| Revision as of 07:17, 9 January 2024 editPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,068 edits →Desysop request for Moondyne: done← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:06, 3 January 2025 edit undoHey man im josh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators345,141 edits →Query: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (904 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}} | {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}} | ||
| <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}} | <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| {{pp-move-indef}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 50 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Desysop request (Ferret) == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{rfplinks|Ferret}} | |||
| The following ] administrators are being desysoped due to ]. Thank you for your service. | |||
| ;Criteria 1 (total inactivity) | |||
| # {{admin|Ev}} | |||
| #: Last logged admin action: Aug 2011 | |||
| 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) | |||
| ;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule) | |||
| :I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # {{admin|Cobi}} | |||
| :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 | |||
| #: Last logged admin action: Oct 2022 | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| *— ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 1 January 2024 (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) | |||
| ::None of the bots in the cluebot family are admin bots and they have an active maintainer, {{U|Rich Smith}} -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And {{u|DamianZaremba}}, although he doesn't edit all that much, he is always looking after the ClueBots - ]<sup>]|]|]</sup> 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah okay. I have updated ] to point to the right people. ] ] ] 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I made a too. I think most of the pages now point to Rich Smith, DamianZaremba, and ]. –] <small>(])</small> 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Ritchie333}} I am still around, just not that active. I still see things and pings. The bots have people that look after them, and I am still reachable, too. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 08:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Remove INTADMIN from Izno == | |||
| :]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{rfplinks|Izno}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Hi, please remove my int admin permission. Taking a break. ] (]) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (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) | |||
| :{{done}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:07, 1 January 2024 (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) | |||
| == Desysop (Ancheta Wis) == | |||
| :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) | |||
| :{{rfplinks|Ancheta Wis}} | |||
| ::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 am being asked to . Is it appropriate to request a break? --] ] ] 09:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :], we can desysop you at your request, and according to convention we do not decide at the request point whether the desyop was being done "]". However, given the circumstances, should you later request the tools back, there would be a discussion as to if these circumstances are "under a cloud". If you comfortable that such a discussion would take place, and that you may not automatically be granted the tools back on request, then I would proceed with the desysop. ] (]) 09:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for explaining, and I trust the process. -- ] ] ] 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}} — That's been done for you ]. Enjoy some stress free editing, and thank you for your long service to the community. ] (]) 10:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Closure request== | |||
| A few minutes ago an ] was withdrawn, could one close it? ] <sup>''(])''</sup> 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :On it, thanks. For reference, withdrawn RFAs are not time-critical. ] (]) 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Successful RFA == | |||
| Hi Team! ] officially went into a 'pending closure' status. Given that the result was 196/0/0, I went ahead and just closed it for you. When convenient, could you modify Robertsky's user rights accordingly? :-) Thanks. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I will go ahead and quote the top of this page about this... {{tq|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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.}} -- ] 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. ] (]) 06:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] - LOL! Okay, that was pretty good... :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{clap|1=5}} Very good! - ]<sup>]|]|]</sup> 11:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Oshwah}} maybe you should try applying for RFB, I'm sure you'd pass very easily. Just something to consider. ] (]) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've been approached a small handful of times with that suggestion. I'm honestly not sure where I'd stand, but I'm definitely open to considering it someday... :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 17:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Eh, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. The pay sucks. ] ]] 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You all get paid? And you didn't tell anybody? <raises my hand> (and in my best tattletale voice) - Teacher, Teacher, bureaucrats get paiiiid. - <b>]</b> 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Redaction requested at ] == | |||
