| Revision as of 02:37, 14 January 2008 editRedux (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,740 edits →Then...: Again, about the Foundation← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:04, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 50) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}} | |||
| {{User:MercuryBot/config | |||
| <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 50 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |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 --> | |||
| }}</noinclude> | |||
| <br style="clear:both;"> | |||
| {{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;"> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Revoking rollback == | |||
| == RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures == | |||
| We've had a proposal going on for some time about granting rollback for non administrators. It's clear sysops would need to grant the permission (and userrights has been updated to allow this to happen) but would the bureaucrats' be willing to take on the responsibility of removing the permission? We would need to do this in response to misuse of the tool, I'm still looking at ways this could be done, but removal per a consensus on AN/I is probably the easiest way to do it, and obviously, this would be a discussion that you would have to evaluate the consensus for. This would stop the drama potential with admins granting and revoking userrights. Anyway, is this something you'd be happy to take on? ] 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(Note: I'd still personally prefer to see Bureaucrats remove '''''and''''' grant. Maybe by setting up a page similar to ]. If, after the initial "rush" of requests, this turns out to over-burden our current bureaucrats, then I'm sure that we could ] : ) - ] 21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is currently a ] which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, ] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why can't admins remove them? It's the same as blocking/unblocking, delete/undelete, protect/unprotect. All admins should be able to reverse other admins' actions. ''']''' ('']'') 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) ] (]) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also don't think it is a good idea for admins not to be able to undo their own or each others actions. Not to mention the different in the number of admins vs the number of 'crats. I would prefer that admins can do both, or that crats can do both. ] 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met. | |||
| ::::I agree totally with Majorly. If admins end up wheel warring on the granting or removal of these rights then shame on them, and off to RFC or ANI. After all, granting a rollback button is '''way''' down the scale from granting or removing editing rights (i.e. the block tool) and we all have the ability to do both right now. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All due respect, there was a reason this was posted on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. : - ) The finer details can and will be discussed elsewhere; the point of this post was to gauge bureaucrats' thoughts. --] (]) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. ] (]/]) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>makes mental note* Pedro and Majorly agreed on something :) ''']''' ('']'') 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. ] (]) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ''':)''' does happen! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --]'']''] 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At the expense of turning this into a Mockzilla thread, the ability for Bureaucrats to remove the rollback privilege could very easily be implemented through tweaking LocalSettings to read <tt><nowiki>$wgRemoveGroups = array( 'rollback', 'bot' );</nowiki></tt>. Just a point :) ] 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, no that wouldn't work, since there isn't a rollback group at the moment. You would also need <code>$wgGroupPermissions = true</code> as well. And that is nearly twice as much work! <tt>:P</tt> Let it be known it is not a technical issue though. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think I could more or less speak for all (or at least enough) of us and say that we would be willing to work on removing the right if necessary and the community wants us to. If the workload was high, I'm sure we would have no trouble finding qualified candidates to become new bureaucrats. On the side note, I'm sympathetic to the position that if admins are given the ability to give out the right, they should be able to remove it too since once you can give it, removing it ''is'' less than blocking. But giving the right out is something more, so I'm not fully decided on who should give it out. But that's another discussion. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we be clear that there would need to be consensus that it would be for crats to remove? Is that currently under discussion anywhere? ] <small>] </small> 22:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **It's been superceeded at present by admins removing rollback - if needs be, we can look at the bureaucrats revoking it depending on what comes out of the community discussion - but I think it looks more like admins revoking it or nothing. ] 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Primefac}} . ] (]) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mentioning #admins in congratulatory notes == | |||
| :::::::I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. ] (]/]) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Resysop request (Daniel) == | |||
