Crat tasks | |
---|---|
USURP reqs | 0 |
CHU reqs | 3 |
RfAs | 1 |
RfBs | 0 |
Overdue RfBs | 0 |
Overdue RfAs | 0 |
BRFAs | 16 |
Approved BRFAs | 0 |
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC) |
Extended confirmed
FYI when admins have the bit removed they should be added to the extended confirmed group; the system will only promote once, so if somebody is automatically promoted, becomes an admin, and the is desysoped they won't get the extended confirmed right back. This won't be an issue for a while, since most admins who will be desysoped anytime soon were admins before the autopromote thing (so MediaWiki will have no problem autopromoting them). It's probably not a bad habit to get into now, though, and it causes less entries in the user rights log :) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Or may be just all admins should be added to the group.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Current admins that stop being admins will get this automatically on their next edit - this is a very edge case and is only needed if this is manually removed from someone when they become an admin - the best course of action is probally: don't do anything (i.e. when adding +sysop, leave +ec along). — xaosflux Talk 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I was getting at, just working under the assumption that they'd have that removed when they got the bit, though your way is probably better :) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- We can leave it in place, but there's no guarantee another admin won't remove it citing redundancy. And the fact is, there are really not that many articles with this protection in place: unless the user edits one of those areas, they may never need the userright. –xenotalk 13:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I was getting at, just working under the assumption that they'd have that removed when they got the bit, though your way is probably better :) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Current admins that stop being admins will get this automatically on their next edit - this is a very edge case and is only needed if this is manually removed from someone when they become an admin - the best course of action is probally: don't do anything (i.e. when adding +sysop, leave +ec along). — xaosflux Talk 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Bot flag for User:JarBot
Hello 'crats, would you please add +bot
for JarBot (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · wikichecker · xtools · supercount · pages created · non-automated edits · BLP edits · logs (block • rights) · arb · spi) (assign permissions)( · · · · · · ) per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot. For WP:BAG, — xaosflux Talk 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done Acalamari 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was mulling this one over last night. Meant to post but sleep came first. Is there wide consensus to always have the portal link? The scope of this bot covers an awful lot of main space and after the "Research" outcry, a little re-assurance would be appreciated. –xenotalk 08:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know of such a consensus on enwiki. I personally dislike these links, they belong on the talk page, not on the article, as they have no information related to the article except in a very loose sense (linking every school to portal:schools is way more remote than what we have otherwise in "see also" and the like). Many portals are not really maintained or checked either (though we also have good ones). Fram (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Such is my concern. And the operator (good faith thru-and-thru, mind you) has English as a second language and the only guidance they've been given regarding consensus is to check with the WikiProject that oversees the portal (which will likely have a bias in favour of adding it). @Xaosflux: thoughts? Can we tighten the consensus requirements here? –xenotalk 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @The Earwig: was the BAG approver on this request, I just was clerking this one to here. Earwig, comment please? — xaosflux Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I'm 100% in support of adding a requirement that all mass {{portal}} addition jobs demonstrate that they have support of a project/portal maintainers - etc prior to running - does this satisfy your concern? — xaosflux Talk 11:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- As for as the general {{portal}} adding task; article usage of the portal template does appear to have widespread project acceptance in general, though exactly where on the page it belongs (in see-also, included in a navbox, etc) is not very consistent. — xaosflux Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Such is my concern. And the operator (good faith thru-and-thru, mind you) has English as a second language and the only guidance they've been given regarding consensus is to check with the WikiProject that oversees the portal (which will likely have a bias in favour of adding it). @Xaosflux: thoughts? Can we tighten the consensus requirements here? –xenotalk 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know of such a consensus on enwiki. I personally dislike these links, they belong on the talk page, not on the article, as they have no information related to the article except in a very loose sense (linking every school to portal:schools is way more remote than what we have otherwise in "see also" and the like). Many portals are not really maintained or checked either (though we also have good ones). Fram (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- From what I've read out of the request - this operators primary request was to be able to use highapi to read enwiki with the bot , this portal processing seemed to be an excuse. — xaosflux Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Xeno and Xaosflux:, now what should I do?! Just use the bot "read-only" or i can add portal but most coordinate with a wiki projects to take the ear before adding portals related to their projects. thank you.--جار الله (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- You may still add portals links, but before adding the portals ensure that either the wikiproject or portal maintainers are aware of the activity and support it. So for example before adding the School Portal - establish consensus at Portal talk:Schools or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools - depending on the portal the editors may be more or less engaged at once of those locations. In some cases, lack of objection may be sufficient - but it really depends on the size of the run - if you were going to add Portal:Animals to every possible animal - it would need a lot more support. — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Restoration Request
