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 15:57, 8 September 2006 editDurin (talk | contribs)25,247 editsm →Making it up as you go along: copyedit← 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}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Header}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!-- Header section, please do not change or move this -->
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
<br style="clear:both;">
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">


__TOC__
== Copied from ] - username change queue ==


== Desysop request (Ferret) ==
The bureaucrat who usually does the username changes (] will be inactive on Misplaced Pages until the end of October (as per his user page), and there is a long list of Wikipedians awaiting name changes who seem to be getting increasingly rowdier. Is there possibly another free bureaucrat who can take over his duties until he gets back? ] 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (or, hopefully, ])
:The backlog is only two days, but still looks a bit long, so I decided to post this here. ] ] 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


{{rfplinks|Ferret}}
::We don't have any one Bureaucrat who is reponsible alone for any particular duty, Nichalp just prefers to focus on username change. This waiting period in answering the requests is happening because we only have 4 Bureaucrats who are active on a regular basis, and two of them are temporarily inactive. Don't worry, Taxman and I will get around to answering all of the requests. We always try to answer requests as soon as possible, but a waiting period of 48 to 72 hours is not uncommon in those cases. Regards, ] 13:52, 30 August 2006 (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)
:::Actually Essjay did the lion's share by far, and he's not as active now. I started a thread on ] relating to reducing the number of allowed reasons to change a username to reduce administrative and server overhead. Please comment there. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Per your wishes, I have removed the tools. I realise this is a day or so early, so if you do need to use the tools in the meantime I can revert
:On a personal note, I'm sad to see you go. Thank you for your service. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your years of service, ]. Enjoy your retirement! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Appreciate all you've done to get us here. ] (]) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:], thank you for all your service, and thanks especially for being such a great mentor, colleague, and friend. ] (]) 18:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


==Query==
:I'm back from a lengthy holiday, and will be available to help with bureaucrat duties for the foreseeable future. &mdash; ] | ] 04:27, 4 September 2006 (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)
== Making it up as you go along ==


:October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't recall approving bureaucrats to hand out arbitrary lengths of adminship service because they don't really know how to make the decision. Adminship has ''never'', ''ever'' been handed out for 8 weeks at a time as a result of an RfA. Did you actually tell anyone anywhere taht you planned to do this if they supported Carnildo? Or are you just making it up as you go along? You don't own RfA, you merely implement its decisions, and no part of its decision referred to two months. -] - ] 13:30, 5 September 2006 (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)
: I also object. I did not comment on ]; I can't recall having anything to do with this editor; so perhaps I'm neutral on him. I have been occasionally active on RfAs. This editor may be rehabilitated, a fine admin -- or not; I have no idea. I do see that the RfA was contentious and the tally borderline. My instinct in such matters is to err on the side of caution; I would invite the candidate to reapply in a few months and see if community sentiment changes. Guesstimating from the change since ], clear consensus may well form in favor -- then.


: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 definitely ''don't'' like the precedent set by "temporary" adminship. Has this ever been done before? Has the community expressed any desire for this measure in general? Where does this door lead? B'crats are expected to make tough judgement decisions; it's routine. Is this a creative solution or a failure to make the call? Also, exactly under what circumstances and by what method will Carnildo's sysop privs "expire"? Who will make the decision to revoke or extend them? Sorry, but evaluating admin performance is ''not'' a b'crat function; it is ArbCom's or a steward's, if not the community's. ]] 15:14, 5 September 2006 (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)
::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 ==
::I was not involved in the decision that led to Carnildo's resysopping, but to clarify: his adminship is not temporary exactly. It is under probation. This means that, after a given period of time (two months), the ], not the Bureaucrats, will review his record as an admin for this period of time and decide on whether or not to remove his admin bit again or let it stay. If the decision is made to remove his adminship again, a member of the ArbCom will post on ], at a forum called ], where a ] will take care of the request and remove the flag. ] 16:02, 5 September 2006 (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)
:::It's worth noting that RfA doesn't own bureaucrats either. Presumably they are empowered to take actions that in their best judgment are for the good of the project. ] ] 04:27, 6 September 2006 (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 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 ==
: There is no precedent for probationary adminship and I dislike to see it set by fiat. I object to the term "own"; it is an inappropriate straw man. RfA ''determines'' who will and who will not become an admin; b'crats are empowered only to implement community will -- not to paternalistically watch over the community and do what's best for us. If we want a probationary admin, we'll ask for one.


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. ]
: This is a very old, well-established principle: Power is divided between the rank-and-file on one hand and Jimbo and the Board on the other. ArbCom is a comparative novelty; power is expressly delegated to this body. Power is ''not'' delegated to admins or b'crats -- not in any way. These classes of users exist solely to implement community will.


