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 02:21, 26 June 2019 view sourcePharaoh of the Wizards (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers110,048 edits comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025 view source Discospinster (talk | contribs)Administrators465,147 edits Adding {{pp-vandalism}}Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{User:MiszaBot/config <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 41 |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__ __TOC__


== Desysop request - Gadfium == == Desysop request (Ferret) ==
{{archive top}}
I have been dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise. I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on en.wikipedia in this situation. Please remove my administratorship.-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">]</span> 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{Done}}. Thank you for your service. I am sorry to see you go but I completely understand. ] (]) 23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


{{rfplinks|Ferret}}
== Desysop please - Boing! said Zebedee ==

{{atop|Done. ] (]) 12:19, 25 June 2019 (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)
Please remove my admin privileges - there's a resignation explanation on my talk page for anyone who is interested. ] (]) 17:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{Done}}. Thank you for your service. It's a shame we're losing so many good admins over this but I completely understand. ] (]) 17:44, 22 June 2019 (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
*I haven't been involved in any of the Fram-related discussions, and I'm not here to do so. The only thing I wanted to say was to point out a by {{U|JEissfeldt (WMF)}} yesterday, that said, in part (it's a long statement): "I appreciate in particular the idea put forward by Newyorkbrad and his having been explicit that it could only be valid if it is true that the community has reached accurate conclusions about the facts of the case. However, despite efforts by some community members to scrutinize the contributions of Fram and various people who are speculated to have complained to the Foundation, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case, meaning that NYB's condition is not met." I interpret that to mean that this was more than an incivility ban and that the Foundation will not tell us what it is, just as the Committee sometimes won't tell us certain things, which we have to accept. I don't know if that makes any difference to you, {{U|Boing! said Zebedee}}, but I thought it would be worth mentioning. I'll miss you.--] (]) 17:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
:On a personal note, I'm sad to see you go. Thank you for your service. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I did read it, thanks, and it was not until after I read it that I made my decision. I won't go into my whole thoughts about that statement here, as it really won't help. And thanks for your thoughts. ] (]) 17:52, 22 June 2019 (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)
**Regarding Bbb23's statement "just as the Committee sometimes won't tell us certain things", I have '''never''' seen the Arbitration Committee (if that is who is being referred to) evade publicly giving all of the necessary and relevant details on any matter, excepting details which would seriously violate privacy (real names, etc.). ArbCom always summarizes actions taken and explains them. They have never refused to give rationales and details when asked. ArbCom is specifically tasked with privately handling matters or details that would violate our privacy policies, and the fact that ArbCom has not yet privately received information or details from WMF which would explain their rationale and due diligence, to me speaks volumes. ] (]) 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Appreciate all you've done to get us here. ] (]) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
**:{{re|Softlavender}} did you see Opabinia saying on 22 June {{tq|: "dialogue with arbcom" (or the subset able to join in) did happen, the T&S members who attended were very generous with their time, and I think we're all still digesting and considering followup}} ''']] (])''' 17:29, 23 June 2019 (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)
**::Which makes them now seem rather irrelevant; who now will want to run for the poisoned chalice that is arbcom 2020. T & S have breached a deeply rooted social contract, the effects of which are filtering down through the ranks. I must say, Boing!'s gesture here is very meaningful, and appreciated, much as I am aghast to see an admin "who gets it" hand in the tools. On the bright side, our community is together as never before. ] (]) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

**:::{{re|Ceoil}} - {{tq|community is together as never before}} - have we never done better than roughly ]? ''']] (])''' 18:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
==Query==
**:::::Polls are one thing, I'm thinking a deeper unity is emerging. Certainly broader understanding of the workload good admins have to carry, and the scarcity of talent like that which reeks from highly active syops like Fram. Will it seep into RFA? Dunno. Hope so. ] (]) 18:52, 23 June 2019 (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.
**::Starship.paint, nowhere did Opabinia say that any evidence whatsoever was provided to ArbCom or that any plausible rationale whatsoever was given for Fram's sudden unapeallable ban and desysop or for WMF's refusal to undo it. ] (]) 23:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