| I was wondering how you guys felt about mentioning ] in the notes you leave on user talk pages after a successful RfA. I think it's a good idea and that we should try and let every admin know about it and try and get as many admins as possible to have access. ] 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *{{rfplinks|Daniel}} | |||
| :I would oppose promoting IRC in any way, since it is just a huge mess. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 04:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :IRC is not wikipedia. ] should suffice. ] ] 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A brief mention in passing may not be such a huge problem; a note such as "On an aside, if you are interested, I can also give you access to #admins on IRC" -- <strong>]</strong>] 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's no problem at all. A good idea, in fact, to reduce the idea of a "cabal" channel. ''']''' ('']'') 12:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've done this for quite a while. As far as I'm concerned, all admins are welcome in the channel and any admin who asks for access will get it from me. IRC isn't a huge mess because it's IRC, it's a huge mess because people are ''making'' it a huge mess, and to be honest I think the IRC Arbitration case proves that; it's actually a productive channel and when I was a new admin I got a lot of help from more experienced admins via that channel. I personally encourage bureaucrats to mention the admins channel to people. --] <small>]</small> 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Bureaucrats, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per ], upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (], ). | |||
| :: Nichalp, can I ask what you mean by "] should suffice"? Other than reporting on controversies regarding the admins channel, I/we've made no effort to promote the admins channel, or any administrative duties or tasks. ] (]) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think he meant B's should advise new admins to read the Signpost to keep up with Misplaced Pages-related matters, since the Post is officially part of Misplaced Pages while IRC is not. I don't think he was establishing a relation between the two, or that the Signpost is ''the'' admin newsletter. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::IRC is not a big mess, I am there all the time. Most of the claims of abuse from that channel come from people who don't even go there. It is all very exaggerated, it is just a place for admins to get advice from each other. Seriously the most recent issue with IRC is based on an incident '''months ago'''. ] 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Event in question take place December 22, 2007. Silly 'Zilla thought that was less than "'''months ago'''", regret Zilla can only count to 3! Little ] can count to months? Clever! ] '']'' 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC). | |||
| :::It's a shame people don't get excited on-wiki over all of the constructive things that happen there. ] 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That'll be the day... ''']''' ('']'') 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well I won't - I don't see any of the IRC channels as a positive influence on the wiki.. I've never been in #admins and don't intend to. ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's because no one makes a point of pointing it out hen there is positive collaboration or quick admin action facilitated by IRC.] 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you also know ? ](]) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. ] 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Note the indents—the comment replies to Secretlondon, not to you. ](]) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well I've no idea what it means either.. ] (]) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Original desysop request ] in the BN archives for ease of reference. | |||
| ::::::It struck me as...unfortunate...that you would condemn the channel as having no positive influence without actually having any experience of what (if anything) actually happens there. Your comment says, "I've never looked at the Emperor's nose, and I don't intend to—but I'm pretty sure it's too long." | |||
| ::::::The only time we hear about #admin on-wiki is when something bad happens that is (directly or ever-so-tangentially) related to the channel. One explanation – which you seem to have chosen – is that the channel has no positive, useful influence, and serves only to harm Misplaced Pages. I have a sneaking suspicion that other explanations are possible. It's certainly not outside the realm of the plausible to suggest that some admins find it a useful, rapid sounding board or forum for quick discussion, and that when #admins actually is working properly we never hear a word about it on-wiki. This is true of most of Misplaced Pages's processes and policies; nobody talks about them unless there's been some sort of breakdown. (When was the last time you saw a post on WP:AN/I saying "I just wanted to let everyone know that I think Bob is doing an excellent job as admin" or "Joe gave me a twenty-four hour block yesterday, and I wanted to thank him. I was entirely out of line and had it coming; I hope he keeps up the good work. If he's not around and I start edit warring again, someone should block me for a week next time; have a good day everyone"?) | |||
| ::::::The fact that we generally hear about #admins infrequently on-wiki suggests to me one of three things. | |||
| ::::::#There's nearly nobody there, so it can't be doing much harm or much good; | |||
| ::::::#There are lots of people there who do mostly useless things, but occasionally they use it to plot something really disastrous; or | |||
| ::::::#The participants there generally use it to quietly accomplish productive things, and we hear about it on occasion because – just like admins who aren't on IRC – they screw up now and then. | |||
| ::::::I can't confidently claim that any one of those is correct (like Secretlondon I've never been in #admins) but I'm not prepared to jump to a conclusion without inspecting evidence. ](]) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You seem to have presumed that I've never been on any of the wikipedia irc channels... This project is also supposed to be pretty non hierarchical. ] (]) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not post advertisements in RFA messages, or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. Promotion of some chat room is an advertisement. ] ] 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A link to "some chat room" hosted by a non-profit organization used for coordinating a non-profit encyclopedia being posted an said non-profit encyclopedia is a problem how? ] 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks,<br>] (]) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It fragments discussion when people use a chat room for things that could be discussed on the wiki. That discussion is then lost to people who may want to read it later. But, this isn't the right place for discussing the merits of IRC. We can't, on Misplaced Pages, make people choose to use or not use a chat room. We can, however, choose whether or not to advertise these chat rooms here. ] ] 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::An early Welcome Back, ]! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, ] (]) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{done}} | |||
| Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It strikes me as a bit of a slippery slope to try to put ''everything'' right into the new admin's welcome message. Put a reference on one of the 'recommended reading' pages, and those who are interested will find it. I'm well into my third year as an admin and I have yet to spend any time in #admins; I don't think it's particularly hurt my ability to work here. ](]) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, ] (]) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Agreed. Secretlondon does not believe they're a positive influence and so does not wish to promote them; I disagree with her reasoning but I'm totally fine with it, of course. But due to my own positive experiences with receiving good advice from other admins when I was new (and people seeking me out on IRC to get my advice), I won't be stopping advertising the channel. --] <small>]</small> 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not a very good solution. If there's wide disagreement even among crats on the usefulness of the channel, why not leave it out? Doing what you're doing effectively means the channel becomes closer to a "club for people Deskana has personally invited." Surely we don't think something like that is helpful to the project? We want to move ''away'' from cabalism (or even the appearance of such), not toward it. ] ] 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Excellent solution, Deskana. In general, I have found the channel very helpful in my time as an admin. The "club", as Friday so badly puts it is open to every admin, not just ones that happen to be invited. By "advertising" it, we are reducing the appearance of a "cabal", not increasing. Friday, we already know you hate IRC with a strong passion - but do you have anything useful to say other than "I don't like it"? You've never even been in there, so you are not the best person to talk about this. ''']''' ('']'') 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Huh? I don't hate it. I consider it merely irrelevant (and, of course, separate from Misplaced Pages). Thus, we should not advertise it here. ] ] 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ah sorry, I just got that idea from all your opinions of it I've seen. Anyhow, it isn't as bad as all the anti-IRC people make it out to be, so I don't consider it a problem. ''']''' ('']'') 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've never been on IRC. Is it useful? (All I've seen on-wiki is the conflict it causes and the accusations of cabalism, but I realise that this probably isn't the whole story, and that it probably is useful for some purposes.) ]<sup>]</sup> 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a chat room, with the good ''and'' bad things that come with that. It's a less formal environment. Depending who you talk to, it's the online equivalent of either the neighborhood pub, or possibly a high school locker room. Personally, I think Misplaced Pages works well because it's ''not'' like a chat room. Here, we expect people to behave like adults. Here, it's not considered a cardinal sin to actually keep track of who said what- the software does this for us. Again, depending who you talk to, the expectations of civilized behavior may or may not be different in a chat room. ] ] 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Walton, it's really damned useful. All the editors who are anti-IRC have clearly not been on the channels, at least on a regular basis, and their accusations are almost always false. There is no cabal or exclusive club, despite what you may have read. Yes, bad stuff happens on IRC. Then again, bad stuff happens on wiki too, and it's extremely rare. Most of the discussion is off topic banter, and I personally enjoy talking to other Wikipedians/Wikimedians. And despite what Friday says, it's mostly like the local pub, just friendly chitchat. I hope you decide to come on, Walton. I'll help get you set up if you like. ''']''' ('']'') 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Walton. It is tremendously useful. Aside from any #admin discussions to get help learning how to perform actions or consulting with others, there are a bunch iof other great channels specifically sety up to help users with AWB, and Bot work. Plus there is an entire helpdesk channel devoted to help users get real-time response, great for newbies and good regardless of level of experience. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is silly. IRC quite frankly ''is'' helpful at times; it's been more than once that I've been sitting there and seen admins ask other admins for help with a backlog. Half the time, though, it's ridiculously silly topics of discussion. Inviting more people in eliminates the idea of it being a cabal of any sort. While I understand the concerns about on-wiki stuff needing to happen on-wiki, the drama surrounding IRC has very, ''very'' little to do with IRC itself. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that the best way to improve the channel is by increasing the amount of users. But back to the main point of this discussion, I'm still unsure on whether B's should include this in RFAs. Some might disagree with the channel's purpose or use, and remember that IRC is still just an unofficial tool used by Wikipedians for collaboration, aside from the current discussion on whether it is good and useful or just plain "evil". | |||
| :I suggest that users actively participating in or administrating the channel extend invitations to recent admins. If those users just happen to be bureaucrats, that's fine with me. But why ask every bureaucrat to extend an invitation to a channel which one or more of them might not even care for, or worse, disagree with. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. Those admins and bureaucrats who are also involved with the IRC channel can let new admins know about it, but since IRC has no official status on Misplaced Pages, we can't require all bureaucrats to promote it. Most new admins receive a long string of congratulatory notes from their wikifriends, so it shouldn't be problematic to include a notification about the IRC channel. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That seems to describe what happens now. Deskana is both a bureaucrat and a chan op for #wikipedia-en-admins so offers to sort access at the same time he informs users they have succeeded at RfA. However, there has never been a standard message left by bureaucrats to new admins and messages vary in length and tone based on the interests and personality of each bureaucrat. If users who are chan ops wish to leave messages offering access to the channel, this seems acceptable but its probably simplest if messages are left by people who are actually able to grant the access. Looking at the channel's access list, only 3 bureaucrats can furnish such access (Deskana, UninvitedCompany or Angela) and the last two are not very active either as crats or as ops. From the comments above, it seems that bureaucrats are as divided on the merits of IRC as the rest of the community, some would presumably see -en-admins access as of use to an new admin and others not. It would seem counterproductive to either force crats to mention the channel if they do not think it useful or to prohibit its mention where the crat's experiences lead to the opposite conclusion (especially where they have the ability to furnish access were it requested). <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, and this may be the only realistic compromise. I don't want to see people sending the message of "As a crat, I recommend this chat room." I'd rather see it be very clear that the message is, "As a chat room user, I recommend this chat room." I'd still prefer to see no mention at all of these chat rooms on the wiki, but I suspect that's just wishful thinking. They're too entrenched. ] ] 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think its asking a bit much to have some unnatural words like "as a chat room user" in a message. Deskana is a bureaucrat, he doesn't stop being a bureaucrat when he recommends #wikipedia-en-admins as a good resource for admins and offers to give access. It would be wrong were he to say "the community thinks admins should join the channel" or "Misplaced Pages's bureaucrats are agreed that admins should join the channel" but it is apparently true that "Deskana (who is a bureaucrat) believes #wikipedia-en-admins to be an IRC channel new admins would benefit from joining". I don't think he needs to compartmentalise himself into two people because some people are uneasy about IRC (and this channel in particular). <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Using ] for reconfirmation votes == | |||
| Recently, ] agreed to a reconfirmation of her status as an admin per her decision to include herself on the list at ]. ] initiated an RfA for this purpose , which is currently found at ]. | |||
| Personally, I am not on the admin recall list, but I have no issue with those who have included themselves upon it and are willing to go through the process. There have been recall votes in the past (which are ]), and those who were interested in taking part of it did so without drawing others into the debate. Even the concept's supporters would acknowledge that there are some problems with it, but so long as they don't tend to spill out into the rest of the wiki, it's acceptable in my book. | |||
| However, I do have a problem with using RfA for recall votes. For starters, it's not the right venue, since it's not an RfA. Furthermore, some recall votes have been magnets for the kind of wiki-drama that tends to waste others time - when recalls are restricted to user and project spaces, it can be more self-contained, but in under two days' time the vote posted at WP:RFA has become a massive time sink over a trivial issue. It also gives the impression that admin recalls are a part of WP policy, which they are not. At best this belongs at ] or mediation, but really, the issue is largely irrelevant and makes no discernible impact to this encyclopedia that I can see. | |||