: If there are any b'crats who don't agree with that last statement, please speak out clearly right now. ]] 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. ] (]) 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. ] ] 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I too am concerned about the Carnildo decision, and am reposting my comments here from ]. Discussion has also reached ] and ].
: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)
The role of bureaucrats is to gauge community consensus. ] says that bureaucrats may grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community", ] says that bureaucrats "review the discussion to see whether there is a general consensus for promotion", and ], one of the three bureaucrats behind the decision to promote Carnildo, that "As a bureaucrat it is my job to determine consensus in RfAs." Yet the ] makes no mention of consensus, and only references community opinion to say that while many users oppose Carnildo's adminship, he is being promoted anyway.
: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) ==
The threshold for consensus was not met here. Although RfA is not a rigid vote, consensus tends to be gauged by percentage, with bureaucrats "generally held to a 75-80% discretionary zone", in Taxman's . Carnildo's RfA closed with 112 supports and 71 opposes, a 61% ratio. The true ratio may be even lower due to users (like and ) not bothering to oppose when they saw that the RfA was already well below the threshold for promotion.


* {{rfplinks|Arcticocean}}
There has arisen a dangerous misconception that when deciding whether to promote, bureaucrats are permitted to "weigh the arguments" or make arguments of their own at the expense of community consensus. Neither ] nor ] gives them such authority. Rather, it is the job of the ''community'' to make arguments and weigh each other's arguments during the discussion. The job of bureaucrats is strictly to gauge consensus. Of course, they cannot do so by mechanically counting supports and opposes, but must watch carefully for sockpuppets and other consensus-obscuring factors. And of course, bureaucrats are part of the community too, and in their role as community members, may participate in the discussion themselves. But in their role as bureaucrats, when deciding whether to promote, they are bound by the community's will.
* 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)
In addition to lacking consensus, this decision had other problems. First, although bureaucrats may participate in RfA discussions, it is best for impartiality that they not close discussions in which they have participated, unless the outcome is uncontroversial due to an obvious consensus or non-consensus. ], who supported the RfA, nonetheless holds "primary writing credit" for this very controversial decision. Second, transparency requires that bureaucrats discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion openly. Taxman pledged to do so when he became a bureaucrat, but now ] that with respect to the current decision, of which, as far as I know, not a peep was made prior to its surprise announcement, he "did different from what said would", a "mistake", in his words.


*Desysop request is at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
In short, the decision to promote Carnildo was made without transparency and without consensus. If the bureaucrats believed that "special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case", they could have presented that view to the community and sought consensus in the ensuing discussion. Instead, they issued a highly irregular decision without public consultation. It is disappointing and worrying to see trusted users exhibit such disrespect for the community which granted them their positions, and I urge them to recant. ] 14:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
*Last admin action appears to be May 2021. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think what transpired is that Carnildo was put up for RfA by ]. Word rapidly reached the members of ArbCom, sparking a discussion on what to do. Three members of ArbCom that voted to have Carnildo's sysop powers removed subsequent to the pedophilia userbox war came out in support of the RfA in the first day. As the RfA's time period waned, it became obvious that the RfA would not pass. Discussion ensued between some bureaucrats and some members of ArbCom on what to do. A decision was made to promote Carnildo, and use the closing RfA as the vehicle for doing so. I could be wrong in some of the above; it's speculation.
*In my opinion, what should have happened is the RfA should have been allowed to fail. Subsequent to that, a case should have been submitted to ArbCom re-opening Carnildo's role in the pedophilia userbox war, to re-evaluate whether the desysopping should have been permanent, or temporarily suspended.
*What should happen now, and so far (to my knowledge) has not happened is a full accounting of exactly what transpired. This is a highly controversial case, and transparency is being demanded by a number of users. If the case can not be presented in a convincing way that the community can support, then it would seem there would be basis for overturning the decision. Mistakes can and do happen. In the least, some statement by the bureaucrats as to why this case should or should not be a precedent for future considerations and what impact this decision has on future (and some would ask for) past RfAs should be made.
*The bureaucrats didn't just make a controversial decision. They shattered the mold that RfA has held to for years. To date, this has been without satisfactory transparency or explanation. I am not going to say the bureaucrats made a mistake. I've been witholding personal judgement on that pending explanation by the bureaucrats. However, such explanation has not been forthcoming. This is...disappointing. --] 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

==Close withdrawn RfA==
It appears that ] has commented (just below his answers to questions, just above the !votes) that he's ready to withdraw his RfA and try again later. Close? ] 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:For future reference, yes, you can close out any RfA in which the candidate indicates their withdrawal, and add to ]. ] 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] flags needed ==

2 Bot request have been approved for bot flags, please see:
*] &
*]
::Thank you, — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I've taken care of the two. Cheers, ] 08:02, 7 September 2006 (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 03:50:54 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: