| Revision as of 20:39, 29 October 2009 editRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits soxbot and chu← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:10, 2 January 2025 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,930 edits →Query: oh | ||
| 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}} | |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) | ||
| }}{{/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__ | |||
| == ]: admin rights == | |||
| == Desysop request (Ferret) == | |||
| Please remove my admin rights until further notice. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : for the stewards to take care of. Sorry to see you go. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not gone yet. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If a bureaucrat could make a comment to appease B.hotep's concern's, I am sure he would appreciate it. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}} ] (]) 10:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfplinks|Ferret}} | |||
| == Kww 3 suggestion == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hope you guys don't mind me posting here. I have made a suggestion here which you might want to consider. No idea what support it will get over there, but it is something you could consider to move this along. Cheers. ]] 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ] (]) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :LC is proposing that we re-start the nomination, let it run for around 3 days, and not allow any discussion, just votes. I tend to favor more rather than less discussion in general. - Dank (]) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (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) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| == Returning user == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I'm back, and I'd like my bit back, please - thanks. :) ] (]) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{done}}. Welcome back. -- ''']''' (]) 03:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ⚫ | :October 2023? ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Removal of sysop status - Mattinbgn == | |||
| :]. — ] <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) | |||
| For the information of local bureaucrats, I have requested removal of my sysop status . Thanks, ]\<sup>]</sup> 03:39, 20 October 2009 (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) | |||
| == Notice given to KWW == | |||
| I made to Andre's statement. I think this is what Andre meant, but it is '''critical''' that it be clear. -- ] (]) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you're splitting hairs but I don't object to the clarification. ''']''' (]) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitration Committee Elections 2009 - Invitation for Questions== | |||
| Preparations are ongoing for the ], which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may ''not'' deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates. | |||
| The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. '''Questions should be submitted at ].''' If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask ]. Thank you for participating. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::What does this have to do with crats?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps UltraExactZZ was under the impression that this is a major Misplaced Pages noticeboard that many users will have on their watchlists, and that it would be a good means of disseminating an important message. <font color="#FFB911">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely if one wants to achieve maximum global awareness for an internal Misplaced Pages election, the simplest method is to start a thread at Misplaced Pages Review? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::True. It would also probably generate more interesting questions too. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have to say, having faced the inquisistion last year, that the idea of these questions (both group and individual ones) accumulating from now to 1 December (i.e. more than month!) sends a shiver down my spine. I wonder if we are putting off those who would make good arbitrators but don't have the stomach for answering such a volume of questions. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with you in principle, but it's to be noted that an ability to answer questions and justify views is critical to the role. In other words, the arbs need to have the stomach for it. —<strong>]</strong>] 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Arbcom is one of those things that unless you've actually been on it, you have no idea how bad it really is.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 10:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is there any way to improve conditions? ] (]) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Given that no matter what arbs/arbcom decides lots of users will howl at the moon, probably not--there are simply too many divergent views on how to handle any given situation, but it's not arbcom's job to make everyone happy, their job is to handle non-content cases that the community can't or hasn't been able to handle. Nonarbs simply do not understand how big the workload is either. It's enough to be a full time job, but it doesn't pay anyone's bills. Then throw in trying to get enough of the sitting arbs to argee on what to do, and I'm amazed anything gets done at all. AUSC and BASC were good moves, they took a lot of investigatory work off the arbs work load. Then consider arbs a top targets of trolls, banned users, outers, etc, and maybe you start to see the picture better. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == BAG and bot flags -request for explanation for reasoning for this bot's flag == | |||
| :<small>Moved from ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| The Bureaucrats project page says, "In like fashion, Bureacrats are expected to exercise judgment ... in granting or removing bot flags on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. ... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner." | |||
| I would like to know the reasoning for granting CyberBot a flag in . I do not see any community consensus for this task. In fact, I can find a lack of community consensus for the task. | |||
| Please elaborate. Thanks. --] (]) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Please stop forum shopping this has been explained to you before. this appeared to be a non-controversial issue filling in a template. ] 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the move, MBisanz. | |||
| ::Please stop commenting about me, Betacommand. This is a question, and I am asking the question of bureacrats, not of you. --] (]) 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Soxbot and CHU== | |||
| Why is Soxbot no longer checking rename requests at CHU pages? It's been non active for weeks now.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 2 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 21:11:23 on January 2, 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)
- 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)