**:::You are right, {{u|Softlavender}}. Personally I'm waiting for ArbCom to release a statement on the matter. ''']] (])''' 02:45, 24 June 2019 (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)
*], thank you for your service. I will miss you. ] (]) 01:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

*Just curious, has {{u|Boing! said Zebedee}} only resigned the sysop bit, or have they decided to stop editing here completely? —<span style="font-size: 93%; letter-spacing:1.2pt;"><span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 23:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
*:That is a question you should ask them on their talk page. ] (]) 12:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC) :October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (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 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)
::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 ==
{{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)
::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}} {{abot}}


== Desysop request -- Kusma == == 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. ]

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)
Reading through the statements of my two colleagues above, I find myself agreeing with almost every word they said. The way things look at the moment (I sincerely hope that changes in the future), I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on this project. Please remove my sysop bit. —''']''' (]·]) 10:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
:Unfortunate but understandable. Thank you for your service. {{done}} –]] 11:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC) :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)
::Thank you for the swift action, much faster than my response... —''']''' (]·]) 19:53, 25 June 2019 (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)
==Daffy123 RfA==
{{archive top|Done. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 23 June 2019 (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)
It .] (]) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
:I did the needful. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Desysop request - Dennis Brown == == Resysop request (Arcticocean) ==


* {{rfplinks|Arcticocean}}
Disheartening to read Boing! said Zebedee's comments and the comments of others. I won't labor it, just please remove my admin bit. ] - ] 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
* Previous username: AGK
:{{Done}}. Disheartening is a good word for it. Thank you for your service. ] (]) 17:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the fast action. A more detailed explanation is now on my user page. ] - ] 18:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


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


*Desysop request is at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
....I will refrain from elaborating, but unless we can see in the clear, please remove my bit. ] (]) 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}} best regards and thank you for your prior service. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC) *Last admin action appears to be May 2021. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Cheers. ] (]) 19:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


<small>Is it too late to appoint them to this year's ArbCom? --] (]) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
== Remove sysop from ] ==


Please remove my admin rights. ] 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC) <small>Yes 8-) -- ] (]) 14:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:{{Done}}. Thank you for your service. ] (]) 20:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


:<small>Yes it's too late, or yes that was an uncharacteristically good idea? Or both? --] (]) 14:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
== Admin status of ] ==


