with whomever it was who decided that sometimes AFD was wrong, in which case he was doing the community a favor by undeleting the page, but I think all of that wound up fizzling and dying. Still, there are others, I'm sure. I also agree with you that most of the problematic admins don't need to be desysopped. There's one admin who's commented here, for instance, who has a habit of making bad blocks or otherwise strange administrative actions, and then refusing to give a clear answer when called on it; but that only happens occasionally, and other than that he's a good admin. If you look through old ArbCom cases, it seems that in the old days they had far more nuanced sanctions for sysops... perhaps those should be brought back.''' —&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 01:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions were asked for. I have one. Term limits for admins. Stand for a new RFA every year or two. Mavericks will be weeded out, and leaders will emerge in time. Of course the RFA process would become more of a popularity contest than it already is, but honestly, it already is that. My only fear would be that some admins might avoid making controversial decisions when considering how it might effect his/her next stand for RFA, but at this point, maybe a little less shooting from the hip, and a little more consideration of the consequences is what is needed now. ] 02:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
:Your concerns for administrator term limits are correct. Term limits will very much turn into something similar to the U.S. government, trying to bid for the next term and not taking any stance on the real issues while resolving non-controversial ones. We don't need politicians, we need administrators who will do something ''according to the policy and guidelines set by the community'' and not someone who does something because they have friends. People will complain, regardless if they "shoot from the hip" or whether they take a step back and consider consequences because there are cabals of editors who coordinate with each other based on their agenda (including editors on both sides of this issue). Editors on both sides of the issue with Eric are just as guilty of abuse that they claim. Regards, — ] ] 04:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
::And we would turn into the German Misplaced Pages which has that problem. --''']]]''' 04:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Admins, at least the 20 or so who work in the front-line without a Kevlar™ vest, ''have'' to make controversial judgements even when they are perfectly correct and within policy of conduct and tool use. Term limits are a bad idea. A resyoping venue would be a kangaroo court with the anti-admin brigade for a jury. Those 20 or so would be the first to go. In any case, with 1,600 admins already, a review every two years - or any other period - would be impossible to manage. So we're stuck with what we've got: Arbcom (which is bogged down in its own bureaucracy), or some new system, such as a ''Bureaucrats' Admin Review Committee (BARC)'' for example, that could fast-track individual cases of admin abuse. ] (]) 06:17, 7 July 2013 (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 06:24:34 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: