| Revision as of 22:42, 28 November 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,578 edits →Two more in the red: correct Titoxd's link to wrong RfA← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:11, 6 January 2025 edit undoTamzin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators69,117 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sennecaster problem: close. edit conflict but i hope we'll agree mine is better. | ||
| 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__ | |||
| ==My RfA== | |||
| == Desysop request (Ferret) == | |||
| There is what I think is a troll vote on my RfA by {{user|Auroranorth}}. The vote is: ''Oppose, coona. Auroranorth 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)''. I think it is a troll vote due to the contributions (specifically the page moves and redirects) from the 21st of november . Judging by prior contrubutions I suspect the account may be compromised, and possibly used by someone else, not the actual account holder. I was wondering what to do about the vote on my RfA and wanted an opinion on the possobility of the account being compromised. 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfplinks|Ferret}} | |||
| :I think he's just a kid (he identifies on his userpage as a primary school student). He just seems to like opposing people for any old reason. He opposed my RfA as well, on the grounds that I (according to him) hadn't contributed to the article space, even though there were links in the nom to articles I'd written. After my RfA was over, I discussed it with him and he claimed his real reason for opposing was he knows someone called "Sarah Ewart" IRL and he thought I was the same person...I think he's just a kid playing wiki-games. ] (]) 05:27, 23 November 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) | |||
| ::Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. ]] 05:31, 23 November 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== | |||
| :::It appears he's been blocked; I checked into the matter a bit deeper, and I don't see any evidence of a compromise in the account. I'll do an official strike-out on the vote. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 05:38, 23 November 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| has been withdrawn and needs closing. Thanks. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Closed. --] 17:23, 24 November 2006 (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) | |||
| == Username changes for users who have left == | |||
| :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 just posted this: on Jimbo's talk page. In the case of Bhouston, I think it was a simple admin error to delete a page that consisted of a redirect. In the case of Homeontherange, apparently someone changed his username after his user page had already been deleted. Because of that, hundreds of Homey signatures linked to a page which had no "User contributions" link at the side. I think it has to be explained to people who have left or are planning to leave that they can have their name changed, or they can have their previous user page deleted, but not both. ] 20:58, 25 November 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 == | |||
| : Or am I out to lunch here? Is it ever a standard practice to delete user pages that consist of redirects to new usernames? ] 09:39, 26 November 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">[]]</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) | |||
| ::Standard (as in, done automatically in every case), no. However, no user is required to have a userpage, and those who have had renames and don't wish their new names to be associated with thier old ones are not required to do so. Anyone sufficiently interested in the history of a given user will figure it out. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 10:08, 26 November 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) | |||
| BTW I'm not sure what to do with xxx and xxx. ] 21:13, 25 November 2006 (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}} | |||
| :What do you mean by "do with"? <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was wondering whether there should be a redirect page from one to the other. Based on this discussion, the answer is obviously no. Thanks Essjay and Thatcher131 for explaining this. I'll post a quick note on Jimbo's talk page to clear up whatever confusion I may have caused there. ] 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A former user who left under unfortunate circumstances asked to have his accounts renamed and his user and talk pages deleted for privacy reasons. Jimbo agrees (per e-mail) and Angela applied the name change. It is true that old talk page comments will now direct to a user with a blank user page and no contributions, but how often would someone need to contact an editor about 9-24month-old talk page comments? I don't see an issue here. ] 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not a question of contacting the editor. It's a question of making the record of community decisions transparent. The community has an interest in knowing what kinds of contributors have been granted sysop status, what kinds of contributors have been sanctioned, etc. People reading through comments in old article talk pages, and user talk pages also click the links in signatures to evalute what the person's biases may be. You lose some of that transparency when you break links to the list of user contributions. However if we feel that privacy concerns take priority over the loss of transparency, I have no problem with that. ] 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Regaining sysop after resigning == | |||
| I opened an ] on Admin ] for misuse of blocking; he has decided to voluntarily resign the sysop bit. It turns out he has twice before resigned and then regained his sysop bit (once reflected in the meta log and once . Arbcom established in the '']'' case that admins who resign their mop "under controversial circumstances" must go through RFA to get it back. Would you consider this RFC to be "controversial circumstances?" If so, please note this somewhere. If not, I guess we have to file an arbitration request to clarify his status? ] 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would, yes. Normally, we only forgo a new RfA if the user resigned for personal reasons, without any kind of incident (burnout, wikibreak, etc.) or, at the very, very least, if the user resigned the status without anyone even complaining about anything (although that would still depend heavily on the circumstances immediately before the resignation). In a case such as this, however, I would only contemplate reinstating sysophood without a new RfA if the RfC turned out to be completely bogus. But that happens when trolls start the procedure, and that is not the case here, so the existence of a RfC for misuse of the tools definitely makes this a controversial circumstance, precluding the regaining of sysophood without a new RfA. It's not a question of opinion, there is no legitimacy for reinstating without the community's sayso. ] 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Would someone please close this RfA? Thx! - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Erm... is something the matter? - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 03:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Publiscising an RfA== | |||
| One of the current Rfa requests has been publiscised by its nominator : . Not sure what should be done with this, as I was under the impression that canvassing for votes/publiscising your RfA is very frowned upon or against policy (not sure which) but it isnt the person under consideration that added that ntoice, but the nominator. Opinions? ]] 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not against policy to "advertise", although we discourage it because it is really frowned upon. Normally, doing it will attract more opposition than it will support. Making a public announcement in an open forum is ''not'' the same as rallying people to vote any specific way by going to their talk pages and "drafting" them personally. The latter is not tolerated; the first is, at the most, a potentially harmful, albeit "legal", strategy. ] 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough and thanks for the new buttons :) ]] 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Incorrect implementation of the extension of an RfA == | |||
| Please see ]. This probably needs fixing rather urgently. ] 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed. Since it's been corrected with time to spare in relation to the new deadline (about 14 hours), and I would assume everyone undestood that a 24-hour extension from my edit meant 3:45 UTC on the 29th, especially since the RfA was left open, it would appear that no damage has been done. ] 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Two more in the red == | |||
| ] and ] are past their closing times now. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Both attended to. Thanks. ] 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:11, 6 January 2025
Notices of interest to bureaucrats
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 14:02:57 on January 6, 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)
- Thank you for your years of service, Ferret. Enjoy your retirement! Liz 19:15, 1 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)
- 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)
- Careful not to mistake a data point for a trend. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 2 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)
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
mostvery 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)
- Yes. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 4 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)
- You mean like closing XFD discussions or assessing unblocks, etc., as Hey man im josh notes above? - jc37 14:53, 4 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)
- I know, but I suspect that
- 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)
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)
- I also sense that JavaHurricane was making a joke—
- 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)