| Revision as of 00:20, 14 October 2008 editRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →No need for this to remain on front page of an RfA: chime in← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:37, 3 January 2025 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,806 edits →Desysop request (Ferret): thank you! | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 50 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| }}{{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| <!-- Header section, please do not change or move this --><br style="clear:both;"> | |||
| }}</noinclude> | |||
| {{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;"> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Request to rename account== | |||
| I request to rename my account ("Reino Helismaa") in the "IAS1987". Thanks.--] (]) 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Suggets posting at ] since this is just a general noticeboard ] (]) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Desysop request (Ferret) == | ||
| {{rfplinks|Ferret}} | |||
| I updated ] because the count was 83/20/4 and should have been 83/22/4 (two opposes were missed at the top due to formatting errors in the oppose section). Did this quite absent mindedly, so wanted to apologise for mucking around with the archive. ] (]) 09:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch. Actually, it's 83/22/3 as a neutral switched to support. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, doesn't make any difference to the outcome (80.5% -> 79%) but it's nice if these things are tidy - at least in my befuddled mind! ] (]) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Y'know, whilst I truly do appreciate accuracy? There's a teeny little bit of me that says: Iffen ye cannae get ye shizz correct? Thou shizz remaineth unsaid. (Of course, if this wasn't mine own RFA, perhaps I'd be a bit more flexible.) Seriously? Thanks. I'm all about the facts. ] 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Heh - if it means anything, had I not been on holiday, I'd have supported you. I was only looking at it because I wanted to see how you'd got on, and noticed a numerical fudge in the bottom section. Fear not, I doubt they're about to rip the bit from you! ] (]) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (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) | |||
| == Hello, all! == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| Hi everyone. Some of you may remember me, some of you may not, but I retired a few months ago, and handed back my administratorship. I was wondering if there was consensus for me to get it back. Thanks in advance, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:57, 9 October 2008 (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. | |||
| :Welcome back, you are once again an administrator. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If you did not lose it controversially, you can just ask for a bureaucrat to give it back - a consensus isn't needed. (Welcome back, by the way). -- ] 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Wow, that was quick. Thanks, people. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:08, 9 October 2008 (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) | |||
| == SQLBot problem == | |||
| :October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please note that SQLBot, which provides the table with RfA vote info at the top of this page, seems to be down or malfunctioning. Its data is more than 24hours out of date. I have sent ] an e-mail and hopefully this will be fixed soon. In the meanwhile, here is a table by tangobot that seems to be up-to-date. Please feel free to remove it once SQLBot is fixed (I think the main RFA difference between the two bots is that SQLBot includes RfB data but Tangobot does not). ] (]) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC) {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} | |||
| :]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're including Ironhold's RfA parse failed, it's because of the unique configuration. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 18:30, 9 October 2008 (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) | |||
| :But you are correct, there does seem to be something off regarding the updates. Hmmm. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 18:31, 9 October 2008 (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) | |||
| == New proposal - provisional adminship == | |||
| :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) | |||
| See discussion (permanent ). ] <sup>]</sup> 08:21, 10 October 2008 (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) | |||
| == Admin Bot == | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Could a crat please take a look at ], thanks --] 03:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Flagged. ''''']]]''''' 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Crat review of decision == | |||
| I'd appreciate it if the other Crats reviewed my response at ]. Happy for someone to decide I was too harsh and apply the rename with or without an unblock. --] (]) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(Not a Bcrat) I think you made the right decision here. Renames are a privilege, not a right. You made a very clear explanation, and I think that will suffice here. -- ] 11:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Dweller, why did you rename this user to "Renamed user 19" when they requested to be renamed to "A Nobody" ? I would be minded to agree to this rename, as it merely restates the earlier request. Renaming a user to a name not of their choosing seems to create a pretty serious GFDL problem - I can't see where this user has agreed for their edits to be attributed to "Renamed user 19". I won't rename him when it seems two other bureaucrats have declined the request, but I strongly urge you to reconsider. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I was under the impression that the user had earlier requested a rename to "Rename user 19", and now requested a second rename to "A nobody". I can't find any such details in the logs though. ] ] 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had that I be renamed as "A Nobody" on the 26th, but was as "Renamed user 19" instead. This past month has been one of the most bizarre and confusing I've experienced yet. I have been on a rollercoaster of whether I should edit, to what extent I should hide myself, and so on. The harassers have been formally and legally warned to leave me and my family alone and after a lot of hoopla that will hopefully work. I apologize for any vagueness or confusion from me as it has been really difficult to think clearly and know what to do. I experienced some stuff I don't care to repeat and wanted to leave, but it became apparent that there was no sense in it as some editors just kept mentioning me by my old username. I don't plan to edit in any areas in which I ran into conflict in the past. I only wish to be able to add worthwhile mainspace content when I have something worthwhile to add. And I pledge not to do anything that would make anyone who renames me regret doing so. --] 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Our discretion is really under your control at the end. If you are satisfied with your rename, then we can just end this discussion here. ''''']]]''''' 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == No need for this to remain on front page of an RfA == | |||
| Please fulfill Caspians request and move lest the debate begin anew.---''']''' '']'' 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've removed it. It has nothing to do with the candidate, and is simply causing unnecessary drama. I've left him a note as well. -- ] 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you... it added no value---especially as the discussion had been archived in an attempt to squelch the belly aching.---''']''' '']'' 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Caspian is now issuing to HDYTTO for this act.---''']''' '']'' 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes well, I ''was'' well out of order for moving off-topic discussion to the talk page. Nevermind; I'm not going to cry over this. I'll leave it up to a Bcrat. Sigh. -- ] 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| PS. Both HDYTTO and I approached Caspian in an effort to work through this, his response was to our comments calling them oppression.''']''' '']'' 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This all seems fairly ridiculous to me. The way these issues tend to boil over says little for the RfA process as it stands. I linked to the discussion on the talkpage from the RfA discussion - I agree it adds little to the consideration of the candidate's merits. It also goes without saying that vandal warnings should not be issued for good faithed edits, however much someone may disagree with a particular edit. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks WJB... I would have moved it myself if he had called out another admin/editor, but as I was personally involved, I wanted to leave it in the hands of somebody else... of course, now, he's chosen to carry on his tirade on my page. Oh well.---''']''' '']'' 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'll chime in on Scribe's talk page. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:37, 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 23:01:25 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)
- 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)
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 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)