| Since this RfA is about to close, I do want to bring these two comments (] ]) by ] to the attention of the 'crats. I think that aspersions about the candidate should be struck (which I ], to no response) before the discussion closes. Thanks :) ] (] • she/her) 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I know we tend to allow a looser interpretation of what is and is not an incivil personal attack during an RFA, and that we generally only strike sock comments, but I have to agree with Leeky here. Such suggestions are way over the line. Leeky's linked request to strike them gives the appropriate context as to why. ] ] 00:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed those comments. I know RfA is generally seen as a free for all, but I don't think those comments should be immortalized on the RfA, even in a struck form, and I removed those comments per our regular rules of talk page conduct. ] (]) 00:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was reverted. I don't wish to get into an edit war about this, so I'd appreciate a crat taking the same action. ] (]) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{involved admin comment}} I disagree that this is a 'crat matter. It is a straightforward admin matter. An uninvolved admin should block Dan and reverting user ] for personal attacks. This isn't even a tough call. A counterbalance to the strictness of ] is that we must be very strict about aspersions invoking it. Otherwise it becomes a politicized cudgel with which to attack opponents, rather than a shield for vulnerable young editors. Shame on both Dan and Lightburst. This is utterly disgusting. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(they|xe|she)</small> 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree. I would've done so if I hadn't !voted support in the RfA. ] (]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As would I, but it is within the jurisdiction of the 'crats to curb hostility at RfA and they should do so. I have no objection to an uninvolved admin taking action as a straightforward user conduct case, but I would prefer that a bureaucrat shoulders the responsibility they've been charged with for RfA in particular. ] (] • she/her) 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't really like the notion though of "crats can clerk RfA" becoming "only crats can resolve RfA issues". ] (]) 05:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<small>I'm turning into a skeleton waiting for the 'crats to resolve <em>any</em> RfA issues. Maybe we should be broadening that... ] (] • she/her) 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * If I am reading this correctly, and I think I am, given the consensus of admins here about how inappropriate it is, I think it is appropriate for involved admins to take action, and put it up for review in due time. Admins should not just wait around indefinitely. I suggest admins take action per WP:BLP, RD2 and potentially OSPOL2. If consensus shifts the other way, no harm done. ''']''' ] 05:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I normally wouldn't bother commenting here and I'm reluctant to do so, but if this discussion is being used to measure consensus I'd like to make it known that I also think the comments are wildly inappropriate and should be removed. I agree that they're bad enough that they merit a very stern warning at a minimum. <span class="nowrap">— ]🌲[<small>formerly ]</small> '''·''' ] '''·''' ]]</span> 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::If the comments are "wildly inappropriate" "utterly disgusting" and "way over the line" why has nobody revdelled? Or even posted a warning on the now OP's talk page? Editors should not erase the comments of the minority voters - that seems like a fundamental rule for any fair election. I did not see anyone racing to remove Tony B's outrageous pointy accusations in this RFA - is it because he voted with the majority? ] (]) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Would you agree that there are limits on what all voters, including minority voters, are allowed to say about a candidate? ] (]) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As the person who reinstated the removal, I do not care that it was an RFA where it happened, I did not participate in the RFA, I don't remember having previous substantial involvement with the candidate, any of the commenters, the first remover or you, the reverter. I reinstated the removal because uninvolved editors can remove serious aspersions in any discussion pages and because anyone can remove BLP violations anywhere. I believe I was not grossly incorrect in invoking BLP concerns and as such under protections awarded to me and the subject under BLP policy, I ask that it not be reinstated without consensus. That is all. What admins do or elect not to do is their business. What functionaries and bureaucrats do or elect not to do are their respective businesses also. ''']''' ] 03:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ec}} Much ado about nothing. Lately theleekycauldron has been wagging a finger at other editors. This is just another ] which would have had zero attention if Leeky had not expressed outrage in the RFA and then started this thread. We need to protect the minority voters in RFAs. I think the answer is to vote in private because this is the kind of sideshow that comes out of public votes. ] (]) 03:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Egregious BLP violations are never "nothingburgers", regardless of whether they're in an RfA !vote or not. leeky was correct to uphold basic standards of decorum and I commend her for doing so. Being a "minority voter" is not ''carte blanche'' to imply that other editors condone criminal activity. <span class="nowrap">— ]🌲[] '''·''' ]]</span> 