| My first inclination was to begin an MfD for the RfA, which will probably cause even ''more'' drama, drawing editors away from encyclopedia-building even further. But before I head down that path, I wanted to seek the input of a few 'crats here to hear their opinions on all of this. So... what's the deal? Is WP:RFA really the appropriate venue for this circus? ] (]) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Some admins do choose it as a reconfirmation venue, like ]. It's been accepted in the past; if you want to MFD the RFA, I have no problem with it, however, as there are valid concerns about my admin bit, I'd suggest you initiate ] or something to alleviate the concerns. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just as an aside, the entire recall/reconfirmation process is broke. While I agree that admins need to be held accountable to the community, they also need to be able to make tough decisions. Admins will make some people unhappy, this will occur. Recall need tossing. This RFA is not needed, there is ] for these things. To clarify, dispute resolution could have been used instead of subjecting Keilana to a reconfirmation. ] | |||
| ::Ah, but I specifically am open to recall, and made special provisions ]. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And I am specifically open to trout slapping, but my talk page should probably not be filled with trout. Keilana, with continuing respect, you should have used the ]. I admire your courage and tenacity to honor. However, I wholeheartedly agree this was not needed and could have been resolved elsewhere. ] | |||
| ::::He ''did'' ask for RfA though, just for clarification. Again, if people want me to withdraw and immediately start proper recall, I'm open to that too. ]. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I want you to withdraw this mistakenly placed RFA, and you to get on with the project as a sysop. ] | |||
| ::::::I can't. Maybe when there were 85 supports and no opposition, but some extremely valid concerns have been raised (namely by ]), and withdrawing would obviously result in a proper recall and most likely desysopping and (more) drama. My above offer still stands. The opinion of a 'crat would be much appreciated. With all due respect, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is the Crat's noticeboard and I've opined enough here for the night. I wish you best of luck. :) Best regards, ] | |||
| ::::::::Thank you. Same to you. :) Best, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The best course of action - the one that minimizes the '''DRAMA''' - is, I think, to to let the RFA run to conclusion. At that point, I suspect (given the current level of support) it will end above the 80% threshhold and it can be closed without further discussion. In the future, though, please do not repeat this. RFA is not meant for these kinds of antics. ] (]) 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks for the input. ] (]) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Renames and contributions to other projects == | |||
| There is that allows the contributions made under a particular name across all Wikimedia projects to be checked. I have added a link to it in the template used at ] and ]. Its another piece of information for bureaucrats to factor in when deciding whether or not to perform renames. Although single login no longer seems as close around the corner as it did a few months ago, performing renames that make unified login harder to sort out in future seems rather counterproductive. I'm not advocating that we deny requests just because a few edits have been made under a given name to a couple of projects, but if there is clearly a significant holder of the name on another project (say with several thousand contributions) then it may be better not to perform the rename. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm it is coming up with edits that appear to have been transwikied. Edits I quite possibly made on enwp but I have never edited wikibooks for instance, or elwp. ]] 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::They were ] with the histories. My contributions page on Wikibooks, for example, shows edits that I actually made on Wikibooks and edits that I made on enwp but were exported to Wikibooks. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::], for instance, contains some of my transwikied edits then someone registered the account and vandalised (I don't speak German). Still a useful tool, either way. --] <small>]</small> 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a great tool. I've wanted to see something like it for a long time. Interestingly, there seem to be at least three different people across the Wikimedia projects who use the name "Shalom." ] (] • ]) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Suggested ]: don't consider contributions in other project unless the user has specifically confirmed those identities, either in the RFA, in their userpage, or in any other discussion or forum. My log shows contributions from Wiktionary, but it's not one of my accounts. I would, however, suggest that RFA's include an optional template for users to list their other accounts, with a link to the tool Will described above. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :An example of where this might cause a problem for a rename. An en.wiki user wants to usurp the username {{User|Anakin}}. Its available on this project but its clear that there is a contributor to French language projects who uses this name . They have 3387 edits to the French Misplaced Pages, and 274 edits to Commons. I'm reluctant to allow the usurpation of a name that is already used elsewhere. Thoughts from others welcome. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the moment I'm minded to perform the request, advising the user that they may lose out to the other holder of the name were SUL to be implemented at some point in the future. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That would seem the best alternative for now. There's no official word (that I am aware of), of the recent progress of ]. Users might get frustrated by this if we keep telling them we can't give them certain usernames because of something planned for the future, when no official timetable has been set. Once it is, we can modify our existing process of usurpation to reflect that. Just my opinion. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree whole-heartedly. While I certainly think we should be mindful of what's coming down the pike, I don't think it would be wise to bank on such a long-rumored feature hitting any time soon. Alerting the user to a possible loss of their desired username is a good middle-ground here. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What is a bureaucrat? == | |||