As per Wikipedia:Administrators#After_removal_due_to_inactivity, I am requesting the restoration of adminship. It was originally granted in June, 2003 and was removed in 2011. I am eligible under policy. Thanks. -- RM 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ram-Man: Just barely. In 2010-2012, you had 16 edits total. From 2010 until today, you've had 668 edits (averaging about 92 per year) [1]. Are you sure you are current on all the policies and guidelines that have changed since then? Some of them have been very significant. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{nbo}} It's a reasonable question, and being very slow and careful with the tools is a good idea, but... (*cough*). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Your template is broken. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nihonjoe: you missed the joke. He's refering to {{nao}}, but there isn't one for nbo - non-bureaucrat observation. Not it matters, it's not only crats who can comment here. WormTT(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've never used that template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- It exists now, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've never used that template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nihonjoe: you missed the joke. He's refering to {{nao}}, but there isn't one for nbo - non-bureaucrat observation. Not it matters, it's not only crats who can comment here. WormTT(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Your template is broken. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's ironic that I'm being noted for having too few edits. 668 is not a lot, but they were beautiful edits. I'm usually more active on the Commons now. I became an admin with 6 votes and joking around. It's way too serious these days, but I've never engaged in abuse, and I've had a ton of opportunity. I've certainly engaged in large scale controversial actions. I've skillfully dealt with problem users, rarely ever having to resort to blocks. I've authored policy and helped form BAG, so I'm no stranger to working with policy, users, and building/determining consensus. I'm generally conservative with admin powers. I do use IAR when needed. I'm sure there is stuff I've missed, and I'd appreciate enlightenment, but I'm sure I'll do just fine if everyone does what they are supposed to do. If you can't trust me at this point, I figure you can't trust anyone. -- RM 23:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ram-Man: No one has said you can't be trusted. No one has said you shouldn't get the tools back. My original question was making sure you are comfortable having and using the tools again when you haven't been much involved in enwiki over the last 5+ years. There have been a lot of changes to many different policies, procedures, and guidelines in that time. No one is questioning whether you can be trusted with the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it will be fine. -- RM 23:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's all I was asking. I don't see any other issues. I strongly recommend reviewing various policies and procedures before acting on them (again, due to the low involvement over those 5+ years). That way, you'll become familiar with them again when you need them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it will be fine. -- RM 23:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ram-Man: No one has said you can't be trusted. No one has said you shouldn't get the tools back. My original question was making sure you are comfortable having and using the tools again when you haven't been much involved in enwiki over the last 5+ years. There have been a lot of changes to many different policies, procedures, and guidelines in that time. No one is questioning whether you can be trusted with the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{nbo}} It's a reasonable question, and being very slow and careful with the tools is a good idea, but... (*cough*). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are indeed eligible and from what I've seen there's been no evidence of problematic editing or any reason the admin rights should not be returned after the 24 hour wait period. I will caution you that things are significantly different around here compared to 2011, as Nihonjoe points out. I would also remind those who object on numerical grounds that consensus was clear on the matter and if you're not happy you should start a discussion for higher requirements. WormTT(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they shouldn't be returned. I'm merely pointing out the large changes that have happened in the last 5+ years since Ram-Man lost the tools. I don't see anything in the history that would prevent a return of the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, and to go further, I'd also support a higher requirement to return tools. WormTT(talk) 20:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- To what changes do you refer? -- RM 21:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ram-Man: See [2]. At least as far as the official policy, It's not really that big a difference, IMHO. The short version is: be humble and you'll be fine. The slightly longer version is: if you're clueful and careful and open to constructive criticism you'll be fine. But it is an interesting question, and one you'd think we'd document somewhere in a more organized fashion. Off the top of my head, I'd say the biggest thing that's different from 2008-2010 is a stricter attitude about WP:INVOLVED. Err on the side of caution there, I think that's where admins returning after a long absence (and/or even dinosaur admins that never left) run into the most trouble. And I'd say there's perhaps a tougher attitude about rougueishness in general. And finally don't block non-vandals for the first few months until you've got a feel for the current zeitgeist (did I use that right?). I'd be interested in what other people think are significant changes in expectations for admins over the last, what, 5-10 years, and perhaps we could slap together a page. This isn't the perfect place for that discussion, but since the question was asked here, and this page isn't ANI-long, and I've already tried to take a stab at the answer here, and WT:ADMIN is so useless.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also be interested in a run-down. Forget admin school, we need admin continuous training. :) Protonk (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Update is an attempt to collect the significant policy changes in recent years. Like most things, I'm sure it could be improved, but it's a start. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they shouldn't be returned. I'm merely pointing out the large changes that have happened in the last 5+ years since Ram-Man lost the tools. I don't see anything in the history that would prevent a return of the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
As someone who took a multi-year break, don't worry. It is not that hard to catch up on policy. The important stuff does not change, and the details are always changing. Start slow, listen to what people are saying and you will be golden. Most admins are chosen for their judgement after all. HighInBC 14:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Reasonable questions have been asked and answered. I currently see no policy-based opposition to restoring this user's mop. As such, I believe it should be restored from 24 hours from Nihonjoe's response. Unless of course, significant policy-based issues are raised between now and then. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Resysop request (Protonk)
Hi, I'm Protonk (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). The bit was removed at my request in March of last year (no controversy, not under a cloud). I'd like to have it restored please. Let me know if I can provide more info or answer any questions. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any issues after the standard 24hrs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to have you back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I second Dweller's assertion! HighInBC 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)