::<small> I'm enjoying my retirement from that role, although the arbitrator's pension isn't what it used to be. ] 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
On 26 February 2007, the enwiki community granted admin right to {{user|Fram}}. There has never been a resolution of the enwiki community, nor of its Arbitration Committee, to remove those rights. On 10 June 2019, they were removed unilaterally by {{user|WMFOffice}}. That action has not, in accordance with prior precedent, been referred to the enwiki ArbCom. There has been no public statement, despite two weeks having been elapsed, from WMF to state that ArbCom is for some reason unsuited to reviewing Fram's status as an administrator. There has not even been a clear statement that private off-wiki actions <u>by Fram</u> were considered by WMF as part of their decision to enact sanctions. In the intervening period, enwiki ArbCom has not found that Fram's onwiki actions justify removal of admin permissions. Nor has a community process reached that view and endorsed WMF's actions. It seems to me that we have now been more than patient with WMF, the Board and (for that matter) with ArbCom, to which I self-referred my earlier actions on 13 June 2019. Fram two very simple questions. They are questions that as a matter of basic fairness ought to have been answered regardless of whether anyone believes Fram to be guilty or innocent of (as yet unspecified) misconduct. They have not been answered. Those questions, and those raised by members of this community, have been met with obfuscation and delay. In light of the absence of any serious attempt by WMF to engage in discussions with the enwiki community since this incident occurred, I have therefore restored Fram's community-granted admin rights. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
:::<small>(slightly - just slightly - sinister tone) It's not necessarily up to you...--] (]) 15:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:You should resign, and you should do so immediately. You have demonstrated a repeated willingness to violate the Terms of Use, exceed the mandate that the community has granted you as a bureaucrat, and inflame conflict on-wiki based on your own personal opinions. I have absolutely zero confidence in your impartiality as it pertains to anything. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 00:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 15:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::And I think you should regain your admin tools and your ArbCom seat, and resume acting in both roles because I value differences of opinion and believe this community is richer for them. But there we go, we clearly have different views about things... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:::You have done an excellent job in cultivating an unsafe environment in which I do not feel able to participate administratively. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 00:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|WJBscribe}}, the issue is that you've made it so that no one who has a different view than you can act, however. If ArbCom de-crats you, they alienate at least half the community. If they do nothing, they alienate another substantial portion of the community. If the WMF de-crats you, there's even more outrange at them and they risk destroying the flagship project. If they do nothing, they risk that any action they take on any wiki that is ''legitimate'' is undone with impunity. Any local bureaucrat that reverse you is wheel warring, even if they disagree with your choice. Literally any action taken that is not in line with your views would destroy the community.{{pb}}I have been critical of the way the WMF has handled this: I do not think project specific bans make any sense and think they need to explain things better, but what you have done is the single thing in this entire saga that most threatens the cohesiveness of the en.wiki community. I'm begging you, please consider reversing yourself here and waiting until the ban expires to do anything. Fram cannot use his tools or he will be globally locked, so it is just a symbolic gesture, but one that threatens tearing us apart even more than we already are. ] (]) 00:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::I don't agree with you as to the danger of this action. But even if I did, I don't think it would deter me. Fram has a right to fair process, and hasn't had it. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::Then would you be willing to state that you have no issue with any bureaucrat who disagrees with your action reversing it, and that you would not consider it wheel warring? ] (]) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::Yes. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::: It may not be wheel warring, but it would nevertheless be a desysopping outside of the ], in a clearly non-emergency situation. ] ] 00:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::On any other project, WJBscribe would have been emergency de-crated by stewards. I think him saying that he's fine with a reversal without it being wheel warring is good enough for any crat who does not consider his action legitimate to act. ] (]) 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not so sure about that. But if a wheel war starts, stewards would definitely react, even on en.wikipedia. --''']]]''' 01:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm pretty sure they would have. Maybe not on de.wiki, but the number of projects where a crat can undo multiple office actions with impunity can be counted on one hand. This isn't some new policy like the local bans. The office has had the ability to remove permissions from local projects for ages, and they have. We're in unprecedented territory here in that a 'crat on a large wiki has undone two office removals of permissions, and no one knows what to do. ] (]) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is not unprecedented - Odder on Commons, ] and then again in 2015 following the global ban of Russavia. In the first case, stewards performed the removals, but did not continue wheel warring. After that WMF basically was tasked with doing all their removals themselves - I don't know if it was formally decided, but stewards generally didn't want to get involved in a war between WMF and the crats. (But if it turns into crat versus crat, that's a different story). --''']]]''' 01:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*{{re|WJBscribe}} As your action enables this restricted person to perform privileged activity that is not publicly logged (for example the ability to access deleted revisions), I don't think this is a good idea right now, and further escalates the conflict. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:I think we've waited more than enough time for an explanation as to why this person is "restricted" (as you euphemistically put it) or, at the very least, for an explanation as to why we can't be told WMF's reasons. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
''' Please reverse this now WJBscribe. This is not the hill you want to die on. You’re making a big mistake. ''' ] <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|WJBScribe}} I don't understand. What are you trying to accomplish with this action? --''']]]''' 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
: I’ve dug through the history. The ban is absolutely justified. Please reverse yourself now. We will sort out WMF’s bungled process and communication in due course. There is no deadline. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jehochman}} Please provide the diffs that justify the ban because the rest of us haven’t found anything. ] (]) 00:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:::No. I won’t identify the victim. If you look deep enough you can figure out what happened. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::Perhaps if you look even deeper you may realise that you only think that you've identified what happened, not that you actually have. ] ] 00:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:: {{ec}}Unless you know some information that the rest of the community doesn't, then all this means is that you have a lower standard for what merits a siteban than the rest of the community. Whether Fram should be banned, or equivalently whether the community thinks his ban is justified, is a matter for consensus, and ]. ] ] 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to applaud WJBScribe's actions from way back in the peanut gallery. ] (]) 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
:Seconded peanut gallery support. ]&nbsp;] 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*Things just get curiouser and curiouser. It would seem that Arb has had plenty of opportunity to pipe in and opine on the desysop, and they don't seem to have done much at all publicly. Not sure this was the right move or not, but I respect it as it makes it harder for the WMF and Arb to just kick this can down the road hoping we lose interest in the case. ] - ] 00:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:One possible endgame is that Fram resumes editing and Jan decides not to follow through on the threat of global lock so as not to inflame the situation further. ] (]) 00:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:It's a tactic that's worked well for them in the past. But everything comes to an end, one day even Misplaced Pages itself. Is this the day? Who knows. ] ] 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*::They still have lots of money to spend, so it probably won't be today. ] - ] 01:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*Good. I have no idea if Fram should be desysopped or not, but if so, it should be done locally, or (in an emergency) an explanation should be provided to ArbCom in less than, say, 10 days. —] (]) 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*Were the ban already rescinded, I would be on board with this. But as it is, Fram remains banned on en.wp, and there is a consensus that a banned user ''should not'' have admin tools, primarily because of viewdeleted (which a block/ban doesn't prevent). I strongly urge WJBScribe to retract this action and think a bit more about this. We're already complaining about Jan escalating things with content-free bullshit; please don't stoop to his level of "discourse". —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*Were any other 'crats aware that this one was going resysop? ] 01:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**{{re|Cygnis insignis}} hard to say, but this is the normal venue where resysop discussions are held and what you see above is the first notification I saw. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**** Would insist they follow the 24 hour wait period for resysop which is not an emergency (Dssysop maybe) and other crats should be consulted in future.] (]) 02:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