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No idea what you are talking about but yes, you are in the Leeky finger wag camp - I got it. And Usedtobecool, you are upholding a LOCALCON here about a 200-6 RFA. It is easy to get see a consensus in such a super majority. Maybe we all get back to editing now? Or do we need to see heads roll? ] (]) 04:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well, you are casting aspersions on Leeky without substantiation on a page that's not even for user conduct discussions. If you wish to move on, I suggest you strike and refactor. Regards! ''']''' ] 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This is a really weird hill to die on. The offending comments were clearly inappropriate. It is unfortunate that the editor who made those comments has chosen to retire, but it was even more unfortunate that he chose to make them in the first place. Frankly, it looks like GhostofDanGurney was wildly gasping at straws to discredit the candidate due to a personal resentment from a couple years before, and that sort of vindictive behavior is not acceptable. We can protect minority voters without allowing them free reign to conduct character assassination campaigns. ] (]) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@]: Shockingly enough, I do agree with you on your last point – I've come to believe that there's a clear need for RfA to be run by SecurePoll. The current system creates a vicious cycle where the smartest would-be opposers know better than to wade into the fold, leaving only louder and more easily rebutted opposes. Supporters then feel more license to badger those opposes, which scares away more would-be opposers, rinse and repeat until we're standing where we are now. The only tool we have to deal with that – actually taking out opposes that violate policy – isn't usable because (1) bureaucrats don't want to and (2) people generally feel that they have the right to vote for whatever reason they want in an RfA, otherwise it's censorship. There are exceptions to this (and funnily enough, TonyBallioni is the best one I can think of), but in general, I tend to feel that a private vote with public discussion both (1) actually allows more time for discussion and vetting, (2) lets 'crats and admins sanction discussion items that are so clearly personal attacks, and (3) allows opposers to vote their conscience without fear. The solution to the corrosive environment at RfA is that the discussion needs to be a discussion where you have to be constructive, and the vote needs to be a vote where you can participate without feeling like someone's breathing down your neck. | |||
| :::::::All of that aside, this wasn't a nothingburger. I understand why you feel that the minority needs to be protected – I actually do as well – but it can't come at the cost of our principles of civility. Publicly speculating that another editor is subversively pushing harmful views on child sexual abuse with no evidence is not okay. We can't compromise on our values as a community that way. ] (] • she/her) 07:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Is a 'crat willing to issue any warnings, perform any revision deletions, or otherwise say anything about the incident? ] (] • she/her) 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Issuing a warning is an admin function, not a crat function, so it doesn't require that particular bit to do so. I wasn't watching, but wanted to clear that up. ] - ] 07:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I mean, 'crats have RfA clerking power, that ]. ] can warn and actually ban you from arbspace. But maybe it is time for another RfC. ] (] • she/her) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Sorry for the OT question, but why did I get 12 (!) notifications to this thread? Each came from a new post in this thread, starting from Lightburst's edit at 15:54, 5 January 2024, and it seems like a bug. ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sounds like the software thinks you're subscribed to this thread. Did you click a blue bell in the top right (on the same level as the header)? ] (] • she/her) 12:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, I was subscribed for whatever reason even though I don't recall visiting this noticeboard. Thanks. ] (]) 13:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Deceased administrator, Anthony Bradbury == | |||
| I have removed admin permissions from ]. I can confirm his death because both , but also I have had Tony as a Facebook friend for over a decade and have confirmed his death with his family. | |||
| Tony was my RfA nominator back in 2007 and it pains me to know that he has died. He was a good man and, from what I know of his personal life, a downright cool guy. He went peacefully at the age of 80. ] 12:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Just noting for the record that I have also received independent notice of his death, though it was second-hand and I thought it best to wait for something like the above to occur. ] (]) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Respectfully added an entry to ]. – ] (''']''') 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *My RfA nominator as well. I'm sorry to see this, sending my best to anyone who needs it now. ] (]) 14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Desysop request for ] == | |||
| *{{rfplinks|Moondyne}} | |||
| Please desysop my account as I am taking an extended break. Many thanks. ] (]) 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}. Please let us know if you would like any of the advanced perms in the meantime. ] (]) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:06, 3 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 20:35:21 on January 3, 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)
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)