| I just responded to someone's post recently noting that: | |||
| *''"...the granting of userrights (and associated tasks) is just about all there is to being a bureaucrat."'' | |||
| Is this essentially true, or is there more to being a bureaucrat? - ] 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : They occasionally get to ride in the AC helicopter, when seats are available. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: What does that mean? The arbcom has nothing to to with bureaucrats, though they both have to do with trusted users. — ] | ] 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Of course. <small>(See ], ], and ].)</small> RfA can be a contentious process, and if abused, could expose the project to security threats. Bureaucrats provide extremely important services by making sure that user rights provisioning remains transparent and free of manipulation, and that malicious bots aren't flagged to run. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Bureaucrats manage ] (and bureaucratship) and ], and assign the bot flag at the request of users involved with ]. All of this is also neatly documented at the unsurprising ]. — ] | ] 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, which is another way of saying that they are involved with userrights and things associated with them. they close RfA because they're the ones who can makesysop (userright). They change usernames because there may be a userright issue (for admins, for example). Bot flags are, again, userrights. So is there anything I'm missing? - ] 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's all about ]. ] 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The changing of usernames doesn't actually have anything to do with user rights. All flags are moved automatically by ]. — ] | ] 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Bureaucrats judge consensus on RFA and only flag bots after ] approval. Except for possible ] reasons, they can't promote a user with no prior discussion. If we require a discussion and consensus on RFR, it becomes RFA-lite, which is a Bad Thing. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 07:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| A bureaucrat is a magical creature, like a ] or a ], that watches over Misplaced Pages day and night, and all over the world. Have you ever wondered why bureaucrats take turns being active at different bureaucrat clubs, like RfA and Username Change? The Kindly Grand Controller is always in touch with each and every bureaucrat to let them what important functions need to be done. But what about the bureaucrats who we don't see from time to time? They have some of the most important jobs of all! They gather at the ] to build shiny new adminships for all the good little wikiboys and wikigirls. They also keep the naughty and nice lists, so remember that the next time you think of biting a newbie or assuming bad faith. What do bureaucrats do with their free time? I'm so glad you asked. The ones assigned to the South Pole play ] with the ]s and also keep an eye on the ] for the ]. The other bureaucrats are roving ambassadors for Misplaced Pages, visiting other magical creatures, such as ] and the ]. Are there any bad bureaucrats? Of course not! Although a few have been relieved of their burdensome duties for R&R and reeducation at the ]. -- ] (]) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Then... === | |||
| Wouldn't it make sense that bureaucrats give access to rollback, which is a user-right? or have I been "all-wet" and am missing something? The arguments that admins can be trusted with this could be used for '''''any''''' of the tasks which bureaucrats perform. But since admins aren't trusted for A, why should they be for B? Since both A and B are the granted (and/or removal) of userrights. (And especially removal. Bureacrats currently can only remove the bot flag, why did we jump from steward to admin for this?) - ] 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Rollback is a trivial function that most users can simulate with client side Javascript. It is not at all the same sort of security risk as the other things you have compared it to. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If X, then Y; else Z | |||
| ::If Rollback is a "grantable" userright, then it should be granted by bureaucrats; else it's not a "grantable" user-right and is misdefined as one. (more on this last point below.) | |||
| ::If it's not a user-right, then it's implementation (automatically given to all registered users) should be "in balance" with it's "potential for harm". At the moment, it's not, else we wouldn't have had so many opposers. (A million supporters and 100 opposers still indicates that there is likely a problem that needs to be addressed.) | |||
| ::If it's "no different than editing", then adding the extra click of an edit window (complete with edit summary), similar to UNDO, should not cause issues (it would ''still'' be no different than editing), and yet it ''still'' would give a greater convenience over regular editing, and would be quite the boon for automated usage, such as various tools and bots. | |||
| ::This also proactively deals with the "one-click" accidents, that editors may or may not attempt to fix. | |||
| ::I'm just attempting to look at this logically. I just see a myriad of potential problems (and inconsistancies) with the current implementation. Is making one of the above choices (bureaucrats granting/removal of it as a user-right; or for everyone, but add the extra page click) such a horrible, bad thing? - ] 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Because in this case A is adminship and B is rollback. Surely you can see there is a difference? – ] 08:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adminship is merely a collection of user-rights (and the responsibility of associated tasks), surely you can see that? - ] 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, I feel assigning rollback-granting to ''only'' the 'crats would be a massive increase in their workload (which I wouldn't consider to be a particularly good thing). The whole rollback-granting feature is in its infancy; if it turns out there are issues, we may very well restrict its assignment in the future. Strictly speaking, though, I understand why you'd consider it a 'crat-only matter, but despite the designation of "bureaucrat", we're not a bureaucracy. :) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Shrugs, it deals directly with those who claim that "we don't need no more 'crats" : ) | |||
| ::Or in other words, there's no reason that we can't find some trustworthy members of the community to nominate for those tools. | |||
| ::And for the rest, though we may not be bureaucratic, we should be at least consistant. - ] 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Crats do not in fact grant all userrights, even if we exclude rollback. Checkuser and oversight are both granted only by stewards. So saying that crats should grant rollback because they grant everything else is not a good argument. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| More to the point, and something I have mentioned in another discussion on the same subject: the ''Wikimedia Foundation'', the organization which controls Misplaced Pages, operates according to a system in which Bureaucrats are the user class responsible for the granting of ''any'' user rights which the Foundation has deemed that can be granted locally. Stewards retain exclusivity over the CheckUser and Oversight tools because the Foundation believes that they are too sensitive to be granted locally, and thus can only be enabled by request to the Foundation (Stewards work for the Foundation, not any local project specifically). If the Foundation decides that a ''restricted'' tool, any restricted tool, can be granted locally, this becomes the responsibility of local Bureaucrats.<br>Clearly, if rollback could be granted separately, it would not be deemed "too sensitive" to be granted locally, which means that the local Bureaucrats would be charged with granting it — and possibly revoking as well, similarly with the bot flag, although the Foundation could decide that the revoking of access to a restricted tool remains a Steward task exclusively (the bot flag is a ''sui generis'' situation).<br>Regardless of which scenario would be adopted, however, I do not see that the Foundation would have administrators handle the granting (and perhaps the revoking) or user rights. It is not a question of how "trivial" a tool might be — if that were an issue, admins could very well handle bot flags. Remember: the Foundation created the Bureaucrat user class especially to handle user right management (although it was later expanded to include renames).<br>And since this experience would be initiated here, in the English-language Misplaced Pages, the fact that the administrator user class on this project has more than a thousand members could give people further pause.<br>I should clarify that all of this that I've just said is not my opinion. This is an explanation of how the Foundation operates. I'm not saying that this is unchangeable; I'm not saying that the Foundation would never authorize admins to handle some level of user right management. I am saying, however, that right now the Foundation does not authorize the administrator user class to handle user right management, regardless of the number of tools involved or how simple those tools might be. ] (]) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:04, 26 December 2024
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 | 14 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 07:11:01 on December 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures
There is currently a live RfA which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) Levivich (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met.
- Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. Lee Vilenski 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --SerialNumber54129 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac: They've accepted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac: They've accepted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Resysop request (Daniel)
- Daniel (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, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per WP:ACE2024, upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (statement, comment).
Original desysop request here in the BN archives for ease of reference.
Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — xaosflux 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- An early Welcome Back, Daniel! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. Liz 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- An early Welcome Back, Daniel! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. Liz 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Done
Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)