Many thanks! ] 16:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Recall request (WJBscribe) ==
:<small>I've split the recall request to its own section for ease of processing. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)</small>
*{{ping|WJBscribe}} The first 'crat action you took was questionable at best and, thankfully, no one needed to bring it to ArbCom because you brought it there yourself. You escalated this, again, for no reason. You have the option to recall yourself on your userpage and I'd like to take you up on that now. — ] ] 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**Seems a bit moot since this will surely be added to the current Arb case. ] - ] 01:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**:I've been reading the post as they come in, and like {{u|Floquenbeam}} I have no idea on the background of this issue, but I agree with him. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 01:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**:Having a request for arbitration active that is likely to result in being closed in a motion doesn't have to stop a recall from happening. (unless WJBscribe is desysopped in that motion of course) — ] ] 01:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**::I second that call for recall, both for bureaucrat and admin. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**:::I've also went ahead and notified the Foundation this action was taken. So, we'll see. — ] ] 01:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*I do not think an individual who takes a step that is all but guaranteed to divide an already divided community even more should retain access to the bureaucrat permission, and would encourage WJBscribe to resign rather than put the community through a divisive recall RfB. ] (]) 01:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
**I would agree to him resigning, but I'll believe it when I see it. — ] ] 01:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
* As TonyBallioni implies above, bureaucrats are supposed to be above reproach. What WJBscribe has done here is incompatible with the high degree of trust which the community has placed in the position, both as a specific action (granting a user banned for harassment access to deleted information) and as a general one (acting to further inflame an already-divisive community dispute). {{u|WJBscribe}}, please do the honorable thing and resign. ] (]) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
* I disagree. I see no grounds for WJBscribe not to be a bureaucrat. The WMF has explicitly stated that {{tq|The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram}}, and the community has clearly indicated at ] that it views that office action as wrong. This, to me, is no different from WJBscribe's recratting of Floquenbeam or Floquenbeam's unblock of Fram. None of those actions launched a serious recall movement, demonstrating the lack of any valid reason for a recall here. ] ] 01:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:{{re|Pppery}} that was ''before'' we had an ongoing arbcom ] about this. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:The difference is he gave the technical access to deleted/non-public information to a account ''banned'' for misconduct that WJBscribe himself doesn't have all the facts of (regardless of the unblock by Floq). If that doesn't strike you as serious misconduct, especially while not discussing a resysop on-wiki before pulling the trigger (unless I missed it somewhere), then I don't see what is. — ] ] 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:: {{ec}} The community still trusts Fram with access to that deleted information, though. My understanding of the point WJBscribe was making, in both of his resysoppings, was that he does not believe the office to have the social power to desysop users (apologies if I am misunderstanding, here) and is willing to use his bureaucrat access to revert actions he feels to be outside procedure. In that regard, both actions were the same. And no, in this case I don't view enforcing clear, policy-backed community consensus and procedure as serious misconduct that merits removal of rights. ] ] 01:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:::It's a betrayal of trust because his actions actively harmed the community he claims to be trying to protect. His actions here are going to be significantly more divisive than anything the WMF did. If you want the ], here is the quote from the applicable policy {{tq|In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes places and is closed.}} There was ''no'' community discussion on this. It was a unilateral action that was guaranteed to inflame passions more, and there are calls for a recall here, which would be very divisive. He should not put the community through that. Like Kiril said, the honourable thing to do is resign. ] (]) 02:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:::Well, I do. Bureaucrats were given their role to determine consensus for practices such as RFA because they were thought to have good judgement, not to unilaterally go against Office because they took too long to reply and potentially damage Misplaced Pages. Bureaucrats don't have the authority to go above the Foundation, as evidenced by the fact Fram is still banned, regardless of his unblock and his tools being returned. If he edits, his account will be globally locked, as Jan said. The false consensus at ] doesn't really change that. — ] ] 02:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*::::Please point to why this is a false consensus. —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 02:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:::::Well consensus there cannot overturn an office action. ] (]) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*:::::For two reasons: 1) Because you're forming "consensus" based on a lack of information. The fact the Foundation has office hours and privacy to consider prohibits them from fully explaining actions they have taken. 2) Any consensus formed there can't actually overturn the Office action of him being banned. You can undo all their actions, re-sysop Fram and block the Foundation accounts for the fun of it, but they can bypass that and "consensus" doesn't change it. — ] ] 02:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
* I'm at a loss at how one of the bureacrats I used to hold in such high esteem would engage in such reckless actions. I understand that emotions are high, but I expect our bureacrats to be calm and cautious, rather than jumping in head first. I don't really want more people to resign, I'm just disappointed. ] (]) 01:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
* Yes, this was what prompted me to comment on the situation to begin with. If you want to fall on your sword, then fall on your sword and resign. Otherwise you're just making things worse, in a situation where, if we're being completely honest, most of the community is either unaware or doesn't care otherwise, and is happily carrying about their business without the theatrics. ]] 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 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 09:03:25 on January 11, 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)

    Is it too late to appoint them to this year's ArbCom? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes 8-) -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes it's too late, or yes that was an uncharacteristically good idea? Or both? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm enjoying my retirement from that role, although the arbitrator's pension isn't what it used to be. arcticocean ■ 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    (slightly - just slightly - sinister tone) It's not necessarily up to you...--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Many thanks! arcticocean ■ 16:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: