Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 8 August 2022 (→Voluntary self-revocation of adminship: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
    For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
    You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
    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 14
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 19:50:48 on December 2, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Inactive admins for August 2022

    The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

    Note that the date of Nyttend's desysop is determined by the inactivity of this user's backup account, Nyttend backup (talk · contribs).

    Thanks to both of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 07:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thanks to both for their service. -- Amanda (she/her) 09:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Query

    Hello, Bs,

    I was just looking over a former admin's account where they had lapsed into inactivity some years ago and was wondering if you had a rough estimate for how many current admins will lose their privileges due to the Village Pump RfC earlier this year. I know that it is only August and a lot of things can happen over the next four months but assuming that things continue on as usual, do you expect Wikipedia to lose dozens of admins due to not meeting the new standards of activity? Or hundreds? Of course, I'm not looking for an exact answer, which won't be known until January, just a hint at the scale of the change brought on by this RfC. And, also, I realize that many deactivated admins could return to reestablish their privileges in 2023 after resuming a more substantial level of activity on the project.

    Thanks for any clue you can offer! Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Liz! I know there was a table Worm That Turned put together that offers some insight into that. It was last updated in March but I would imagine it would still give a rough idea of what to expect. 28bytes (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And some stats that WTT added into the RfC suggested that for 100 edits/year for a 3 year period, 396 administrators would be affected and 67 others warned. The RfC closed with the line drawn at 100 edits/year for a 5 year period, so it's going to be around that order of magnitude. So hundreds. Stephen 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of these have had no admin actions in the last 5 years, so the actual impact to the project is pretty much zero. Losing 400 admins that don't actually do anything adminy is more of a push than a loss. They can still edit, although many don't do much of that anymore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (After edit conflict) For a little perspective, there are about 400 admins who have not made a single logged admin action so far this calendar year. Having 400 admins desysopped at the end of the year is not likely to have much effect on admin activity. - Donald Albury 00:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been playing with my table every so often, but I didn't want to edit the one that was part of the RfC, so I created a admin activity update table, which I update every so often. It's not 100% accurate, as it doesn't handle non-standard usernames and I haven't taken into account recent sysops / desysops, but your welcome to look there to get a feel for how many individuals were originally going to disappear who have now returned sufficiently to activity. That said, Cryptic's Quarry (below) would likely be a much easier way of seeing the data.
    Either way, to give an idea of the uptake - We were looking at desysopping about 200 admins, we're down to about 180 now. I agree that when the date is looming, we'll probably get a little mad rush from a handful more, so I'm expecting around 150. WormTT(talk) 07:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently down to 180 still on track to be desysopped once this is effective.
    I'm betting that those on the lower end of that query are least likely to be desysopped. If they've been averaging just one or two edits per year for that long just to avoid being desysopped under criterion (1), it strains credulity that they won't suddenly make just enough to game criterion (2) too. —Cryptic 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe some of those will actually come back and get active, which would be a good thing. We need admin, we just don't need editors who are admin in name only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) From what I've seen the announcement of the new rule change in April did cause several previously-inactive admins to (at least temporarily) return to activity. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dennis Brown. It would be wonderful if some of these inactive administrators decided to return to an active role. But inactive administrators have the same impact as inactive former administrators on the administrative work load, which is no impact at all. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary self-revocation of adminship (Graham Beards)

    Graham Beards (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    Dear Bureaucrats,

    After 12 years, or thereabouts, as an admin, I would now like to relinquish the tools. I intend to remain an active editor.

    My best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done with thanks for your prior service. If you need any of the flags from WP:PERM feel free to reply here, ping me, or post at PERM. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=1103168324"